Chechnya is a part of Russia. Russian government doesn't need a pretext to invade it.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Chechnya is a part of Russia. Russian government doesn't need a pretext to invade it.
That's an extremely simplistic view although it would take a mountain of words to go into the detail of what you have written.
A one line response is that Putin really did need a pretext otherwise he wouldn't have gone around blowing up apartment blocks in Russia.
My wife is from the Caucasus', it's complicated in the extreme.
I don't know where you or wife are from but I was born and lived in Grozny (capital of Chechnya) until I was 24 at which point my family had to leave and become refugees due to the beginning of the first Chechen war so I know very well the events leading up to the first and second war in Chechnya and all that happened in between.
As for blowing up apartment blocks, those accusations were never proven. In any case, my point was that Putin being the country's president didn't need any pretext to invade Chechnya because it was part of the Russia's terrirtory. It's like saying the US National Guard needed a pretext to invade Ferguson to deal with riots.
It was never proven who had Nemtsov shot or who ordered the scores of killings of prominent activists and anti govt journalists over the recent years, does that mean we are t supposed to see that it was Vlad's work?
And I wonder precisely how proof is going to emerge from blowing up of apt blocks when the acts were investigated by those that ordered them. Although there were plenty of eye witness reports and accusations from the one that failed to go off.
You can say many things about Putin, good or bad but let's be honest here this is a guy who will pretty much do anything he wants if he sees benefit to firstly himself and maybe secondly the greater good of Russia. He had little support in Russia for a second Chechen war, something he desperately wanted, blow up a few apt blocks and hey presto the whole country supports the war.
Ferguson has nothing like the situation of Chechnya, it is no way a valid comparison. Fir a start it's not been fighting various wars against tge US give for 250 years and enjoyed various periods of independence and de facto independence and most residents of Ferguson would view themselves as Americans.
And I wonder precisely how proof is going to emerge from blowing up of apt blocks when the acts were investigated by those that ordered them. Although there were plenty of eye witness reports and accusations from the one that failed to go off.
You can say many things about Putin, good or bad but let's be honest here this is a guy who will pretty much do anything he wants if he sees benefit to firstly himself and maybe secondly the greater good of Russia. He had little support in Russia for a second Chechen war, something he desperately wanted, blow up a few apt blocks and hey presto the whole country supports the war.
Ferguson has nothing like the situation of Chechnya, it is no way a valid comparison. Fir a start it's not been fighting various wars against tge US give for 250 years and enjoyed various periods of independence and de facto independence and most residents of Ferguson would view themselves as Americans.
I have a feeling that you don't get what I'm trying to say here. Whether Chechnya have had separatist tendencies for centuries or was the most loyal part of the country, or whether Putin is the source of all international terrorism is irrelevant to the point I'm making.
All I said was that Putin, as a president of Russia, had not only the right but also an obligation to defend and preserve its unity and sovereignity against all those who threatened it. Thus he didn't need a pretext to invade part of his own country to wrestle it back from armed separatists and regain the state control over it. The separatist Chechnya was never acknowledged or recognized by the international community as an independent state and that territory has been and still is, a part of Russia.
Last edited:
I certainly don't get what you are trying to say, I think it's because you aren't quite sure of the meaning of pretext:
a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.
Putin had no national support for invading, attacking or whatever you want to call what he launched on Chechnya, so he drummed up a reason, the bombing of apartment blocks which he then blamed on the Chechens and in the process gaining nationwide support for his assault.
You could say similar to WMD's as the pretext for launching war on Iraq.
I think the clue in @antihenry response was "that territory has been and still is, a part of Russia." There was no invasion. There was no attack on another foreign state.
I know what pretext means. Not sure that you do, given how many times you've failed to grasp the obvious. Bush needed a pretext to invade another country thousands of miles away because he had to explain to the world the reason his troops were there. Putin didn't need a pretext for Chechnya because he, along with the rest of the world recognized that territory as part of Russia and as the country president had an authority over it.
No, you don't know what it means.
Does Kiev have the same obligation re: Crimea?
Yes. The situation with Crimea is different in details but as far as international law is concerned Crimea is still a part of Ukraine.
Thanks. Do you think self-determination should ever trump (internationally recognized) sovereignty? I'm just asking because you're Russian and many of the cases where these things are in dispute - Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, even Kosovo to a certain extent - involve the Russians in some way. Obviously they all have their own dynamic, it just seems difficult for Moscow to claim that state sovereignty should trump everything else in Chechnya and Serbia, while denying it in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. Obviously the Americans/NATO have the same problem of inconsistency in reverse in these cases.
This is such a complex issue that I'm afraid my English may not be enough to get into it in detail. Among other things, it's a problem of double standards in politics which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Big countries have big ambitions and they always attempt at bending the rules when it suits them. As someone sarcastically said regarding the neverending conflict in the Middle East, one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter.
Territorial disputes are quite common all across the globe when various ethnicities live in close proximity from one another. Cultural, religious and other differences coupled with ignorance and basic human aggression often result in something bad. When you add politics to it, you compound the problem. As far as Russia and former Soviet republics are concerned, the territorial conflicts and separatist movements have a lot to to do with history and complex relationships among literally hundreds of various nationalities that resided in Russian Empire and then later, Soviet Union.During the Stalin's reign millions of Soviet citizens of various ethnic groups that fell under regime's suspision for one reason or another were deported from their place of residence, mostly to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. After Stalin's death many were able to return to their native lands but the consequences of those crimes are still relevant. There are still plenty of territorial and ethnic disputes in Russia and former Soviet Republics and starting in the late 80s and following the fall of Soviet Union many various nationalist movements appeared all across the former communist empire that used old beefs for their own political gain. In many cases it turned into civil unrest, ethnic hatred driven riots and even wars, like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Russia with its imperial ambitions and geopolitical interests was bound to be involved in these conflicts one way or another. As far as the sovereignity vs separatism issue, Putin is no different than any other lying cynical politician out there, he'll be on whatever side he thinks serves Russia's interests best.
Last edited:
Yep, thanks for that.
So wait, the Ukraine's gov't is not being run by Neo-nazi's? It's all propaganda? No way!
Didn't see that coming.
This village idiot is Ukraine's FM.
Is that you're entire point?
There are plenty of village idiots everywhere in the world, Russia would be a reasonable example of such a place where the majority of the population have sat silently and watched their President steal probably in excess of $100 billion from them.
Correct. One would think he would start with his own Preisdent for ruining his economy.
Only $100 billion? That's quite modest by the western propaganda standards. I'll wait for something more impressive.
This is a thread on Ukraine, so posting the most recent interview of the country's FM, which by the way has been much talked about and discussed in Ukrainian media and social networks makes absolute sense. Something you should know if you actually knew something worth knowing on this subject instead of coming here and crying constantly about yet another terrible thing Putin has done.
I'll wait for something more impressive than 'This is the village idiot' because as I've said there are plenty of them around.
True, there are plenty of morons around. But it's not every day a village idiot becomes foreign minister in the country of 40 million people. Have you watched the interview? My remark was based on the clip I provided in the very same post. Why start rambling about Putin when he has nothing to do with it?
Well he's not as big a moron as Yanukovich who literally stole billions from the Ukrainian people and likely under the instruction of Putin felt it acceptable to shoot dead 95 people from the safety of the Hotel Ukraina.
Corruption is systematic in Ukraine, it will take years or more likely decades to start to rid the country of the overt corruption that it faces. There are no doubt still many people in the Ukrainian govt who are corrupt, and amongst the judges, the legal system all govt offices. But I doubt it's as bad now as it was before the revolution, however the chances of rapid improvement are limited when there are outside influences having major effects.
The Ukrainian people have been punished for wanting better lives for themselves and their kids, which they see happening to other former Soviet states. The EU and the US are in many ways responsible for their misery, the only country more responsible is Russia and people shouldn't try to make excuses for what they have done in Ukraine.
What does corruption, Yanukovich, legal system or UFO sightings have to do with the fact that the Ukraine's current foreign minister sounds ridiculous in his interview which WAS THE ONLY THING I MENTIONED IN THE POST YOU CHOSE TO REPLY TO? Do you have problem concentrating? This is what a conversation with you must be like:
"- Hi, how are you doing?
- Putin is bad.
- Do you know what time it is?
- Russia is bombing civilians in Syria.
- Your fly is open.
- Have I told you about how the US and the EU are not responsible for anything bad?"
Well almost every question on your video was about corruption.
So why did he sound ridiculous, he was dealing with difficult questions and answered them although some of his answers were indeed sketchy?
What is your point, you don't like his accent or what?
Great post. You can't have a discussions about Ukraine without bringing up the corruption that was endemic during the Yanukovich years, as well as the fact that Yanukovich's sponsor - Putin - was responsible for destabilizing Ukraine through corruption, energy coercion, and eventually by actually invading and stealing its land. All of these issues are closely linked together.
He was asked point blank why the current government failed with democratic reforms and their war on corruption and he kept saying it wasn't true. The journalist used references to Joe Biden, Transparency International, the US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and others stating that the Ukrainian leadership has been failing in their attempts to change the system (polite way of saying "you're not doing anything"). Also mentioned was the fact that most foreign politicians and economists that came to Ukraine after Maidan to help the new "team of reformers" left bitter and disillusioned because they soon realized it was all populism and that any attempt at "cleaning house" would be met with very strong resistance, going all the way up to the president himself, who's the biggest and richest oligarh in the country and who did his best to monopolize the power since getting into the office back in 2014.. In fact that tone from the western politicians and various American and EU officials,governmental and non-profit organizations concerning state of affairs in Ukraine is getting harsher and louder but the likes of Klimkin, Poroshenko etc, think that as long as they keep talking about bad Putin and Russian aggression and keep kissing up to the US, they can get away with their non-stop bullshit.
Sebastian mentioned the International Republican Institute poll results that are embarrassing to the new post-Maidan government and president. It showed that majority of people feel that country is headed in the wrong direction, corruption has gotten even worse over the last few years and also the fact that citizens trust even less the judicial system and state officials than they did under Yanukovich. Klimkin had nothing to say to all this. It's as if he's living in another reality.
I read many Ukraine based bloggers on various sites, and even those that are very much West oriented and anti-Russian were appalled at this interview. They know very well how bad things really are in the country and the current officials are clearly running out of excuses. Just like the interviewer told Klimkin at 10:18 "You seem to be living in a different universe". There's another great bit at around 11:30 about the former Deputy Prosecutor saying about "an unstated afgreement: the prosecutor will look the other way if it's in the interest of the leadership. Lawlessness, not the law, rule here, in Ukraine".
And it continues.
Last edited:
Which particular democratic reforms do you refer to, I'm thinking you probably mean autonomy for the occupied regions in the East under Minsk?
If so, seriously can you blame them? What have the Russian armed and supported separatists adhered to from Minsk?
Nobody denies that there are still huge issues with corruption in Ukraine, it's absolutely ingrained into their political and legal culture, a culture that has been supported and dictated from Moscow. You can deny that if you want but it's clearly true, Yanukovich's son is a billionaire, how many billionaire dentists do you know? For decades or more it's been theft theft theft and lawlessness for the political elite. Do people really think this could be changed in 2-3 years when Russia's hand is everywhere in Ukraine?
IMHO it will take until the next generation of Ukrainians to start putting their country on the right road. But the people want it, I'm talking about the ordinary every day folk like you and I, they want better for their children and their grandchildren. Those corrupt officials who still hold office in Ukraine need to be forced out and so does Russia's influence over many of the bad people of Ukraine. The west let Ukraine down when it needed them, numerous European and US officials stood on that stage in Maidan and promised people that their lives and their country would be better if they revolted, they did and when Russia took a hardline the West all but abandoned them.
