Chechnya

[ChrisD(RJ)]

But Chris, wasn't Chechnya de facto independent in 1994, before the first
war?  I could swear that Anatol Lieven argued (in an article which I can't
now locate) that, from a purely rational point of view, the first Chechen
war made no sense, especially in view of what happened in coming years,
because lots of local rulers achieved de facto independence from Yeltsin's
crumbling center, and the Chechens could easily have done the same.  But
that to the Chechens, the difference between de facto and de jure was
enough to go to war over.  In which case, they'd still be aggrieved on
that score today, no?  When they are even less autonomous de jure.  Even
if it doesn't make sense to us outsiders, they wouldn't be the first
nationality who violently rejected broad autonomy because it wasn't total
independence.

I'm just asking this to clarify a minor point of fact -- I'm not
questioning your larger argument about the Second Chechen war.

Michael
-------------
The First Chechen War is one of the many things that Yeltsin should be
smacked upside the head for.

In any case, the current war was not started by the secessionists around
President Aslan Maskhadov (who was working for normalized relations with
Russia). It was begun by the jihadists among the Chechen war clans, who view
Maskhadov as a traitor to Islam and actually have a lot more power than he
does, since they have more guns and money.

I cannot overemphasize the state of utter anarchy in Chechnya. Maskhadov has
no power at all. His own vice president is involved in the slave trade.
Chechnya has virtually no government. It also has virtually no economy. I am
very glad I do not live in Chechnya. The place makes Uzbekistan look like
Sweden.

Chris Doss
The Russia Journal