You're opposed to political dialogue, and think the Bush-like approach of killing 'em all is the right one?
=============================
I won't presume to speak for Chris. However, I think I understand what was offensive about the FT piece.
Our typical response in the US to any mention of Chechnya related violence is to assume that, as our media says, the "seperatists" merely want self-determination and freedom from Russian rule. This sounds reasonable and frames how we react to almost all news about the conflict. The standard script is that Chechnya's first seperatist leader, Dzhokar Dudayev, only wanted freedom for his people and it was Russia's blood thirstiness and lust for Caucasus oil that prevented liberation, leading to all these years of woe.
The key questions are, who is committing terrorist acts, why are they doing it and can they be persuaded to stop via negotiation? And, if indeed they are willing to stop what will they demand and can those demands be met without creating greater problems?
If, for example, a group of nationalist extremists (with criminal syndicate types thrown in here and there for good measure) operating out of Texas - demanding the right to rule that state independently - began a terror campaign across the United States and proved extremely difficult to suppress would it be in Washington's interest (or the interest of the residents of Texas and neighboring states) to simply hand Texas over to them? We, weary of fear and hoping for the best, might insist the President choose negotiation over violence but if the only outcome of negotiation would be surrendering a large amount of territory to a dangerous fanaticism it could hardly be called a success.
And even if, in the course of the conflict, the 2nd Marine Division flattened Austin and committed other atrocities that made things much worse this still wouldn't make it wise to negotiate a peace that would create a dictatorship and almost surely prove to be a prelude to future war.
It seems to me that this is essentially the sort of genuine dilemma Putin faces - a deep problem which even the most progressive of governments would find extraordinarily tough to solve.
Some will say, 'by your reasoning, it's quite alright for the US to use whatever weapons it has in its arsenal to suppress Shiite and Sunni resistance in Iraq, (or turn the "homeland" into a kind of fortress) since withdrawal and negotiation may lead to some sort of tyranny.'
This sounds well and good but misses the point that proximity and choice make all the difference. The US had to go well out of its way to create the conditions in Iraq which have produced a bewildering complex of problems. The Russians, in contrast, found themselves unexpectedly facing chaos in their own neighborhood.
The first step towards thinking clearly about these events is having a more precise idea of who these terrorist groups are and of the conflict's full history.
For example, a sharper understanding of the significance of Dzhokar Dudayev and Shamil Basayev - what they proposed, what they did and the outcomes of these ideas and actions - will sweep away romantic notions.
I recommend, as a starter, the articles of Robert Bruce Ware -
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F30623839
.d.