I don't know what the answers are in Ukraine, I suspect nobody does but what I do know is that much of the govt upheaval, corruption and infighting has Putin's fingerprints all over it. However many internal problems they have the biggest problem to solving their issues and moving forward with reform and building a better country for its people to live in remains Putin.
And let's face it. Minsk is basically a political device that Putin has used to entrench a frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine, which he thinks will buy him continued political leverage there. Western leaders view it as a way to stop further Russian expansion, but not to solve the long term problem of removing all Russian forces from Donbass and Crimea.
Fully agree!
Nobody argues that Yanukovich wasn't corrupt. Every Ukrainian president, including the current one, has been, to various degrees. My point was the people that replaced him are no better and in some respects are even worse. And these are the ones that the West used to get Ukraine to break away from Russia. Also, I would try to avoid generalizations. You constantly use Russia as an example of negative influence on Ukraine. This is just a part of the western narrative to make it look like all Ukraine inherited from centuries of shared history with Russia is corruption. It's insulting. There are about four million Ukrainians still working in Russia and feeding their families back home with their earnings. There's close to 850,000 refugees from Donbass war zone that fled to Russia and received the refugee status there. There are millions and millions of people in Ukraine that don't fit the idea that's been regularly portrayed in the western MSM as what your average Ukrainian is really about. Plus, if you know the country well, the mentality, culture and views on Ukraine's future and where it should be heading are very different, depending on where in Ukraine you live. You talk in western cliches on how Ukrainians wanted better lives for their children and grandchildren and even mention how "numerous European and US officials stood on that stage in Maidan and promised people that their lives and their country would be better if they revolted." So in your mind, it's perfectly OK for foreign politicians to do that? Really? But then again, Kremlin knew very well who was pulling the strings behind "the will of the Ukrainian people". Like that recording of the conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt from February 2014, while Yanukovich was still in power, where two US State officials were matter-of-factly discussing and handing out the future positions for Maidan leaders in a new, post-Yanukovich government.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
As for the post-Maidan situation, what have Ukraine actually got out of it? Economically the country is in a terrible shape, the long term economic ties with Russia are at all-time low for political reasons and EU has no intention on filling that void. More and more people leaving the country, especially the young because they see no future there and they don't feel like being sent to war zone in the southeast of the country. There are serious problems with freedom of speech like that scandal with the site Mirotvorets (Peacekeeper) that was also mentioned in the interview with the Ukrainan FM.
https://advox.globalvoices.org/2016...-of-thousands-of-war-reporters-in-the-donbas/
Quite how you got from my post that it's ok for Western politicians to encourage people to revolt I have no idea, maybe you could explain?
As for generalisations are you seriously denying that the current problems in Ukraine have Russia's fingerprints all over them?
It's my personal opinion, one I have gained from many people I have met in Ukraine, be them from Kiev, L'viv or anywhere else including the cities in the East of the country is that the majority of people wanted to become more European, hopefully with an EU future and have less ties to Russia. Having said that I don't doubt that in certain areas of Eastern Ukraine there are large numbers of people with Russian ancestors who see it differently. Many people were and still are simply sick of the endemic corruption, and Yanukovich wasn't ruling Ukraine, Putin was, simple as that.
We can go on talking about who is responsible for what, the West has a lot to answer for in Ukraine and Russia IMHO has even more to answer for.
I was regularly in Maidan during the revolution including the final days and witnessed much of the violence. What I saw was absolutely disgusting and will stay with me for life and I'm ex forces myself, but I have never before witnessed innocent unarmed people being indiscriminately shot in the streets.
My ultimate opinion is that the revolution wasn't worth it for the good people of Ukraine, their country is devastated, many of their people including innocents on both sides are dead and there is little light at the end of the tunnel.
As for generalisations are you seriously denying that the current problems in Ukraine have Russia's fingerprints all over them?
It's my personal opinion, one I have gained from many people I have met in Ukraine, be them from Kiev, L'viv or anywhere else including the cities in the East of the country is that the majority of people wanted to become more European, hopefully with an EU future and have less ties to Russia. Having said that I don't doubt that in certain areas of Eastern Ukraine there are large numbers of people with Russian ancestors who see it differently. Many people were and still are simply sick of the endemic corruption, and Yanukovich wasn't ruling Ukraine, Putin was, simple as that.
We can go on talking about who is responsible for what, the West has a lot to answer for in Ukraine and Russia IMHO has even more to answer for.
I was regularly in Maidan during the revolution including the final days and witnessed much of the violence. What I saw was absolutely disgusting and will stay with me for life and I'm ex forces myself, but I have never before witnessed innocent unarmed people being indiscriminately shot in the streets.
My ultimate opinion is that the revolution wasn't worth it for the good people of Ukraine, their country is devastated, many of their people including innocents on both sides are dead and there is little light at the end of the tunnel.
There's no light at the end of the tunnel, not for the most of these people. They were manipulated by the media and various pro-western organizations into belief that the West is waiting for them with open arms. The reality turned out to be anything but. And it's only the beginning of their nightmare.
Very simplistic view, equally simplistic to say without the Russian intervention there would be plenty of light at the end of the tunnel and the country no doubt would already be in a much better place than it was under Yanukovich, probably even for generations before.
As big a nightmare as it is for all Ukrainians it is also true to say that those enduring the biggest nightmare are those in the separatist controlled East.
What I do know is what I witnessed in Maidan was bloody disgusting, and no way to deal with any situation. Snipers shooting unarmed protestors from the safety of hotel balcony's was a puppet and his master engaging in the murder of innocent civilians, young, old, male, female it didn't matter one bit they just shot them. It's indefensible and vile, the Ukrainian people I know now pretty much hate Russia meaning this is no success story for the Russians either, they managed to turn pretty much a whole country against them when that wasn't the case pre Maidan.
What makes you think Yanukovich, let alone Putin, had anything to do with Maidan sniper shootings? They were killing both protesters and cops, by the way. The old latin saying "Cui bono" ("for whose benefit?") is quite appropriate here. To this day there are no facts linking the former president to this crime (and to be honest he was too much of a coward to authorize something like that), but it's plain to see who profited from it, and it's those that came to power as a result. I doubt we'll find the truth about what really happened there and who ordered it but I'm sure Yanukovich wasn't involved and if Russians had anything to do with it, you better believe that the new pro-Western government would parade all the proof of their involvement for the whole world to see. But it's been two and a half years, and there's still nothing to show. That means they don't want anyone to know. They used the tragedy to get to power and that's all that matters.
By the way, you've mentioned that "he's not as big a moron as Yanukovich who literally stole billions from the Ukrainian people and likely under the instruction of Putin felt it acceptable to shoot dead 95 people from the safety of the Hotel Ukraina.".
Here's an interesting piece of info on that.
"A report of the International Advisory Panel, which was set up by the Council of Europe, revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Prosecutor General Office, the official investigation had evidence that at least three protesters were killed from the Maidan-controlled(!!!) Hotel Ukraina and that at least 10 protesters killed from other buildings. However, the version of Maidan shooters killing both the protesters and the police has not been pursued by the investigation in spite of various evidence pointing to them."
https://www.newcoldwar.org/investig...w-in-danish-newspaper-with-ivan-katchanovski/
There's more interesting information on Maidan shootings from Ivan Katchanovski of University of Ottawa, and you probably won't find any of it in the western press.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
I don't want challenge to your version of the Maidan events entirely, as I'm sure you have seen what you talk about. But since you stressed that 'unarmed' part repeatedly now, it has to be said that among the protestors were organised militant nationalists ready to use lethal force, and more than just a few. A significant number of policemen and government supporters were killed or sustained life-threatening injuries during and after the Maidan protests and throughout the Ukraine in those weeks.
Last edited: