fare: RIP, Aslan Maskhadov

François-René Rideau (

fare) wrote,
@ 2005-03-08 18:40:00

Current mood:	libertarian
Current music:	Rachmaninoff - Songs
Entry tags:	chechnya, communism, en, libertarian, mea culpa, statism, war

RIP, Aslan Maskhadov

Aslan Maskhadov. He wanted his people free from the KGB. The KGB refused any negociation. The KGB unleashed a horrible war of mass-killing. The KGB won.

The French officials call that National sovereignty. The Americans officials call that Saving the Union. I call that the same old pretense for the mass-killing of dissidents.

The usual leftist professionals of outrage aren't outraged a bit. And if anything is to be blamed about Russia, it's its wild "ultra-capitalism", they will tell you, not its criminal statism, and not the fundamentalist muslim terrorism. Puke.

UPDATE: I stand corrected concerning Maskhadov, although I'm reserving my judgment pending further confirmation. Thanks to averros in the comments section below. I still call the KGB bastard an evil killer based on illegitimate claims of sovereignty; but so was possibly Maskhadov another evil killer based on rival illegitimate claims of sovereignty -- though further information is required for me to tell. However, it still seems very clear to me that the KGB bastard is a great evil, far beyond what Maskhadov could possibly be. Importantly, I still salute Joe Random Chechen Non-Murderous Freedom Fighter, though he might be rarer than I believe he is, and though the last one might have ceased to fight quite some time ago.

(Post a new comment)

averros
2005-03-09 08:02 am UTC (link)

Yet another victim of the "liberal" press... sigh. I mean you, not Maskhadov, who got exactly what he deserved.

I wouldn't be so gloomy about the untimely demise of yet another cannibal. The chechen "rebels" aren't pussies by any means, and their list of atrocities is quite impressive. I would be hard pressed to say who's worse - the army or the guerillas.

In any case, Maskhadov was one of the leading figures in the events leading to the first chechen war, in 1994 - namely, the ethnic cleansing of the Republic Ichkeria (i.e. Chechnya) from any non-Chechens (and Russians lived there for nearly 400 years). I know that first hand, as my mother is a Chechen native, and my family never lived more than 50 miles away from Chechnya. Until Mr. Dudaev (and his henchman, Mr. Maskhadov) came to power. Then the hundreds of thousands Russians, Jews, Kazaks and Ukrainians who were born and lived there had to leave. It is as simple as that.

This aggravated Yeltsin's administration, and the military intervention was initiated, which went to a complete disaster because of the total incompetence of Russian military command. As a result, from 94 to 96 Chechnya was de-facto independent. It became the breeding ground for criminal gangs (nowadays Chechen gangs are the most powerful and violent criminal organizations throughout Russian Federation). The undeclared truce ended in 96 when Chechen regime invaded Dagestan, a neighbouring (and peaceful) Russian province. The belligerence of Chechen's government (which had to be heavily promoted by Mr. Maskhadov, since he controlled Chechen military back then) was the major contributing factor in emergence of Putin's (and his law enforcement pals from ex-KGB) regime.

Putin promised to control the Chechens, and initiated the campaighn of brutal suppression (about the only thing the idiots running the Russian army are capable of, besides stealing everything they can grab); the "rebels" were no match to the resources of the much larger army, and had to resort to guerilla (and eventually, to the terrorist) tactics. By now they're basically a kidnapping business, doing occasional terrorist acts paid for by Arabs.

Although the whole war was presented as a sovereighnity affair, the reality is that at the time a lot of ex-Soviet provinces gained independence by entirely peaceful means. (Some of them are better off, most aren't, particularly "-stans"; Kyrgyzstan has arguably sunk to the depth comparable to Northern Korea's). What happened is that a bunch of clan leaders decided to steal land from other established ethnic groups under pretense of self-determination. This is actually a common story in Northern Caucasus, where most conflicts were nothing more than land grabs and settling of old ethnic hatreds, which, in Soviet years, were repressed (they never went away, though, and I remember street fights between ethnic gangs pretty well, thank you).

I'm not a fan of Mr. Putin or KGB (I was a dissident, in fact, and, hopefully, helped USSR to the dunghole of history), but to portray Mr. Maskhadov and other Chechen leaders (whose totally irresponsible actions directly led to and fueled the bloody war - even though at the time the public opinion in Russia was sympathetic to Chechens; one of Chechens (Ruslan Hazbulatov) even led Russia's parliament) as noble rebels stretches the truth pretty thin. After the totally unwarranted killing of hundreds of children in Beslan (in Ingushetia, also formerly peaceful neighbour of Chechnya - of course, Ingushi are old tribal enemies of Chechens, which explains the choice of place) even the usual leftist professionals of outrage saw fit to shut up and stop puffing up the bandits into "freedom fighters".

In any case, it is hardly fit for anyone claiming to hold libertarian beliefs to lament the passage of a pretendent to a ruler's position, especially considering that outrages perpetuated by him and his pals were the direct cause of erosion of liberties in the Russia itself. It takes two to tango, and it takes two to wage a war. Ghandi he wasn't; he's more like the late Arafat - a thief and a warlord, a "leader" of a deluded nation, hell-bent on a suicide. (Actually, Mr. Maskhadov was killed resisting arrest, after refusing to surrender or negotiate).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Sources?

fare
2005-03-24 01:29 am UTC (link)

After consultation of the KGB propaganda, which is known to be outragiously deceitful, your statements are too similar to them and dissimilar to other sources to be credible on face value. Do you have independent sources for the facts, for instance, your mother being a direct witness, as opposed to interpretations filtered by the KGB?

For instance, you say that the Chechen regime, rather than rogues, was responsible for invading Dagestan? Is regime this an established fact? Same question for the Chechen being responsible for initiating ethnic cleansing rather than the Russians. Or for blaming rebels in general and Maskhadov in particular for the rogue acts of the very same Basayev faction.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

averros
2005-03-25 10:41 am UTC (link)

Sigh. You're making the typical mistake of a person who never had to deal with KGB (and, most likely, with secret services of any kind - they're pretty much alike in their mentality). The first thing one needs to understand about KGB in its various incarnations is that it is basically a totally incompetent organization, because no person with IQ higher than a cabbage's would work for them (well, CIA is no better - just watch them bungling one important issue after another). The KGB "propaganda" is so ridiculous that even small kids were quite aware of its inanity. Their persuasiveness always relied on brute force - torture someone, they'll agree to anything. Even in that they were bloody amateurs.

If you don't believe me - just think - how come the mighty KGB with million or so employees couldn't find a way to silence a few hundred dissidents? I remember one post-USSR episode when the entire staff of FSB was put on extra time to find a leak of a putch plan - it was done by my friend, who's a founder of a news aggregation and analysis service. He (when visiting office of one of the figurants) asked to use their computer "to check e-mail" - and then quickly searched the disk and uploaded the file with the plan to his server. The plan was then faxed to all major newspapers - complete with names, dates, etc. The sending fax ID string was a fictitious phone number taken from a popular song by Boris Grebenshikov. It took a week for the spooks to figure that out :) Meanwhile, while the scandal was running its course (denials from the key figures in the plan, promises by the FSB brass to catch the miscreants who spread the lie, and, finally, realization that they don't really want to catch them, because then the truth will come out) we spent time enjoying beers in DC pubs :)

So FSB (the ex-KGB) couldn't produce efficient propaganda even if their life depended on it. They're heavily factitious and the "leaks" and their pet politicans blabbering their mouths out is a quite common sight - just a result of their internal politicking. It, basically, means that after a short delay everything they know becomes public knowledge; and it often turns out that they're the least knowledgeable people all around. In case of Chechen conflict the sight of FSB heroically trying to catch the guys every journalist knew how to contact was quite comical.

As for "rogues" vs. the "regime" you, like most Westerners, simply fail to understand that there's no difference. Chechens have a stricly clannish culture, and their loyalties are to the clan (and they do have the strict tradition of vendetta, and a tribal code of honour), not to anyone else. The "regime", basically, was the Dudayev clan. The first thing they did is suppressed all other clans - so there's no way any excursion to a stronghold of another clan situated in Dagestan was done by somebody else. Eventually, Moscow emmisaries managed to convince the Kadyrov clan to cooperate - and the fortunes of Maskhadov were turned.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Sources?

averros
2005-03-25 10:41 am UTC (link)

Same question for the Chechen being responsible for initiating ethnic cleansing rather than the Russians.

That merely shows the total lack of knowledge of history and cultures involved. The Russian method of empire-building was simply assimilation, not eradication - basically, settling, intermingling, and not caring much about local religion or traditions. There is no such thing as "pure-blood" Russian, the ethnic consciousness (despite the never ending attempts to do "nation building" from the top) is quite weak - to the point that Russian emigres prefer to cease speaking Russian if they hear someone speaking the same language nearby, not caring to be recognized as compatriots. This lack of national identity is exactly what allows continuing acendance of various tyrannies in the russian history - Russians just don't care about each other (and so were ruled by vikings, by mongols, by poles, by germans (Romanovs), by jews (check the ethnic composition of early Bolshevik govermnents), then by a paranoid Georgian (Stalin), and, finally, by the "international" of late communists). Aside of low-level resentment of anyone behaving differntly and episodic anti-semitic (and recently anti-Caucasian) pogroms (the point being the resentment of any "intellectuals" and bandits, not their ethnicity) it is hard to imagine Russian-instigated ethnic cleansing.

Or for blaming rebels in general and Maskhadov in particular for the rogue acts of the very same Basayev faction.

Heh. What their internal motives were no one will know for sure. They did try to play the good-cop - bad-cop game, but it is also a common knowledge that the same Maskhadov was boasting about impeding "big attacks" right before large terrorist acts, he wasn't exactly camera-shy.

What you're missing is that you think about the clannish land and influence grabs as "fighting for freedom". First of all, in this century the "fighting for freedom" means, basically, banditry. In all cases where real progress in gaining freedom and independence was made, it were peaceful protests, not armed insurrection. The modern states figured out how to deal with armed insurrections quite well - it is enough to show the "freedom fighters" for what they are - namely, the people who want to get their way by forcing others to yield to their will by violence and terror, and they get all public support they need.

Compare that with the chain of peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe, Russia (91), Georgia, and recently Ukraine, Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan. It is not that anyone is unaware of the methods or ideology of those revolutions - if Chechen clans were really interested in national independence, they'd simply follow the example. I think the notion never came up into their heads - they're known as the most violent Caucasian people for many centuries (check, for example, the history of the conquest of Caucasus by the tzars, or, for literary examples, Lermontov's proze).

In any case, when the events in question were taking place, the Russian press and TV were completely uncontrolled - to the point of having no rules at all. Anyone and his dog were starting a newspaper. Compared to the heavily consolidated Western media empires, the Russian media in 90s was a shining ideal of the freedom of speech. Propaganda? Which propaganda? Nowadays it's different, though, as Kremlin took control of TV. So I ended up reading sites like newsru.com - which belongs to Mr. Berezovsky, who's no big fan of the current regime.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Sources? _magister_ludi_ 2005-03-25 10:54 am UTC (link)
	I can confirm that averros's point of view is much closer to truth than your. Your opinion is very naive and biased. (Reply to this)(Parent)

DEVINETTE
(Anonymous)
2005-03-14 09:24 pm UTC (link)

quelle est la différence entre un libertarien et un nazi?

le nazi est un évolutionniste nationaliste, le libertarien est un évolutionniste ultralibéral

Lequel de ces deux groupes de résistants devons nous élire pour nous défendre contre l'invasion barbare des bolcheviques islamistes? qui sera votre sauveur? les nazis? les libertariens? choisissez bien...

personnellement je préfère les nazis, leurs uniformes avaient de la gueule.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: DEVINETTE
(Anonymous)
2005-03-24 01:06 am UTC (link)

Les islamistes SONT des nazis.
"Ultralibéral" ne veut rien dire.
"Évolutionniste"non plus, sauf pour faire référence aux partisans, en biologie, de la thèse absurde de la "génération spontanée" camouflée par les millions d'années (Chesterton).
Les nazis ne sont pas "nationalistes", puisqu'ils mènent leur "nation" à la catastrophe. Socialistes, en revanche, ils le sont — pour la même raison.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-03-29 05:59 am UTC (link)

Maskhadov was a hero. All people have the chance to choose the way how to day. Some of them die with the weapon in their hands, defending their Fathers land, defending their relatives, houses.. and some people die in the bed, with no history. I mean, Maskhadov died as a hero, and Putin will die with no history.
Look, how many of russian soldiers inside of Chechnya, I guess near 100 000. And how manye chechen soldiers are fighting against the occupants, I think a few thousand. Very big difference. And fighting for almost 6 years.
Today the russian Putin said that Maskhadov was a terrorist. Damn! How crazy is he. More than 150 000 chechen civilians were died under russian bombs, in filtration camps, and they still killing chechens there. We also remember Beslan, Nord-Ost, when russian civilins were killed by russian soldiers. Crazy Russia what are you doing?

http://www.petitiononline.com/cheche/petition.html

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Obvious One-sided Mistake

fare
2005-03-29 10:44 am UTC (link)

Your "explanation" of why Maskhadov was a hero is obviously bogus. Russian soldiers no less die with the weapon in their hands than the chechen fighters, and no less in the name of their Fathers land, etc. What makes Maskhadov and other fighters good guys or bad guys is not the mere fact of fighting -- which fact is just as true on the other side of the fight.

You're falling for the communist praise of the "little guy" against the "big guy". A rapist, a serial-killer, a terrorist, are "small guys" who kill thousands innocent people -- the "big guys". Are they role-models and heroes for that? Certainly not. You're also falling for "the enemy of my enemy" line of thought. Putin is clearly a bad guy in many ways, including his commanding massacre in Chechnya (though he might still be better than his competition in many other ways, and is also clearly more part of history than Maskhadov will ever be). Does that make any enemy of Putin automatically a good guy? Is Hitler|Stalin a good guy because he opposed the bad guy Stalin|Hitler?

The question is whether each involved people has a choice to do better, and if so, which choice it is. Did Dudayev and Maskhadov stand for something else than domination of Chechnya by their clan? Could Chechen|Russian officials have avoided the war? Could they have waged it better? Why is the confessed terrorist Basayev still free while previous elected presidents were killed? etc.

I still have to reconcile my sources of information, but I can already tell that yours are just wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Maskhadov
(Anonymous)
2005-05-26 10:55 am UTC (link)

Averros you sound like the fuckin admin of pravda.ru.
Maskhadov was a hero, the British government recognise him as one, the japanese government recognise him as one, and so do countless other states.
Your comment about Maskhadov being responsible for chechen troops invading dagistan was bullshit, like russia in past times, the political establishment and the millitary were seperated.
When Maskhadov was ELECTED he put shamil basayaev in charge of millitary affairs to stop an upprising of extreme islamic parties, and in doing this wahabi's who fought in the previous war were brought into the millitary.
Shamil Basayaev and Khattab led an attack on neighboring dagistan, without the consent of maskhadov and his party.
Another bullshit point you made was Maskhadov's soldiers being the same as the guerilla's in chechnya, Maskhadov's soldiers took prisoners were as the wahabi's would simply kill their enemies, which would normally happen with shamil's private army or rogue fighters, none the less even khattab took soldiers prisoner instead of killing them. The guerilla's fought a Jihad, Maskhadov tryed to seperate his forces away from Jihad, he was a muslim yes but he wasnt fighting a holywar as many ruskies say, he was fighting for the freedom for his homeland.
The fact is oil is more important than human life in the caucus, chechnya provides russia with its biggest oil revenues and without it, russia is limited to simple petroleum products.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Maskhadov (Anonymous) 2005-07-15 02:34 am UTC (link)
	I agree with you. Maskhadov will always be my hero because he stood up for his country and was willing to negotiate with the bad guys to end his people's suffering. Rest in peace Maskhadov! (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…