Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Understanding the Chechen War - A Must Read

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 2nd, 2006 @ 09:42 PM
    European Union European Union
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Lightbulb Understanding the Chechen War - A Must Read

    "My country in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she ever be right but, right or wrong, my country!" - Stephen Decatur (1779-1820)

    During the years of the anti-Russian war in Chechnya our liberal Ministry of Truth spread many extraordinary lies in support of the Chechen terrorists, and it remains mysterious how so much rubbish can be squeezed into the head of the average Russian "intellectual". Let us take a brief look at the main themes of the anti-Russian propaganda pushed out by the liberal media during those years.

    In the earlier stages of the conflict the Ministry of Truth exploited the prejudice that had built up in the Soviet times by saying: “We can not fight the people - the people can not be conquered,” and "There are no good or bad nations; there was only the ill- willed Stalin, who, by use of forced boundaries and criminal "deporation of whole nations" managed to destroy the traditionally warm relationships between the peoples of the Caucasus region, etc., etc. However, sometimes around 1997, when Chechen ruffians, in a blind reliance on their immunity, began torturing and even beheading, not only Russians, but other people from “civilised" countries and even targeted liberal journalists (e.g. kidnapping of Elena Masyuk), the liberals in the media had to admit the crimes and find an excuse for them. So they began peddling the theme of the historical guilt of Russians for over 400 years of oppression of the Chechens and called the Russians for confession and repentance. Hence we have to look through our own history to ascertain certain facts.

    A widely accepted belief is that the mountain people choose to live in the types of area they do because of specific features of their character - love for freedom, exaggerated pride, romanticism etc. In fact, in the case of Chechnya, we are dealing with the remnants of one of the oldest nations, who hid away in the Caucasus Mountains from powerful enemies centuries ago. The reality is that life in the mountains is not easy, and mountain people mostly yearn to move to the valley and plains.

    Contrary to what the Ministry of Truth says, the historical enemies of the Chechens are not Russians but their nomad neighbours, who use to cut the throats of anyone who dared descend from the mountains to live in the plains. Due to weak organisation and permanent mutual hatred, these people could not establish any effective government to defend them. The real historical enemies of the Chechens were not Russians, but Kalmyks. When four centuries ago the Russian Tsar allowed Kalmyks to settle on the Volga they terrified the Chechens then living nearby. Before the Kalmyks, the Nogay tribes had also given Chechens no peace.

    Not colonisers

    Russians are usually pictured as colonisers of the Caucasus, oppressing proud and freedom-loving local nations. Today's Russian intelligentsia are always sympathetic to Caucasus people on these grounds. But what are the historical facts? For a start, looking at things from the imperial Russian point of view, there never was any necessity to colonise these people. There were no economic reasons for doing so. For instance, the locals could not be subjected to any taxation on a substantial scale because of their shameful poverty (and that was not the way Russia used to deal with the nations in their empire anyway). And what of the local soil? The quality of soil in the Caucasus is very questionable. The Russian nobility never intended to settle in the mountain areas. So there were no pragmatic reasons for Russians to embark on the difficult conquest of Caucasus.

    According to Russian ethnographer Lev Gumilyov, Georgians at the end of the18th century managed to persuade the "half-insane" Pavel I to established a protectorate over their country (actually, Pavel was just simple minded and open-hearted rather then insane; he was moved by idealistic principles of Orthodox unity and mutual help). Considering the Napoleonic wars and revolutions of that time, the diversion of military resources to the unimportant Caucasus was very unwise. Georgians, who at that time belonged to Persia, were in a very difficult situation - unlike the Armenians, who enjoyed relative prosperity in the Osman Empire. However, part of Eastern Armenia belonged to Iran, where Christians were unwelcome. The support by Russia of her brother Orthodox Georgians involved her in a number of bitter wars with Turkey and Iran. In the first part of the 19th century Russia won these wars with minimal effects. In 1827 the Russian Army General I. F. Paskevitch liberated Yerevan, the Armenian capital. In exactly that period Russian interests required interference in the affairs of the mountain peoples; at that time Islamic jihad and so-called “national liberation movements against Tsarist Russian oppressors” started.

    Actually, Russia had no interest in the mountain peoples themselves; she was concerned about the safety of supplies to her army. However, the mountain peoples were hired by Iran, Turkey and later Britain to attack Russian military convoys. Besides this, the mountain people had further reason to hate the Russians: their foreign trade was mainly the slave trade. For profitability, this business has its parallels in our time only in financial lending and oil exports. Selling off castrated Georgians boys to Turkish harems was particularly lucrative. Of some interest is the fact that in the time of the "liberal" reforms in late 20th-century Russia this ancient business was restored with full support of "human-rights" activists in the rebellious Chechnya.

    Caucasus Chronicles

    The incorporation of Georgia (1801-1810) and Azerbaijan (1803-1813) into the Russian empire are matters outside the scope of this article, though it is worth mentioning that after joining Russia Georgia's population increased fourfold. Russian military actions against the mountain tribes of Dagestan, Chechnya and the North West Caucasus from 1817 to 1868 are named the Caucasus Wars.

    There had been sporadic attacks on the fortified line of the Russian border with these lands, and passive resistance against these had not proved effective. In 1816 the Russian commander-in-chief general Ermolov started a systematic advance towards Chechnya and the highland parts of Dagestan. In fact, the transfer of the fortified line from the Terek to the Sunja rivers marked the beginning of full-scale war. Ermolov had up to 50,000 Russian Army regulars and up to 40,000 Cossacks. However, most of these forces had been engaged in service on the frontier as garrisons of the newly build fortified towns. Only protection by the Russian Army had allowed peasants to settle on the plains around North Caucasus. Hence Russia had not any substantial force with which to fight with mountain peoples.

    In the middle 1820s Myurids in Chechnya and Dagestan started to form an imamat, a kind of small supranational empire. For the first time, Ghazi Mohammad (Kazi Mullah), proclaimed in 1828 to be Imam (a kind of spiritual emperor), called for a gazavat (or jihad - a holy war) against “infidels” (i.e. Russians). Shamil was his disciple. However, at the beginning most of Myurids' effort was spent on slaughtering the Avar and other local nobility. In 1830 Ghazi Mohammad led an army of 8,000 in the failed attempt to seize the Avar capital Hunzah. In 1832 Russians had stormed and occupied the Imam residency and Ghazi Mohamnad was killed.

    A new Imam managed in 1834 to seize Hunzah and kill the Avar ruler and his family for his refusal to join forces against the Russians. In revenge, the Imam himself was killed and replaced by Shamil. The Russians persued a war against Shamil with variable success. After a series of defeats by the Russian Army, Shamil signed an armistice in 1837, but again resumed military activity in 1839. By 1842-1846 Shamil controlled Avaria and part of Dagestan and enjoyed relative successes in his war against Russia. However, after 1846 he suffered a series of disastrous defeats at the hands of the Russians.

    By the time of the start of the Crimean War (1853-1856) Russia firmly controlled the Caucasus between the Black and Caspian seas. In the North Caucasus, mountain peoples on the both sides of the Georgian military road were practically independent: on the eastern side were Shamil and his Myurids; on the western side were the Abkhazians and the Cherkesses, who, formally recognising Russian authority, freely made contact with Turkey and were buying weapons and selling slaves. The Russian fleet struggled to prevent this. Russian policy was to defend the border and to sign peace treaties with the mountain tribes. Occasionally, the Russians would send limited numbers of troops to destroy centres of military resistance in the mountains. Some mountain people consistently supported the Russians; other hesitated, betraying treaties and oaths. Apart from foreign support, the mountain peoples had a further reason to oppose the Russians - to protect their "traditional" ways of life - periodic raids on neighbours to take slaves, mostly for resale. One could perhaps call such wars against the Russians “national”, but could they be called wars of “liberation”? It depends on one's idea of what that term means!

    The Crimean War demonstrated the danger of the situation in the North Caucasus, and after the war operations against the mountain peoples became constant and persistent. As a result, in April 1859 the Russians occupied Shamil’s capital Vedeno, and later stormed and occupied Gunib, where Shamil hid with 400 Myurids. Shamil surrendered, and after that lived peacefully in Kaluga in Central Russia. He died in Medina on his way to Mecca in 1871.

    On November 20th 1859 Cherkes forces of up to 2,000 under Chamil's representative Mohamed Eminom surrendered to the Russians. For a few years Myurids continued military operations around the Black Sea in the hope of support from Britain and Turkey. Officially, the Caucasus War ended on May 12th 1864 with the Russian occupation of the Kbaada Valley.

    There is a widespread belief that the Chechens have been the fiercest fighters against the Russians. That is not true. The most fierce resistance Russians have met among the mountain peoples has been on the shores of the Black Sea. Local tribes there did not want to surrender and submit and they fought to death. When surrender became unavoidable and imminent there were cases of collective suicides by whole families. Some other fled to Turkey. Later Russia had no problem west of the Caucasus, but in the east the situation was different.

    Chechnya and Russia

    Historically, the Chechens are one of the largest and most savage tribes in the North Caucasus. They never had any nobility or governmental structures and have been easily manipulated by external forces. They have served at any given moment whoever paid them the most. Chechens never have fought Russians on their own free will. Those Chechens who have lived on the plains near the Terek River have constantly supported the Russians. After the Crimean War many mountain peoples, including Chechens, considered it a great honour to serve in the Russian Army. However, during all their history Chechens have demonstrated one dominant feature: they have consistently supported whoever has allowed them to kill, rob and enslave their neighbours.

    Chechens, and mountain people in general, are not inherently hostile specifically to Russians. In fact, they are equally hostile to everything foreign. The more defenceless their victims, the more aggressive and brave Chechens are. Strong Russian power has in fact pacified mutually hostile tribes among the mountain peoples, but in certain troublesome times full-scale war, with everyone against everyone, will easily break out. When there have been forces in place willing to exploit such situations against the Russians, great sufferings has been inflicted upon, not only the Russian population, but also on tribes supportive of Russia (Christian Ossetians in particular). There are numerous Ministry of Truth stories about how Stalin had inspired wars between mutually friendly Caucasus people, but these are completely groundless. Centuries-old hatreds cannot be eliminated at once. In order to inflame Chechen rebellion, the media have referred to Chechens and Ingushs as “oppressed people” and have called for mass repentance by the "barbaric" Russians. As far as I remember, the drawing of the mistaken borderline by Stalin in the Prigorodny district was pictured by the media as the reason for the Osseto-Ingush War in 1992. However, we would do well to refer to the view given in the memoirs of General Denikin, commander of the White Russians in the Civil War of 1918-1921, who said:

    “Ingushes, the least numerous but most organised nation in military terms, became rulers of the North Caucasus. Their moral qualities were described long ago in the geography textbooks: “Main occupation cattle breeding and robbery.” The last-named occupation became virtually an art. Politically they followed the same tradition. They became the main force of the Soviet power and its strong supporters. At the same time they did not allow the Soviets into their own land… They robbed their neighbours - Cossacks and Ossetians - to correct what they called “historical mistakes”; they robbed Bolsheviks as a payback for their service; they robbed Kabardins just as a custom; and they robbed Vladikavkaz citizens for their helplessness”.

    Everyone hated the Ingushes, yet they did their job with a persistence and in a highly organised manner. Soon they became the most prosperous tribe in the North Caucasus. Turkey and Germany supported them. Chechens were divided: part of them supported the Cossacks in their fight against the Bolsheviks; others joined the Ingushes. War between Vainakhs (a common term for Chechens and Ingushes) broke out, and with these at each other's throats the local Russians had some relief. The head of the Soviet of People's Commissars in the Terek region was a Georgian Jew, the former terrorist Noy Buachidze (who had robbed Kavrilsky Bank back in 1905). Under the Bolshevik leadership Ingushes and Chechens started the slaughter of Cossacks and the occupation of their land. According to Denikin: “A combined military unit of Red Guards and Ingushes wiped out four Cossacks villages on the Sunja line. Up to 10,000 Cossacks were completely driven away.” He continued: “There was a certain misunderstanding, for the Cossacks wanted the support of the Soviets in their fight against the Chechens and Ingushes and a local Soviet which was not controlled by the central government”. In Jewish and "intelligentsia" mythology, Cossacks at that time were depicted in much the same light as the Nazis later, and they were destined to be slaughtered for no good political reason.

    Chechens and Ingushes received a lot of favours from the Bolsheviks during the Civil War: they were allowed to slaughter a part of the (to them) potentially dangerous population of the Terek region and to occupy Cossacks villages. However, the Vainakhs did not remain loyal to the Soviets (loyalty not being one of their characteristics), and when the Germans came to the Caucasus in World War II the Vainakhs wholeheartedly supported Hitler. They received weapons from the Germans and resumed the genocide of the Russian population of the region. At the beginning of 1990s the liberal press widely cited the verdict from Stalin's law for the deportation of the Chechens in order to whip up sympathy for them. However, the introductory part of this law, where Chechen war crimes were described, was not cited.

    During the same period the United States Government imprisoned without trial those of its citizens of Japanese descent - though in fact Japanese forces never got within 2,000 miles of the USA. It is hard to imagine what this Government would have done to Japanese within the country who had been found to have slaughtered thousands of Americans - as happened to great numbers of Russians at the hands of the Chechen and Ingush people. Yet in the end of 1980s the leaders of the perestroyka movement demanded compensation for “oppressed” Chechens and Ingushes - especially by Russians!

    Our "anti-nazis" wanted to use the Chechens in Russia for the same purposes as, in the USSR, they used nations involved in mass collaboration with the Axis powers in World War II (Crimean Tartars, Baltic Nations, West Ukrainians, etc.) In the name of "liberation", those nations helped the Nazis in the occupied territories, and yet the "liberal" media proclaimed them to be victims of communism, champions of democracy and friends of the "free world". Every attempt by the Government to stop this insolent propaganda was opposed by the liberal media.

    The so-called "intelligentsia" threatened to appeal to the world community, "human rights" and "international law" (whatever that may be). A unknown Colonel of the Soviet Army, one Dudaev, was hastily promoted to General and sent from Tartu (Estonia) to Chechnya to make the revolution there. In 1991 he took power in Chechnya with little formality - he and his supporters, armed with metal bars, occupied the building of the Grozny Council and stabbed to death the Council head Kutsenko. The Russian Government made an attempt in the autumn of the same year to stop the genocide in Chechnya but this was fiercely opposed by the liberal media, which called it "the legacy of Stalin". Later Dudaev came, with official agreement, into possessions of weapons belonging to the Soviet Army units that had been stationed in Chechnya, including artillery and tanks. Chechens robbed, slaughtered, enslaved and raped the local non-Chechen population, most of which were Russian. The then Russian president left these people to the Chechens' mercies with hardly a blink of the eye. However, the main reason for this soft reaction was the importance of Chechnya to the new Russian economic policy.

    "Cheque" scam

    The first macro-economic operation in which the new Russian democrats and Chechens co-operated was called the avizo (certified checks) affair. Professional liberal economists in 1992 pretended that they could not understand how money from the banks of rebellious Chechnya had been transferred by the faked avizo to the rest of the country, converted into cash and later disappeared without trace. In the end, the scale of this operation was equivalent to a third of the whole Russian budget. The operation was only stopped in 1994.

    It should be a matter of interest that banks operated smoothly on Chechens territory until the beginning of the first Chechen War in 1994 despite unparalleled criminal activity in the region. Chechens received their commissions. However, after the riots in October 1993, when reformers seized power in Russia, the economic role of Chechnya declined.

    In this article I shall not discuss the reason for the first Chechen War, but will turn to different problems. In 1993, as well in 1917, power in Russia was seized by anti-Russian forces, which then used the Chechens against Russia - with the full support of liberal "intelligentsia". Even after the start of the first Chechen War, liberals could not resist mocking the Russian Army, which they themselves, in support of their puppet Yeltsin, had sent to the war.

    However, most of the local population in the Caucasus region supported Russia in this conflict, especially the Ossetians. In 1992 the Ingushes had unsuccessfully attempted to slaughter the Ossetians in the Prigorod region near Vladikavkaz. The Ingushes insolently claimed this territory as their own. They tried to take the land by force, but were defeated by the local militia, who were later helped by the intervention of the Russian Army. The Ingushes were forced to evacuate the land completely. Long afterward, the Ministry of Truth published a declaration by "human rights" activists regretting that the Ingushes had not been adequately armed for them to slaughter the Ossetians during their occupation of the latter's land. Moreover, this declaration spoke of the "brutality" of the Russian Army in its work of helping the Ossetians liberate their territory from Ingushes.

    However, the Ingushes learned their lesson. They broke off relations with their wild Chechen brothers and started negotiations with Russia. The Ingush Republic was granted independence within Russia, and it enjoyed generous tax concessions. Also the Ingushes received substantial aid from abroad.

    Ingushes were involved in the slave trade and semi-legally supplied weapons to the Chechens. As a result, a republic, with a population smaller in size then any region of Moscow, was able to build a new capital containing lavish marble palaces.

    The Chechens proclaimed themselves to be subject to "international law" under the name of “Republic of Ichkeria”, while at the same time proclaiming independence from Russia. Despite bountiful international help (Chechnya was filled with foreign businessmen, doctors “without borders”, historians, linguists and CIA agents), Chechnya was not to secede from Russia but only from the Russian Criminal Code. In this regard their wishes received the full support of the new democratic Russian government. After General Lebed had signed Hasav Yurt capitulation and Russian troops were withdrawn from Chechnya, it was officially recognised in Moscow that the Chechens could be kept happy only with economic aid - which became a regular tribute.

    The openly criminal new Chechen Government was officially recognised by Russia, and officially enjoyed substantial subsidies, including free gas and electricity. This was reluctantly stopped only in October 1999, when the Russian Army occupied most of Chechnya. Chechens government officials were allowed to fly in their own aircraft abroad without any duty control. “Law- enforcement" bodies of the independent Chechnya were supplied with blank Russian passports. Generally, Chechnya enjoyed full Russian support in its foreign dealings. Battles in Dagestan revealed the level of support of Chechnya by the Russian Government, and Chechens were armed with the most up-to-date weapons taken straight from Russian Army arsenals.

    Chechen "ethnic cleansing"

    Soon the non-Chechen population in Chechnya disappeared (being slaughtered or having fled). Chechen criminal mobs, with full support from the Russian Government widened their activities in the other territories of Russia. Now hostages were taken not only in lands close to Chechnya's border but practically all over Russia. If Chechen bandits fell into the hands of Russian law- enforcement agencies they were quickly exchanged for Russian hostages held in Chechnya. Sometimes, if an especially brutal Chechen bandit was arrested in Russia, the Chechens would take a high-ranking Russian official hostage. He was then exchanged for the criminal in question. By the way, when Chechnya became independent from Russia more than half the Chechen population fled to Russia.

    Chechnya itself became a safe heaven for the drug trade (both production and trafficking) and the printing of counterfeit money. Chechen territory was used by criminals (not only Chechens) as a refuge from justice. Recently, well-to-do Chechens have been constructing their new houses with special in-build rooms for slaves and hostages. To keep boys for certain needs was very fashionable [Ref. 1]. Every attempt to organise resistance to Chechens was treated by the Ministry of Truth, "human rights" activists and the "intelligentsia" as manifestations of Russian "nazism" and a legacy from imperialism.

    Many interesting matters can be traced in the relationships between the Chechens and the Russian democrats. For example, Boris Berezovsky, the author of the famous phrase “Russia will pay any price to Chechnya,” tried to legalise Chechens terrorist mobs and second them to the Russian Army as independent units. The aim of this was to recruit a special guard, loyal only to the gang in the Kremlin - because support of oligarchs by the Russian Army proper was always in doubt. The project proved to be impossible because the special features of the Chechens national character.

    This democratic idyll came to an end in August 1999, when Chechnya invaded Dagestan and the second Chechen War began.

    Russia, Islam and the West

    Shamil’s Imamat was in fact the supra-national Moslem Empire. Shamil brutally suppressed any national movement in the empire and put many more local leaders to death than had been lost in all the wars with Russia. This empire was cemented, not by religious fanaticism (which was always foreign to Caucasus) but by the hope to terrorise and rob neighbours. Adat (local law) always had priority in the Caucasus over Shariat (Moslem law).

    The Ministry of Truth portrayed the Caucasus conflict as the war with the whole Moslem world. And at the first glance persons wearing green bandannas and shouting Allah Akbar! were very prominent. Hence the only way for Russia, according to the Ministry, was to turn for help to the Big Brother in the West. The West tries to promote in Russia the idea of joint action against Moslem nomad hordes in the name of unity of the “free world". However, there is also the opposite - even more idiotic point of view...

    Analysis shows that support of an independent Chechnya comes from the West [Ref. 2] or from the Islamic countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.), who wouldn’t break wind without American permission, let alone to start a war with Russia. The same is true of the support from Georgia and Azerbaijan of the Chechens rebellion. Or take, for instance, the “foreign legion” of the Chechen Army under the American-educated Jordanian citizen Khattab. Khattab went to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, and then later to Chechnya to continue his anti-Russian crusade.

    There are no Chechen “fundamentalists” without links to the West. Recently, the press in France tried to claim that Iran started the holy war against Russia. However, the Iranians deny it. True, semi-mythical Osama Bin Laden claimed to be involved on the Chechen side. In fact Bin Laden, according to the American "Ministry of Truth", started a “holy war” against the whole world and - here we go - now fights against Russia! According to the media legend, the energetic Saudi millionaire went to Afghanistan to help Talibs in their fight against communists. In fact, he acted as a CIA representative responsible for supplies and co-ordination for the Afghan Talibs.

    Bin Laden a scapegoat?

    Then there were the acts of terror against Americans embassies in various small countries. The search for the culprit was not long - the former friend, now “Moslem fanatic”, was proclaimed responsible. In order to demonstrate this, American fired off a couple of missiles. Now Moslem terrorists throughout the whole world obtained a wealthy and powerful leader in Osama Bin Laden. Who could ask for more? The question is: where does he keep his millions? May be in cash in Afghan currency? The sums involved would not escape the attention of Uncle Sam. Luckily for world terrorism, the US did not bother to search for the assets of the bloodthirsty terrorist fanatic!

    To understand better the Western approach to Russia in connection with the Caucasus rebellion, we have to refer to the war in Tajikistan, which lasted for years. In terms of longevity, numbers of victims and the fierceness of the fighting, this war clearly exceeded the first Chechen War [Ref. 3]. Yet though Russian troops were deployed on the foreign territory, the West never had any complaint about "Russian imperialism". Why was that? The answer is that a victory for the “Islamists” would increase Iranian influence, and Iran is the undoubted enemy of the USA. That’s why "human rights" activists (with a few exceptions) kept quite on that occasion.

    The West wages war against Russia in its south, using such weapons as “Islamism”. No responsible political leader has any doubt about it. The question is: what are the long-term aims of the West in this war? How is the West going to use “Islamism”? And what is this “Islamism”?

    There is no such thing as a united Moslem world, nor has there been for a long time. Moslem countries are very different; they have deep political, economic and cultural divisions. Even Arab countries, very similar in many ways, cannot act together to solve common problems. Nowadays, Moslem countries have even less in common then Christian countries. There is no reason to believe that a coalition of Moslem countries would attack Russia on account of its war in Chechnya. Those countries have more important things to do. The total number of Moslems in Russia does not exceed four per cent; only a minority of this number is truly religious; and out of this number there are very few people inclined towards any kind of the religious fanaticism or so called Moslem fundamentalism. Orthodox Moslems treat our Moslem population as just opportunists. Despite the abandoned prophecies of the politicians, the Caucasus population remains deaf to the calls for any "holly war" against Russia.

    The idea of “Islamism” had been introduced in the British Empire in 19th century. “Islamism” itself is in fact quite harmless for the West; it cannot consolidate the Moslem world but is very convenient for external manipulation.

    There is a widespread belief that the West should act now as it acted during the Cold War, when it supported the economies of its allies. There is a belief that the West should invest in the Central Asia economies, mainly to finance the construction of oil pipelines built away from Russian territory - through the Pakistan, Afghanistan and/or the Caucasus or Turkey. However, even the seemingly sensible project of Caspian oil transportation does not look very realistic after close examination [Ref. 4]. Hence political and economical illusions enforced by the West are aimed at supporting political and economic dislocation on the territory of the former USSR. That would result in chaos in the western-oriented countries. At the first glance, that should be of no worry to Russia; in the nearest future her neighbours would suffer mass impoverishment, and then the futility of such an anti-Russian policy would be evident. As a result, the pro-western governments of Aliev, Shevardnadze, Nazarbayev, etc. would be gone. That is true, but what would replace them?

    The Russian philosopher Konstantin Krylov proposed the idea of the “modern barbarity”, i.e. a society which exploits “civilisation” [Ref. 5]. This phenomenon is not in any way new, it is only that since the 19th century its use increased due to the progress of technology. Such progress allows “civilised” nations to support numerous “barbarians” on the pretext that this is to oppose yet worse "barbarians". Certainly, Chechnya is such a “barbarian” nation with a “barbarian” governmental structure. However, in this case Krylov's concept can be complemented by a new idea: one “civilised” nation can use “barbarians” against another.

    The lessons of Afghanistan, Kosovo and Chechnya demonstrate that the real goal of the West is the creation of zones of mass poverty with degraded “normal” governmental structures. The West supports “barbarian” governments with criminal policies. By creation of zones of instability made of “barbarian” governments, the West obtains the tool with which to manipulate Russia - and not only Russia but also Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, China, etc. The crucial part of this strategy is to prevent Russia using adequate measures to fight terrorism on its territory.

    Use of "human rights" ideology

    To achieve this goal, the West relies not only on sanctions (which are not totally effective, otherwise there would be no need for the zones of "barbarian” states) but, mostly, on ideological pressure, heavily relying on prejudices that are a legacy from Soviet days. Here the liberal "intelligentsia" play an important part [Ref. 6], with their use of the concept of “international humanitarian law” [Ref. 7]. To orchestrate all this, the West has hired numerous "human rights" activists.

    What can be done about anti-Russian “barbarism”? Each case must be treated separately. So what should be done about the Chechens and Ingushes? In their hearts, Chechens do not consider non-Chechens human beings, even when they are their next- door neighbours. The only question is when they can translate their feelings into action . For instance, in one village near Chechnya in October 1999 a Chechen shot 40 of his Russian neighbours (mostly elderly people and children) in revenge for Russian “aggression” in Chechnya. No details of this were given in the media - who cared? The "human rights" brigade were too busy making a fuss about a Russian missile explosion in Grozny which left 46 Chechens dead.

    Our experience of 200 years demonstrates that hopes for the integration of Chechens and Ingushes are utopian. On the other hand, the idea of separation would not work out for the simple reason that these peoples could not live separately from the civilisation on which they feed. The best solution would take a long time, but it is possible. It is: -

    1. Individual Chechens and Ingushes who prove to be loyal to Russia should obtain Russian citizenship.

    2. Those who fought in the war against Russia - that is to say took part in military actions or were engaged in violence against the Russian civilian population - should be liquidated.

    3. Others should be placed in concentration camps under strict police supervision pending their future deportation from Russia.

    A law on crimes against Russian people is highly desirable. A tribunal should be established to punish Chechens bandits with no statue of limitation with regard to the time of their crimes. Under the same law, many of the "human rights" activists, democrats, reformers, "intelligentsia" and other bastards should be brought to quick and effective court-martial justice.

    Nicolo Machiavelli: “What must be done with the population of the rebellious Valdekiana?”

    “… That is how Rome dealt with rebellions; they thought that loyalty must be bought with goods or they must be treated in such a way that they will never be feared in future. Any middle way was dangerous for Rome. When they act, they act one way or another, making peace with those with whom peace was possible; when peace was not possible, they treated those people in such way that they would never be dangerous again.

    Hence, if history teaches us anything, we must follow the example of those people who ruled the world and treat Valdekiana accordingly. Romans taught us exactly how to rule, and as they rule differentially according to guilt, we must act accordingly, judging the guilt of the rebellious…

    Rome found out that we must either give benefits to the rebellious nation or destroy it completely; any third way is very dangerous.”


    1. In February 1997, just before the democratic election to the new Chechen presidency praised by "human rights" activists all over the world, Shamil Basaev told the media that Chechens would not allow child hostages go back to Russia for fear that they would grow up as the Chechens' enemies. However, the media did not treat this as “news”.

    2. For example, four British engineers, beheaded by Chechens (and tortured beforehand in order to get them to confess in front of cameras to espionage). The engineers had been building radio telephone connections in the new republic - part of a vast foreign investment programme. British business probably considered the slave drug trades respectable and profitable enough, and its investment had to give a good return. By the way, the Chechen representative in London is 100 per sent British, having been converted to Islam.

    3. The Civil War in Tajikistan was very cruel indeed. Whole villages were slaughtered mercilessly. One side proclaimed extreme Islamist, anti-Russian ideas. Mullah, the head of the Tajik opposition, announced that in order to get rid of the Soviet legacy it was highly desirable to eliminate all Tajiks over three years old!

    <> (in Russian)

    5. K. A. Krylov “Barbarism” <> (in Russian)

    6.The well-known human rights activist Valeria Novodvorskaya always expressed the typical opinions of the liberal "intelligentsia". During the first Chechen War she raised money on the streets of Moscow to buy weapons for the Chechen guerrillas. Below is quoted the official resolution of the Democratic Party of Russia upon the death of Chechen leader Djohar Dudaev:-

    Death of the Hero

    Djohar Dudaev has been killed. Mean and dishonest people killed him. This people are trying to enslave the Chechens. They are members of the Soviet zondercommandos, whose only profession since 1917 has been to suppress other people's freedom as well as that of their own people. KGB agents, who still have dirty hands, mean hearts and empty heads, killed him.

    Djohar Dudaev died unconquered, defending his country's freedom. He died on his own land. He can be envied. He stands together with the Spartan king Leonidas, Vercingetorix, Joan of Arc and Mahatma Gandhi. Humanity has suffered a great loss. We feel together with the Chechen people and we share their grief and their aim: independence. We grieve for Djohar Dudaev. We grieve for him as a human rights activist, as our partner, as a martyr for freedom, as our relative. We consider ourselves to be a part of Chechen resistance. Together with the Chechens we call for the army withdrawal from Chechnya and for independent and free Chechnya.

    7. Human rights activists always closely followed the progress of "human rights" in Chechnya. For example, when the relatives of a hostage of the Chechens received a video of the torture of their loved one, these human rights activists pointed to "progress". "Look", they said, "now the Chechens have cut off only half of the hostage's finger - unlike last time, when they cut off the whole finger. And this month they beheaded far fewer people then in the previous month! This is a progress, and only the unjust use of Russian force can stop it. Chechens have to support their families! They have children!"

    Certainly, hundreds of thousands of refugees from Chechnya and victims of the Chechens were of no interest at all to the human rights activists.

    Sergei Kovalyov, follower of the well-known human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, demonstrated a similar attitude towards the Chechen rebellion. When Basayev took as hostages the staff and mothers-to-be of a maternity home in Russia, Kovalyov remarked that Basayev was a "Robin Hood", who does not realise the harmful consequences of his actions. We must only hope that one day good old Kovalyov (and those like him) would be hanged in the central square of the Russian city of Grozny.

    Pioneer, Moscow, 1999

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 1st, 2005 @ 01:12 PM
    European Union European Union
    Ma Volonté
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Understanding the Chechen war - a must read

Similar Threads

  1. A German Hero of the Chechen War
    By Ross in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 11:35 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts