"If you want to love Allah – love justice. Wish your neighbour what you wish yourself."
"A war is preposterous. Distance yourselves from anything reminiscent of war, if the enemy has not come to take your faith and honour from you."
"Never respond to evil with evil, for it causes more evil. Any evil is against God. God alone has the power to punish the villains and pardon the benefactors."
"Don’t carry weapons. Stay away from them. Weapons remind you of violence and take you off your path to God."
"Defeat the evil man by your goodness and love."
"Defeat the greedy with your generosity."
"Defeat the treacherous with your sincerity."
"Defeat the infidel with your fidelity."
Yes, these words were said by a highly respected Chechen Muslim leader. More information about him and his teachings in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji
http://web.archive.org/web/20071022061919/http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php?lng=eng§ion=societyeng&row=14
http://web.archive.org/web/20060508225405/http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php?lng=eng§ion=islameng&row=1
http://lechailyasov-eng.com/?p=68
In 1951, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), being an officer of Russian army, was sent to Chechnya where he stayed three years, until 1954. At that time, Kunta-Hajji's teaching gained popularity in Chechnya. Tolstoy had Chechen friends and attended Sufi meetings with them. He communicated with Kunta-Hajji. Kunta-Hajji's views deeply influenced Lev Tolstoy and his works. He accepted Kunta-Hajji ideas of nonviolence, but he did not become a Muslim, although he was very positive to Islam for the rest of his life. For example, in 1909, in his personal letter to a woman whose husband was a Muslim and whose sons considered accepting Islam, he wrote that it is better to accept Islam than to belong to Russian Orthodox Church.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was influenced by Lev Tolstoy's ideas of nonviolence. They knew one another and had a correspondence: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tolstoy/lettertogandhi.html
Mahatma Gandhi's ideas became well-known in the world. Martin Luther King and many others adopted them.
Thus, Kunta-Hajji ideas of nonviolence influenced Lev Tolstoy, and he in turn influenced Mahatma Gandhi. So, Mahatma Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence have a Chechen origin. They come from Chechen Sufi shaikh Kunta-Hajji Kishiev.
Contrary to any logic, Kunta-Hajji who encouraged Chechens to stop the war with Russia, was arrested by Russian authorities in 1864 and was imprisoned until his death in 1867. His teaching was banned, and his followers were persecuted.
60 comments:
Салам
Peace be upon you,
I see that your post dates back to late April,that's about the same time the whole Boston marathon bombing was being circulated and the suspects were(and still are )under great discussion, both the suspects- brothers, as i'm sure you've heard were of Chechen ethnicity, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I was wondering as being a Chechen yourself, what are your opinions on the two brothers.
Баркалла
Ва Iалайкум ассалам!
Well, I am still not sure that these brothers were guilty and were not framed.
This situation reminded me of the situation before the second war in Chechnya in 1999 as described in the book Blowing Up Russia by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky (Litvinenko was a KGB/FSB officer who can be compared to Snowden). At that time, Chechens were accused of bombing apartment houses in Moscow and it was used as an excuse for Russian government to start the war in Chechnya, although, as the authors of the book indicate, Chechens had nothing to do with those bombings.
The massive Chechenophobia and Caucasophobia in Western media that followed the Boston marathon bombing was not a good sign.
Although Anders Breivik is a Norwegian, no one has ever tried to say that all the Norwegians are terrorists. And somehow Western media completely forgot that two Chechen teenagers, Movsar Dzhamayev and Rustam Daudov, were on Utoya Island, tried to stop Breivik, and saved 23 people.
I am still not convinced that the Tsarnaev brothers have anything to do with the Boston marathon bombing. Their only "fault" might be that they are Chechens.
US legal system is not always just and fair as can be seen in cases of Manning and Snowden. And I do not think it was a good thing that even Obama called these brothers "terrorists" before any court verdict.
Алейкум ассалам
Thank you for your response,I agree with you on the fact that there is not enough information proving the brothers guilty of perpetrating such a crime, personally though i believe them to be innocent.I have seen too much, heard too much to turn a blind eye to their innocence.
I respect your view, "i dont think it was a good thing that even Obama called these brothers "terrorists" before any court verdict." Exactly that was a breach on his human right as well as constitutional law
of 'Innocent Till Proven Guilty'worse still is the fact that on the 30th Oct the Attorney General Holder is going to decide whether Dzhokhar should be given the Death penalty which i think is a decision too big to decide so early on in his trial. Anyway i'm glad of your response.
if it's all right with you would you mind if i used part of your comment above in a dossier i would like to make for this case, as in peoples point of view and son on?any conditions?
Barkalla
Алейкум ассалам
Thank you for your response,I agree with you on the fact that there is not enough information proving the brothers guilty of perpetrating such a crime, personally though i believe them to be innocent.I have seen too much, heard too much to turn a blind eye to their innocence.
I respect your view, "i dont think it was a good thing that even Obama called these brothers "terrorists" before any court verdict." Exactly that was a breach on his human right as well as constitutional law
of 'Innocent Till Proven Guilty'worse still is the fact that on the 30th Oct the Attorney General Holder is going to decide whether Dzhokhar should be given the Death penalty which i think is a decision too big to decide so early on in his trial. Anyway i'm glad of your response.
if it's all right with you would you mind if i used part of your comment above in a dossier i would like to make for this case, as in peoples point of view and son on?any conditions?
Barkalla
Ва алайкум ассалам!
Yes, sure you can use my comment. No special conditions.
Salem aleikum,
Thank you, i'll be sure to add your web URL
Do you know how Islam spread to Chechnya and the Caucasus? through which Ashaab and companinans of the prophet? and through which means, like Khalid ibn Waleed and his troops or through diplomacy?
Thank you
I am only now seeing the discussion under this post. When I first read the post, I guessed that it was a reaction to the Boston marathon bombing.
My opinion and that of people around me is that the brothers were most likely guilty and they were motivated by radical Islam, rather than by their Chechen origin. Unfortunately, many similar acts of terror have happened, and more can be expected. In July 2012, there was a bombing in my country, in the city of Burgas; the suspects, like the Tsarnaev brothers, were radical Islamists coming from Western countries.
I am glad that I learned about the two young Chechen heroes in Norway. So nice that they survived! Possibly you could write a post about them.
I see that other commenters write their greetings in Cyrillic alphabet. How do Chechens feel about this alphabet?
Maya, sorry I just saw your comments.
Regarding Chechen alphabet, besides Cyrillic alphabet, there are other Chechen alphabets: Arabic alphabet (used before 1925) and several Latin alphabets: one of them was used from 1925 to 1938, another one in 1990s, and there is also an alphabet used by some Western linguists, for example, Johanna Nichols, but it is practically not used by Chechens. (In another post, I gave an example of the same text written in Cyrillic and in two Latin alphabets.)
All of these alphabets have their advantages and disadvantages. The Chechen language has more sounds (both consonants and vowels) than Cyrillic, Latin, and Arabic alphabets. There are two ways to write these additional sounds: either to use digraphs or to use diacritics. Current Cyrillic alphabet for Chechen uses digraphs and one additional letter, while Arabic and two Latin alphabets (of 1925 and 1990s) used diacritics and digraphs. Johanna Nichols' alphabet uses digraphs without any additional letters.
In addition, in the current alphabet, one letter may be used for more than one sound, and sometimes it leads to confusion because sometimes different words that are pronounced differently are spelled in the same way.
So, this alphabet is not very convenient, and many Chechens believe that it should be changed. There have been many discussions on how it can be done, but there is no decision made that would suit everyone.
Regarding the Tsarnaev brothers, I am still not sure that they are guilty. There is a tendency in Russia to blame Chechens (or, at least, someone from the North Caucasus) for any act of terrorism or murder.
Just the most recent example. On February 27, Boris Nemtsov, one of famous Russian oppositionists, was killed in Moscow. FSB just announced that they arrested three persons who carried out that murder. All of them are Chechens.
Why should Chechens kill Nemtsov? I do not know. I do not see any reason why they should do that. But there is a general tendency to "find" terrorists and killers among Chechens.
FSB was allowed to collaborate in investigation of the Boston bombing. So, no wonder that, again, Chechens were blamed for that.
It seems that in spite of all the disagreements between US and Russian authorities, Chechenophobia (and Caucasophobia in general) is one of the very few things that they still agree about.
Well, the Chechens who had been arrested on charges of Nemtsov's murder, were visited by human rights activists (they often visited arrestees in Russia) and told them that they had been tortured and their rights had been violated. After that, I think not many people believe that they are guilty.
As for the Tsarnaev brothers, their rights also were violated. Tamerlan was killed, Dzhokhar seriously wounded. Obama called them "terrorists" right away, before any further investigation and before they were convicted. This is a serious violation. Even Putin did not do this. Then, I have never heard about human rights activists visiting Dzhokhar. It seems that they visit arrestees only in Russia, but not in the USA. As far as I understand, he was completely isolated, at least, for a while and he did not have any possibility to report about tortures (if he was tortured). Well, thinking about that, I do not have any assurance that he is guilty.
BTW, there have been protests in the USA because of police killing some black people who did not commit serious crimes or were not guilty at all. If US police kills someone, it does not necessary mean that that person is guilty. But police will insist that they are, of course. Tamerlan being killed does not prove that he was guilty. But police, FBI, etc. will not admit that they killed an innocent person. And the same is true in the case of Todashev.
I am glad that you are here again!
About the alphabet: Despite what some Russians say, the Cyrillic alphabet was created in my country, so we are naturally attached to it. This said, it is very problematic today. If people in the 9th century knew how events would develop, they would surely adopt the Latin alphabet right away. When using computers, we have never-ending compatibility problems. And of course, the script differences make it more difficult for Bulgarian children to learn English and other Western languages.
We'll stick to the Cyrillic alphabet because it is part of our identity and we have centuries-long literary history in this script. However, none of this is true for non-Slavic nations currently included in the Russian Federation, so I think it would be better to use Latin.
I also think that, because of compatibility issues, the less diacritics, the better (digraphs are OK).
Todashev may well have been innocent, or at least his shooting may have been unjustified (though I cannot see any coherent motivation for the FBI to deliberately shoot him, unless he had worked for them).
From what sources say, Tsarnaev brothers seem (to me) to have done the bombing. Even Dzhokhar's lawyer doesn't try to deny it. I don't think he was tortured after his capture, because he was injured and could hardly endure it. However, they didn't inform him of his right to stay silent and didn't give him a lawyer.
I'd disagree about the police killings of black Americans. Some are innocent of course, but most commit "suicide by cop". E.g. Michael Brown who was kept in the headlines throughout the second half of 2014, when I preferred to read news about Ukraine and Russia. I've written about him here:
http://mayas-corner.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-case-of-michael-brown.html
Recently, Ahmed Al-Jumaili, an Iraqi immigrated to the USA 3 weeks before, was shot dead while watching and photographing the first snow in his life. A black teen is suspected to have killed him, allegedly mistaking him for a previous shooter. It turns out that Mr. Al-Jumaili has been safer in the vicinity of ISIS.
About the Chechen men who allegedly killed Nemtsov - I admit I haven't even opened the news reports about them, because it is difficult for me to take this seriously.
To me, the only one who may have had a part (though it is also highly unlikely) is the one who died in an explosion. I mean, if you are involved in such a thing, it is unthinkable that they will capture you alive.
You may say that, alive or not, a Chechen would not do this. It would be surprising indeed, but isn't it surprising also that some Dagestani named Islam Alibaterov would volunteer to fight for the rebels in Ukraine?
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-rebels-fill-hospital-clashes-flare-around-mariupol-193156428.html
I mean, some young people become very modernized (to put it mildly), abandon the values of their traditional culture without accepting the values of any other, and you can find them taking risks for the most unexpected causes. E.g. the current official leadership of Chechnya, though they claim to stick to traditional Muslim values, seem very modernized to me. I don't want to express my idea too directly, but I think you get it.
Well, it is true that the old Cyrillic alphabet was invented not by Russians. Strictly speaking, there were no Russians at that time. There were Eastern Slavs who later divided into Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians.
As far as I know, linguists still debate which alphabet was invented by Cyril and Methodius - old Cyrillic or Glagolitic. But, in any case, both alphabets were invented in the Balkans for the Old Slavonic language, which was South Slavic language.
But the old Cyrillic alphabet looked quite differently from the modern Cyrillic alphabet. I do not know the history of how the old Cyrillic was transformed into the new Cyrillic in the Balkans.
In Russia, mostly, it was done at the time of Peter the Great in the beginning of the 18th century, and he made a decree about the reform of the alphabet used in Russia.
The latest changes in the alphabet were done after the revolution of 1917 when four letters were removed from the alphabet: I, Yat, Fita, and Izhitsa. All these letters were from the old Cyrillic, and, as far as I know, only "I" still exists in some Slavic alphabets (Ukrainian, Belorussian).
Although several Slavic languages use very similar Cyrillic alphabets, there are some differences. For example, Ukrainian and Belorussian alphabets have some letters that are absent in Russian alphabet and some are pronounced in a different way than in Russian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cyrillic_letters.
As far as I understand, the Bulgarian alphabet also has some differences from the Russian alphabet: 1) it does not have letters "ё", "ы", "э"; 2) letters "щ" and "ъ" are pronounced differently: in Russian, "щ" is very soft "sh" but in Bulgarian, it is "sht", in Russian, "ъ" is not pronounced at all, it is used to separate a vowel from a previous consonant, but in Bulgarian, it is pronounced as a vowel, which is absent in Russian.
The Cyrillic Chechen alphabet includes all the letters from the Russian alphabet which are pronounced more or less like in Russian. It has one additional letter - so called Palochka, which looks like "I" and was invented specially for the North Caucasian alphabets. There are also 15 digraphs, which are often considered as 15 additional letters. So, the modern Chechen alphabet contains the whole Russian variant of the Cyrillic alphabet plus one additional letter and 15 digraphs.
Well, in 1920s, Chechen and many other non-Russian languages of the former USSR received Latin alphabets (many of them - instead of the Arabic alphabets that they had before), which were changed into Cyrillic alphabet in 1930s.
The reasons for these changes from Arabic to Latin and then to Cyrillic were political. Communists decided to substitute Arabic alphabets for these languages because the Arabic language was associated with Islam, and these peoples who spoke those languages were Muslims. They wanted to get rid of the Arabic alphabets because they wanted to get rid of Islam and Arabic influence.
Now, why did they change them into Latin alphabets, not into Cyrillic ones? It is because in 1919-1930, there was very popular an idea to transfer Russian into Latin alphabet. Russian linguists worked on the project of Russian Latin alphabet, but eventually Stalin rejected that idea. After that, those languages that had Latin alphabets were transferred into Cyrillic alphabets.
By the way, the reason why Soviet communists wanted to transfer Russian into Latin alphabet was because they planned "the world revolution" and they, of course, realized that Latin alphabet is much more wide-spread in the world.
Why did Stalin reject this project? Well, there may be various reasons. Here is just my hypothesis. Stalin was Georgian, and Georgians use their own, very special alphabet. It is possible that he realized that after Russian has been transferred into Latin alphabet, there would be an idea to transfer Georgian into Latin alphabet too, and I guess he did not want it. But it is just a hypothesis. Anyway, it seems that it is mainly due to Stalin's decision that Russian and most other languages of Russia have Cyrillic alphabets. However, modern Russians do not want Latin alphabet due to their historical heritage, just like Bulgarians.
As for the Chechen alphabet, the problem is that the Chechen language has a lot of sounds (as well as other North Caucasian languages), much more than European languages that use Latin alphabet. Probably, English is one of the few languages that does not use diacritics (excepts some borrowed words). In English, there are very few digraphs, such as "sh" and "ch" and many letters are used for more than one sound. English spelling is too complicated, and so it can not be a pattern for any new Latin alphabets. Other European languages use diacritics, and it makes compatibility problems.
In creating a Latin alphabet for Chechen, it is even more a problem. It is very hard to avoid diacritics because Chechen has much more sounds than letters of standard Latin alphabet. Here you can see Chechen alphabets that were used. Several other Latin alphabets have been proposed, and most of them use diacritics. I know only one variant of Chechen Latin alphabet that does not use diacritics, but that alphabet is quite complicated.
Besides Latin alphabet, there have been other ideas for Chechen alphabet. Some proposed to use Georgian or Armenian alphabets because they have more letters and they have special letters for some of the Chechen sounds that neither Latin nor Cyrillic have. But Georgian and Armenian alphabets are used only by Georgians and Armenians respectively and the usage of those alphabets is quite problematic also.
As for the Boston bombing, one of the possibilities is that FSB was involved in it and they framed the Tsarnaev brothers. And, BTW, FSB was officially allowed by US officials to participate in the investigation. There are many similarities between the Boston bombing and cases of bombings in Russia that were described in the book Blowing Up Russia by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky (I gave a link for downloading that book in one of the comments above). They stated that those blows allegedly done by Chechen terrorists, were actually done by FSB. And they sound quite convincing, actually. I believe that it may be a case in the Boston bombing as well. Why not?
Well, I heard not only about black people killed by US police, but also about white people. But Americans, especially, black Americans are very sensitive to anything that reminds of racism. So, cases when black people are killed by police attract much more public attention.
BTW, such cases take place not only in the USA, of course. It is quite possible that the Chechen who allegedly killed himself, was actually killed. At least, this is what another person (who was taken alive) implied. He said that when he was being arrested, there was his friend with him. The police officers threatened to kill his friend and this way they forced him to say that he had killed Nemtsov. BTW, that friend disappeared after that. No one knows where he is and whether he is alive or not.
I heard about Chechens fighting in the Ukraine on both sides and also about Ukrainians who fought in Chechnya - for the independence. I even heard about Chechens fighting for the Islamic state. But I do not think it is related to the murder of Nemtsov.
Well, the official version is that Nemtsov spoke negative things about Islam and Chechens and this is why Chechens decided to kill him. The thing is that there are Russian politicians who speak much more negatively about Islam and Chechens. Then, why did Chechens killed Nemtsov and not someone else? Then, soon after the murder, it was reported that the killer shot six times and only four bullets reached Nemtsov, even though he was very near him. This indicates that the killer was not skillful in shooting (or pretended to be so). Also, it was reported that those bullets were made a long time ago (as far as I remember, in the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s) and by different factories. So, this made an impression that the killer had problems with access to the armor. However, the person who is now declared to be the killer served in police 11 years. Of course, he must be skillful in shooting and he could use much newer bullets. So, this does not look convincing to me at all.
Your linguistic comments are very interesting. Why don't you write a full-right post based on them?
Our "ъ" may be a remnant of the Bulgar founders of our state, who spoke a (now extinct) Turcik language. The Russians of course don't know what to do with this letter because they don't have the respective vowel. Or rather, they don't recognize it; for it appears anyway whenever you try to pronounce a difficult group of consonants, such as between the "d" and "r" in "Alexandr".
The problematic richness of sounds in Chechen language impressed me and even reminded me of the genetic code, which is triplet, i.e. encoding is based on combinations of three symbols.
I didn't even consider the possibility of using rare alphabets (such as Armenian or Georgian) or reverting to Arabic alphabet. Ataturk abandoned the latter, and I think for good reason. All countries using Arabic are countries that people cannot flee fast enough. Of course the language and script are not to blame, but they are associated with a culture that is to blame. Generally, the same is true for countries that use the Cyrillic script :-).
So - Latin is the truth! I wonder why (as far as I see) no one adaptation of Latin script for Chechen uses "zh" for "ж". It enjoys very wide acceptance.
In theory, FSB could be behind the Boston bombing, but I find it unlikely, because:
- I don't see motivation: if the USA had supported the Chechen independence fighters before, or had been strongly anti-Russian, the aim of the bombing could be to reverse this situation. But the attitude of the USA to the Chechen problem had been very Realpolitik since 2001 (and even before that), and Pres. Obama was quite pro-Russian - he was speaking of "reset" with Russia.
- I don't know of other cases when FSB has tried to frame people when doing operations abroad (in contrast to those inside Russia).
- The change of Katherine Russell after her marriage shows that Tamerlan was a fundamentalist able to brainwash younger, weak-spirited people to the same direction (Dzhokhar's line of defense seems to be, "My big brother made me do it").
- The brothers' uncle immediately believed they were the bombers. When people knowing you think you may have done it, I find this damning.
I also meant that the suspect who died in a grenade explosion was killed (rather than killed himself).
I've just read a little about the current version - that Mr. Nemtsov was allegedly killed by devout Muslims because he condemned the Charlie Hebdo massacre. My jaw dropped. Why didn't they stick to the initial version of a "love triangle" involving Mr. Nemtsov's girlfriend? It made so much more sense! My (pre-teen) sons could almost believe it!
Besides, the main suspect (Zaur Dadaev) is one of those whom I called "modernized". Such people, no matter how they present themselves, are invariably atheists. Their lives are free of supreme principles, loyalties and inhibitions (so much about the "devout Muslim avenging the Prophet"). The bad thing is that, for the same reason, those for whom such a person is working may decide at any time to push him under the bus if his services are no longer needed - as seems to have happened in this case. So I think that Mr. Dadaev, while guilty of many things, is definitely innocent with regard to Mr. Nemtsov's murder. He could very well do it if ordered or paid, but in this case he would not be breathing and talking now.
Well, it is believed that "ъ" and "ь" come from old Slavonic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer. They were originally used for very short vowels. As far as I understand, later, all the Slavic languages lost these sounds: depending on their position in the word, they either were lengthened or dropped. Russian and Belorussian alphabets have another letter "ы" which is also believed to come from old Slavonic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yery where it denoted a combination of "ъ" and "i".
After all the sounds disappeared, Slavic languages began to use these three letters for other purposes. Thus, "ь" indicates that the previous consonant is soft, and "ы" is used for a vowel, which, as many people believe, also comes from Turkic languages.
But Bulgarian "ъ" and Russian "ы" are not the same.
Regarding different alphabets (Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc.), of course, they influence contacts with other languages, but I do not think that the choice of the alphabet seriously affects the country development.
For example, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese originally used the same set of characters. Chinese in China simplified them. Chinese in Taiwan retained the original ones. Japanese limited their number and introduced other systems of writing. Koreans developed a syllabic script of their own. Vietnamese transferred to Latin scrips. Who of them is more advanced?
Another example: Hebrew uses their own alphabet, but does it somehow influences Israel development?
Here are my short replies to your points:
"- I don't see motivation: if the USA had supported the Chechen independence fighters before, or had been strongly anti-Russian, the aim of the bombing could be to reverse this situation. But the attitude of the USA to the Chechen problem had been very Realpolitik since 2001 (and even before that), and Pres. Obama was quite pro-Russian - he was speaking of "reset" with Russia."
Litvinenko and Feldshtinsky stated that the bombings in Russia were used in order to justify the beginning of the two wars in Chechnya, which were both initiated by Russia. Would the US politicians approve a new war in Chechnya or in the whole North Caucasus? What about their attitude before and after the Boston bombing? If they are convinced that Chechens are terrorists, it is much easier to justify the new war, presenting it as "counter-terrorist operation."
"- I don't know of other cases when FSB has tried to frame people when doing operations abroad (in contrast to those inside Russia)."
The most famous case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 (KGB and FSB is the same organization).
"- The change of Katherine Russell after her marriage shows that Tamerlan was a fundamentalist able to brainwash younger, weak-spirited people to the same direction (Dzhokhar's line of defense seems to be, "My big brother made me do it")."
It may be just his line of defense. It was not necessary so. If Americans do not want to believe in the brothers' innocense, it may be Dzhokhar's attempt to defend himself. BTW, if he is really weak-spirited, it must be not so hard for FBI to brainwash him also - without any tortures. Though they actually can do that with anyone, not only weak-spirited people.
"- The brothers' uncle immediately believed they were the bombers. When people knowing you think you may have done it, I find this damning."
It seems that he was the only one of their relatives who believed it. And, BTW, there is something interesting about him: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-boston-bombings-and-the-cia-connection-graham-fuller-and-uncle-ruslan-tsarnaev/5335416.
Regarding Nemtsov's girlfriends, it would be an interesting theory. Especially, because besides the Ukrainian girlfriend he also had another one. She is from the North Caucasus, but not Chechen. At the same time, he had a family, but he was not officially married to the woman he lived with. So, he actually had three girlfriends at the same time.
I am not sure that Zaur Dadaev is an atheist. Islam is an important part of Chechen national identity. And it is one of the points of differences from Chechens and Russians. Most Russians belong to Russian Orthodox Church (or at least, claim so), and, as far as I understand, this church is not much different from Bulgarian Orthodox Church, at least, in their doctrines and practices. There are not so many atheists in the former USSR because atheism has communist connotations.
BTW, even Nemtsov was not an atheist. At least, nominally, he belonged to Russian Orthodox Church. But actually, he had an interesting ethnicity. His mother (she is still alive) is a Jew, and his fraternal grandfather was a Jew also. But his fraternal grandmother was Russian and she had him baptized in Russian Orthodox Church.
There are different Muslims in the same way as different Christians and so on. For example, there are ethnic Muslims, that is, nominal ones. But those who consider themselves real Muslims are not the same too. Zaur Dadaev can not be a Wahhabi. This is for sure. If he is a Muslim, he is probably a Sufi and possibly a follower of Kunta-Hajji, and those who are his real followers will not kill people for negative words about Islam.
I just read an interview with a man who served together with Zaur Dadaev. He does not believe that Zaur was the killer because of the same reasons that I mentioned: 1) he is able to shoot very well; 2) he had access to much newer armor.
I am not a linguist, but I find it very difficult to study the sound "ъ" (I mean the vowel in "but") in old non-Bulgarian Slavic languages. Because the Glagolic and Cyrillic alphabet were originally created for the old Bulgarian language (which is now "sold" to the international audience under the politically correct label "Old Church Slavonic") and then spread to other Slavic nations. I find the studies on "ъ" evolution akin to the attempts of classicists to sketch pre-Homeric versions of myths, provided that the earliest surviving written works in Greek are those of Homer.
I suspect that some Slavic linguists feel uneasy about the material evidence for the contribution of Bulgarians, and even more with that of their Bulgar ancestors, those suspect Turcik-speaking Asian Barbarians with their "ъ".
There is something curious about this vowel. There is no letter for it in either Greek or Latin alphabet. Which, to me, strongly suggests that it was originally absent in Indo-European languages. The English must have discovered it independently, because it is absent in both German and French, the languages that made English.
About Operation Storm-333 - I didn't understand from the Wikipedia article, whom did KGB try to portray as responsible for it?
You ask, "Would the US politicians approve a new war in Chechnya or in the whole North Caucasus? What about their attitude before and after the Boston bombing?"
Before the bombing, there were the activities of Shamil Basayev, so I don't think any significant change in attitude occurred or was expected to occur after the bombing. Besides, Russia didn't need the USA to approve its actions, just not to intervene. And they were guaranteed not to intervene anyway. Take Ukraine - same as Hungary 1956. The Americans promised some support for Ukraine in 1994. Yet you see that they now give Ukraine no support and have imposed on it an arms embargo while selling arms to everyone else. And no Ukrainian has ever been accused in blowing up anything in the USA!
I actually knew that Boris Nemtsov was of partly Jewish origin, but your comment made me think again of it.
It is widely believed that Yeltsin was hesitating whom to pick as his successor, Putin on Nemtsov. Was Nemtsov's Jewish origin that made the balance eventually swing to Putin? Did the same factor prevent Russian citizens from giving him any significant support?
Anti-Semitism seems to be one of the highways to Hell.
Atheists are often shy to come out, even in European countries that have never suffered Communism.
My close circle includes only one believer. There are a number of others who claim to be Christians. I once asked some of them, "Do you accept Jesus as your Savior?" As I expected, their gaze lost focus and they didn't know what to answer. That's European Christianity, 21st century.
During our independence struggle (19th century), many Bulgarians cherished their nominal religion as a national identifier. They called Christianity "the Bulgarian faith", contrasting it to "the Turkish faith" (i.e. Islam). However, even then, there were some outspoken atheists. One of them wrote, "They (the clergy) tell you that, in order to be happy when you no longer exist, you must live like a slave, work like a machine and let them take away from you the fruits of your labor."
I think the current situation in Chechnya may be somewhat similar, though reversed, and I guess less tolerant to atheism. If it is condemned by both authorities and ordinary people in Chechnya, I don't see any way to find out how many actually believe. The freethinkers simply won't come out.
Why I think Zaur Dadaev is one of them: he served in an "anti-terrorism" unit, got awards. To me, this is a behavior of a person for whom "there is no God, hence everything is allowed".
Well, the letter "u" in English "but" indicates a sound different from Bulgarian "ъ", though it may be pronounced in different ways depending on the stress. This chart might be helpful.
The same sound as Bulgarian "ъ" is pronounced in some British dialects, but the standard pronunciation is somewhat different.
The Bulgarian sound is indeed quite rare, but the English sounds are quite common in many languages.
Maybe, the Wiki article is not very clear about Storm-333. The KGB people who stormed Amin's palace were from so called "Muslim battalion." They were natives of the Central Asia (a part of the USSR at that time) and dressed into Afghan military uniform. This was done in order to make everyone think that Amin was killed by Afghan army.
I do not really understand your thought about Shamil Basaev, the Ukraine and the Boston bombing. I do not see any connection between these three. As for Shamil Basaev, have you heard that he was an officer of GRU (Russian intelligence service)?
I never heard that Yeltsin was considering about picking Nemtsov as his successor. Probably, he did hesitate whom to pick, but I am not sure he considered Nemtsov. According to the Russian Constitution, there is no Vice-President in Russia, and in the case when President resigns or is unable to carry out his duties, the person who becomes the acting President (until the new Presidential election) is Prime Minister. Prime Minister is appointed by President. In 1999, before his resignation, Yeltsin changed several Prime Ministers (Putin was the last one). This indicates that he probably did have some hesitations. But Nemtsov was never appointed by him as Prime Minister.
Yes, I know that Basaev worked for the Russian secret services and presumably learned some things there. I wonder when he stopped working for them, if he ever did.
I meant, when it was reported that two brothers of Chechen origin were suspected for the Boston bombing, commenters immediately reminded of the Moscow theater and Beslan hostage crises and other terror acts organized by, or at least attributed to, Shamil Basaev. If all these events had not happened, the Boston bombing could indeed be a PR disaster for Chechnya; but in their context, I think it had little if any importance as a "compromat". If it was such (which I don't believe), it was useless.
Would Chechnya have received more support from the USA if there was no perception of Chechen terrorism? I don't think so, and to illustrate why, I brought the example of Ukraine (and of Hungary of 1956).
Achieving widespread literacy requires a functional script. It is difficult to imagine that the early imperfect scripts that lacked vowel designations, interval between words etc. could allow widespread and advanced literary culture. Actually, some scholars think early scripts were deliberately made complex and imperfect so that to keep the distinction between literate and illiterate people, i.e. masters and serfs (or haves and have-nots).
In modern China, the whole-word script is used as a fig leaf to hide its imperial nature. Because a single symbol designates an entire word, absolutely different languages can be written the same way (provided that the word order is compatible). Then, the Han Chinese authorities can say, "See our writing, we are one nation! Eh well, we have some dialect differences - but who hasn't?"
Otherwise, I generally agree with your opinion that the choice of script does not direct the country's development, BUT...
...But once an alphabet has been selected and a literary culture has grown, it starts a life of its own, and it influences other cultures that interact with it. Hence, by choosing an alphabet, you can place your culture closer or at a distance from another culture.
E.g. Ataturk imposed the Latin alphabet because he wanted to bring the Turks closer to the West and further from the Arabic culture. He wanted fewer interpreters of the Quran and the Hadiths and more teachers, doctors and engineers.
By now, Ataturk's endeavor seems to have failed, and we could say that the alphabet is unimportant after all. However, Erdogan now intends to introduce in schools mandatory teaching of Ottoman Turkish, i.e. with Arabic alphabet. So he thinks the alphabet is important.
Also, quoting from Omniglot: "...After the defeat of the secessionist government, the Cyrillic alphabet was restored." I suppose that the idea of the Russians was to bring the Chechens closer to the Russian culture and/or to isolate them from Western culture. The former goal is hardly realistic, but the latter one may have been achieved.
Well, I do not really understand what you mean when you say that the USA do not support the Ukraine. Do you mean that the USA should begin a war with Russia? I think Obama realizes that the result will be the World War III. In addition, Russia has enough nuclear armor to completely destroy the USA. Of course, the USA also have enough nuclear armor to completely destroy Russia. In any case, the open war between the USA and Russia will not bring good results to anyone.
As for political support of the Ukraine, I think the USA did quite a lot. Do you remember the war between Russia and Georgia in South Ossetia in August 2008? At that time, George Bush Jr. (who is considered to be not very pro-Russian) was US President, and Medvedev was Russian President. What did the USA do? Not so much. Just some threats, nothing more. Then, Obama became US President and did the "reset" with Medvedev. And he still speaks how good Medvedev was comparing to Putin. With the Ukraine, it is completely different: sanctions, isolation of Russia, Obama saying of Russia as one of the biggest threats in the world (as well as the Islamic State), and so on. And, BTW, do you remember that Obama admitted that the USA helped Ukrainians to oust Yanukovich, and some of the US politicians, for example, McCain personally visited Maidan during the anti-Yanukovich protests to support the protesters? So, I have to disagree with your statement that the USA does not support the Ukraine.
"Obama admitted that the USA helped Ukrainians to oust Yanukovich..."
Have you any source for this?
I deliberately didn't mention Georgia. Different people put forward different theories about who is to blame more and who less, so for a person with little knowledge of the situation (like me) it is difficult to judge, let alone to argue. Some Russian sources side 100% with the Georgians. I copied one of them to my blog:
http://mayas-corner.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-light-on-russian-aggression.html
However, Georgians have a reputation among some of their minorities and neighbors to be too nationalistic; so, if someone claims that they brought it on themselves, like the Serbs in the 1990s, it would be difficult for me to object.
Anyway, Ukraine is a much more serious case than Georgia, first, because of the Budapest memorandum, and second, because it comes AFTER Georgia, repeat offense (like Hitler attacking Poland after Czechoslovakia). If the USA had supported Georgia and had forced Russia to pay a heavy price for the intervention, Ukraine would not have been attacked.
I disagree with you that Putin would make World War III. He is not Bin Laden. There is nothing suicidal in his psychology. He is bluffing, and, unfortunately, his bluffs are successful, because the West caves in. (Read: the USA. The Europeans are a joke, they couldn't cope with a Milosevic, and are now trying to appease Putin, hoping maybe that he'll attack them last. The EU doesn't even have its own armed forces.)
But let's say, no (direct) war. The USA could give Ukraine money (the country is broke), gas and arms. Also, they could block all Russian transactions in US dollars. This is not done, and I see no intention to do it. Ukraine is forced to negotiate with the UAE to buy arms.
OK, here is Obama's interview to CNN on the Ukraine: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/.
Below the video, there is full transcript where you can find the following phrase: "And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine..."
What do his words "Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine" mean if not his admission that the USA was involved in the change of the government in the Ukraine?
Yes, there are different theories about what really happened in Georgia. In the same way, there are different theories about what is happening in the Ukraine.
During the war in the Ukraine, US media and Russian media gave completely different pictures, as if they were speaking about two different wars. Later, it was found out that US journalists were unable to go to South Ossetia and they could see only what was going in Georgia and could get information only from Georgians. Russian journalists were unable to go to Georgia and they could see only what was going in South Ossetia and could get information only from Ossetians and Russians. This is why they gave two different pictures.
The things is that the situation over the Ukraine is the same. US and Western media give one picture. Russian media give a completely different picture. I read both sides and I do not believe that either side is true. I also know some Ukrainians who know about these two sides and who say that both are incorrect.
If you learn information about the situation in the Ukraine only from Western media, you have only one-sided view. As for me, I lost trust in Western media after their massive Chechenophobia and Caucasophobia after the Boston bombing. If they did their best present all Chechens and other Caucasians as terrorists and spread a lot of disinformation about Chechens, in the same way they can spread a lot of disinformation about the situation in the Ukraine. I do not believe them. I do not believe Russian media either. No one gives the correct information about the situation in the Ukraine.
Thank you for Obama's quote!
There are regular discussions about this man - whether he is an idiot, or working for the enemies, or (most likely) both.
Anyway, he is saying just that the USA helped to broker the deal about Yanukovich's resignation, not that the USA had any role in the Maidan events themselves. And I think he is lying even about this, claiming to have done a job actually done by others. (There were known European mediators in those negotiations, but no US mediator.)
You see, opposition US politician McCain went to "support" the Ukrainian protesters, actually to exploit them, to portray himself as a pro-democracy activist in the eyes of US voters. Nasty, but I can understand McCain to some degree, given the desperate situation in the USA.
Pres. Obama is unhappy that the opposition has hit scores and tries to up the ante, saying that the USA have brokered the final deal. He should be asked about the names and positions of the US representatives who allegedly did this (I doubt he can give any).
Now, let the Russian propagandists be happy with this present from Obama!
I think I have a good idea about the Euromaidan events, because we had similar protests in early 1997, deposing the elected pro-Russian Prime Minister Videnov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhan_Videnov
Happily, Russia was weak at that time. So 1997 started our development that led us to NATO and later to EU.
Everyone who is not an idiot knows that democracy, peace and prosperity can be reliably achieved and maintained only in a Westernized society. Of course many Bulgarians and Ukrainians and the majority of Russians are idiots. But those who are not, do not need Obama's employees to tell them that it is better to be well-to-do than poor, and to be free than to have a Big Brother watching over you.
So I support 100% the Maidan protesters. After all, it would be utmost hypocrisy for me - or for any Westerner - to say that other people, such as the Ukrainians, do not deserve what I have and cherish.
I understand the offense you are feeling about the portrayal of Chechen people in US media.
I can make a comparison with the comments after the atheist Craig Hicks killed 3 Muslim students in the USA. The next days, there was an avalanche of comments that atheists are monsters, this is exactly what you can expect from them, to grab the gun and shoot anyone they do not like, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are to blame etc. etc.
Those righteous Americans hardly knew that they were denouncing their own children. A recent poll showed that nearly a third of young Americans do not associate with any religion. In a free society, no matter how much public opinion demonizes the atheists, people cannot forever accept at face value the unsubstantiated claim that some millenia-old book full of factual errors and (to put it mildly) dubious ethical prescriptions is the word of God.
However, the fact remains that some atheists are nasty people able to do what Hicks did. I have nothing to do about this fact other than to admit it. I do not even state that this was an isolated incident unlikely to happen again, because I fear that more will follow.
In a similar way, the Islamist leanings of some Chechens are a fact. A few fight for ISIS (there is a commander nicknamed "the Chechen", who by the say seems at best half-Chechen). These days, an unnamed Chechen refugee in the Netherlands made headlines by fleeing to Syria with her young children, against their father's wish. You can have doubts about the Tsarnaev brothers, but can you deny every single case of this sort that is reported?
I know that, for the foreseeable future, Chechens must stick to Islam to maintain their identity, but this also means that a few of them will radicalize. It is like an early-era vaccine, efficient but with occasional terrible complications.
It is natural for the media to make sweeping generalizations. Unjust but this is how information flow works. I guess, nobody - including you - will be interested to read that most South Africans are free of AIDS, most Malaysia Airlines planes land safely, most Americans do not own a gun and do not want to, many Russians still oppose Putin etc. Because it is the unfortunate opposite situations that are of utmost practical importance and produce news.
Maybe Chechens should try to spread some balancing information of their own, as Arabs and Iranians do. E.g. I suspect very strongly that not all participants in the huge anti-Charlie rally in Grozny attended it voluntarily, because I know how such rallies are organized. However, I cannot find a single source in English confirming my hypothesis. There are many Chechen expatriates who could possibly say it without risking too much.
What about Victoria Nuland's speech at the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference?
Transcript: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU
Especially, pay attention to these words: "Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." I think they are especially significant in the whole context of her speech about US support of Maidan protesters.
But the situation around Maidan protests is quite complicated anyway.
In November 2004, there was Presidential election in the Ukraine with two main candidates - Yanukovych and Yushchenko. The election committee declared the results of the election: Yanukovych won. Then, Yushchenko supporters gathered at Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Square of Independence) and demanded re-election. Those protests (known as Orange Revolution) lasted two months and eventually they reached their goal. After the re-election, it was declared that Yushchenko won.
Then, in 2010, at the new Presidential election, Yanukovych won again. There were no protests at that time. The protests (Euromaidan) began in November 2013. Here is how the situation looked originally.
Yanukovych kept saying that the Ukraine should join EU, and he did have a number of negotiations with EU. But EU proposed only the economical treaty with the Ukraine, not the political one. In other words, they did not want to accept the Ukraine as a member of EU. They only wanted the Ukraine to remove or highly decrease (I am not sure now) the custom taxes for EU goods. This treaty was against the economical interests of the Ukraine because cheap EU goods would cause collapse of the Ukrainian industry and agriculture. I heard that some other countries signed such treaties with EU before and had those economical problems. So, this is why Yanukovych refused to sign the treaty and he explained his reasons.
But there were people who were unhappy about that, and they began Euromaidan protests. Their initial demand was only that Yanukovych would sign the treaty with EU. It was only later that they added new demands, such as change of the government.
The new Ukraine government did not sign the economical treaty with EU either, exactly due to the same reasons why Yanukovych did not sign it. And EU still does not want to accept the Ukraine as a member.
So, 1) If the Ukrainians are so much against Yanukovych, why did they elect him in 2004 and 2010? 2) Euromaidan protesters wanted integration with EU, but they did not gain it. What was the need to oust Yanokovych then?
And, finally, 3) Who got the benefit from Euromaidan and change of the Ukrainian government? I do not think that common Ukrainians got any benefit from it. So, qui bono? I think it is a very important question.
Of course, the influx of cheap goods following removal of trade barriers will cause bankruptcies of domestic producers of expensive, poor-quality goods. This is the transition to open market economy - blood, sweat and tears (the blood can be skipped, provided that you live at a safe distance from Russia).
In the long run, removal of trade barriers is good, even if it is unilateral:
http://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson
http://mises.org/library/economic-policy-thoughts-today-and-tomorrow
But it is actually not so much about economy...
"the blood can be skipped, provided that you live at a safe distance from Russia"
Not necessary. What about the former Yugoslavia? There were no Russians there, only NATO. Then, what about Iraq? Again, no Russians, only NATO.
As for the Ukraine, it is a diverse country. East Ukraine joined Russia in 1654. West Ukraine was included into the USSR only in 1939. Before that, its different parts were in Austria-Hungary, then in Poland, Romania, and Hungary. Dues to this historical background, East Ukrainians were pro-Russian and West Ukrainians were pro-European. They did not have one independent country until 1991. And they have had tensions between one another since that time. Ukrainian politicians did not do anything for the consolidation of different parts of the Ukrainian society. Ukrainians had pro-East and pro-West Presidents and governments and the other party was always unhappy. It is not just that evil Putin created a conflict and war in the Ukraine. Ukrainians had their own problems.
Yanukovych is East Ukrainian. He was born in Donetsk region. West Ukrainians were not very happy with the President from the East Ukraine. Euromaidan protesters were from West Ukraine. West Ukrainians wanted to join EU, but East Ukrainians did not want it. They had their own conflict between one another.
In Transnistria, it was something similar in the beginning of 1992. Moldavia wanted to join Romania, but people living in Transnistria (who are mostly ethnic Russians and Ukrainians) did not want to live in Romania. This was the reason for their breakaway, which caused a war. It was in 1992. Putin did not have any political power in Russia at that time. And I do not know how much he really has to do with the war in the Ukraine.
BTW, it is somewhat interesting to compare the situation in Crimea and Donbass. Both had declared independence from the Ukraine, both had referendums, and both asked to join Russia. But due to some reasons that I do not know, Russian government decided that Crimea should become a part of Russia but Donbass should not. What was the result? Whatever happened in Crimea, there was no war there. No one was killed, even though the situation there was even more complicated due to diverse population: ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and Crimean Tatars. And they did have conflicts with one another.
If Putin had wanted to annex Donbass in the same way as Crimea, why did not he have it done as in Crimea? He was not threatened by sanctions, this is for sure.
Actually, there are many cases when some parts of the country want to gain independence from their country and it leads to wars. Just some examples: former Yugoslavia and then Kosovo, Transmistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya. The war in Donbass fits into this pattern quite well.
It is about values and civilizational choice.
The elections of 2004 (when Yanukovich won) were said to have been rigged, and I believe it. Anyway, Ukrainian election results oscilate between pro-Western and pro-Russian, much like those in Bulgaria and other countries. So let's talk of the last elections and the Maidan.
Why did Yanukovich win in 2010? Why did our Videnov win in 2013? Because some citizens hesitate, some sane and good citizens abstain from voting, while the majority of stupid and selfish citizens do vote. This means, above all, elderly people, whose selfishness and short-sightedness is a chronic plague to all nations that have passed the demographic transition. (Any elderly reader: I know you are among the honorable exceptions.)
However, when it became clear that Yanukovich intended to keep Ukraine in the Russian orbit at all costs, the better part of citizenry decided that his government's "tyranny and inefficiency are great and unendurable" and started rioting. Should they have waited till the next elections? I don't think the elections are a 4- or 5-year contract for slavery!
Of course Ukraine will not be admitted in the EU any time soon. For Bulgaria, the waiting period took 10 years; and we had no war and no territorial disputes.
I wonder how you can think that Ukrainians haven't gained anything. Isn't severing ties with Russia the most important gain a neighboring country can make? Looking at today's Central and Eastern Europe, you see a stable correlation between anti-Russian uprisings before 1989 and good development after 1989. In fact, the correlation is as strong that some would suggest a causation. East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and Poland 1970 and onwards were, at the time, unsuccessful attempts to sever external ties with Russia; but I'd say that they were all victories over the inside Russia.
Ukraine is now losing Crimea, maybe other parts also. This reminds me of fictional and real stories of chained people and trapped beasts that break free by the only way possible, leaving behind a limb.
Well, what did Ukrainians gain from the new government? EU does not accept the Ukraine as some of them wanted. The Ukrainian economics is in crisis. The war in Donbass is going on. The Ukraine lost Crimea.
Did they gain democracy and freedom? Well, I am very sceptical about that. Unlike common opinion, being democratic does not equal being pro-Western (pro-American or pro-EU). This is a common misconception.
In fact, even Americans can not decide what it means to be democratic. In the USA, there are two leading political parties: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans present themselves as conservatives, and Democrats present themselves as liberals and democrats. Republicans support what they call traditional values (including so called Christian values) and they also support liberal economy. Their electorate includes many conservative Christians. Democrats support what they call progress and they also support governmental social programs and state regulation of economy. Most atheists vote for them.
So, as I have written, Americans consider Democrats to be more democratic than Republicans, though Democrats have a tendency to toward being social-democratic.
In many other countries, especially, post-Soviet countries (including Russia), it is very different. People who are considered to be democratic and liberal have the same views on the economics like Republicans in the USA, and people who are considered to be conservative and less democratic tend to have the views on economics like Democrats in the USA. So, there is already a confusion about terminology.
Then, people who are believed to be democratic, sometimes act not in a democratic way. It was Russia that began two wars against Chechnya in 1990s just because Chechnya wanted independence and contrary to a common misconception, Ichkeria was a secular state in the beginning (you can read its Constitution here). Who was Russian President at that time? Yeltsin. Even though Putin supported the second war, he became President after the war began. Moreover, in 1997, Yeltsin and Maskhadov signed a peace treaty. Who broke it? Not Maskhadov. It was Yeltsin. Was it democratic? Nemtsov who is believed to be democratic (by Western people) supported wars in Chechnya and he said about that not long before he was killed.
If Poroshenko is really democratic, why can't he say to Donbass leaders, "If you want independence, you can get it."? Why does he keep sending troops there?
In fact, I know only two people who acted differently. One of them was Dzhokhar Dudaev. When he became President, Chechnya and Ingushetia were one republic. But Ingushs wanted to separate from Chechnya and stay in Russia. He did not do anything against it. The separation between Chechnya and Ingushetia was peaceful.
The other person was Gorbachev. Do you know how the USSR was dissolved? Yeltsin, Kravchuk (then President of the Ukraine), and Shushkevich (Belorussian leader) met at night at Belavezha Forest and decided to dissolve the USSR, signing Belavezha Agreement. Gorbachev was still President of the USSR. He was not at their meeting, which actually looked like a coup. They even feared to let him know about their agreement because they thought that they would be arrested. What did Gorbachev do? Nothing. He just resigned and gave the control of Kremlin to Yeltsin.
Is Gorbachev democratic? I think not many people in the West will deny it. But he is not pro-American. He has criticized Obama and others quite a lot recently, but he criticized Putin before that as well. He is not pro-Putin either.
So, do you see my point? To be democratic and to be pro-American or pro-European are two different things.
Why Yanukovich had to be deposed - because he had spilled blood. Which decent person would want such a ruler? Only the brainwashed traitors in the East.
Yugoslavia and Iraq are different cases from Ukraine. The problem of Yugoslavia were several nations forced to live under a nation more backward and nationalistic than them. Unless the Serbs had civilized spontaneously and overnight, the problem had no peaceful solution. Besides, Europe made things worse by initially supporting the "unity of Yugoslavia". Economy had hardly any impact in this.
I know nothing about Iraq's economy either in Saddam's time or after it, but I don't think it was important, either. Before the 2003 war, I heard people say that Iraqis hate the West more than Saddam, would start an insurgency against the Western Coalition and wouldn't handle a democracy because, to handle a democracy, you must want it, and the Iraqis want Sharia instead. I considered the people who said this to be bigots. I still consider them bigots... which doesn't change the fact that they were right and I was wrong :-). Or 2/3 wrong (the Kurds are responsible for the remaining 1/3). To me, it seems now that most important for Iraqi Arabs is to keep their (largely unsubstantiated) self-esteem. For that reason, they will start an insurgency against the Coalition, but just give them a real enemy who hasn't heard of Hague and Geneva (such as Saddam or ISIS), and they will drop their guns and flee.
(Disclaimer: many Iraqi Arabs do not fit my description - but those who do are enough to guarantee this unfortunate development.)
Ukraine is nothing of this sort. She is rather like Lithuania, Latvia and Georgia (with respect to the blood, sweat and tears).
I correct myself about US help to Ukraine: it may exist, but it is far not enough. The USA claims to have given billions. They may have given trillions, but the fact is that Ukraine is broke. I admit that Putin is far more efficient in this respect.
Why doesn't Poroshenko grant independence to those regions that want it? Because there is a procedure for this, there is international law, and it was irreversibly violated when Putin sent the "little green men" and unilaterally annexed Crimea, and then sent them again to other regions. If Putin and his 5th column are allowed their way, this will be a repetition of Hitler's onslaught with Sudetenland, Danzig etc. Many Russians have bought apartments in our Black Sea port of Varna, they may want Varna next.
Maybe Ukraine will be better off without all those lands. It is difficult for a poor country to move forward, burdened with a horde of civilization-resistant idiots. However, I would be unhappy if Crimea and Eastern Ukraine split off from Ukraine and permanently join Russia. Because Stalin starved many Ukrainians, deported the Crimean Tatars, killing many of them in the process, replaced those killed and deported with Russian settlers... and now the successor of Stalin gets his way because the descendants of the Russian settlers lack brains plus elementary human decency. This is not right.
To me, Dzhokhar Dudaev was pro-Western. I know that at his time, Chechnya's independence struggle was secular. I wonder, was the later religious development deliberate or spontaneous? Anyway. I may not like it, but I wouldn't blame anybody, and it may have been the right thing, for the moment. Looking at photos of Grozny's center, with the Heart of Chechnya mosque... I think history will be kinder to Mr. Kadyrov than his contemporaries. If I were a Russian settler in this city, I'd just pack and move! Perhaps the Ukrainians should have temporarily converted to Islam :-). (I hope I am not too offensive. I always talk like this.)
Gorbachov had a very positive contribution of course, but I cannot forget the people killed in Lithuania, Latvia and Georgia for nothing. I wonder whether he was truly a democrat or just lacked the qualities needed to be an efficient dictator.
As for Nemtsov - I am sorry to learn that he expressed support for the wars against Chechnya, and also that I am not too surprised. He hoped that if he supported killing of Chechens, Russians would love him. However, this may have been a necessary condition (as Elena Bonner said), but not enough, not at all.
In this thread, you mentioned the Ossetians and the two Ossetias several times.
I've just glanced an article about Ossetian nationalism where some Ossetian activist says, "Today a supporter of the disappearing Ossetian culture can be forgiven for anything."
https://www.academia.edu/5246196/Religious_nationalism_in_North_Ossetia_Russia_
In other places (e.g. Wikipedia) I read how these same "disappearing" people, with the help of Russia, ethnically cleanse Georgians to chop off South Ossetia and grab land from the Ingush to enlarge North Ossetia.
How do you think, what's wrong with the Ossetians? Why can't just live and let live?
I have a crazy conspiracy theory about Nemtsov's murder: that it was planned long ago with the intention to blame Chechens for it, be they guilty or not; that when the Charlie Hebdo massacre happened and Nemtsov condemned it, an idea developed to ascribe to these Chechens Islamist motivation (i.e. avenging for the cartoons); and that - and this is my key, craziest point - the giant Jan. 19 anti-Charlie rally was organized in Grozny to add credibility to the alleged motivation by showing that Chechens are Islamists holding as their highest priority the cartoons published in European papers.
There are reports that a car implicated in the murder was seen near Nemtsov's home before the Charlie Hebdo attacks:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boris-nemtsov-cctv-footage-casts-doubt-charlie-hebdo-link-politician-assassination-1491339
So it seems that the first supposition is true.
I also suppose that:
- the organization of the Jan. 19 rally started only after Mr. Nemtsov publicly condemned the Paris attacks;
- it is highly unusual for such rallies to be called on an occasion unrelated to Chechnya or Russia;
- the vigor with which participants were urged to attend this particular rally was unusual.
Boris Nemtsov first condemned the Paris murderers in a Facebook post on the same day, Jan. 7. Two days later, on Jan. 9, he expressed his opinion also on "Ekho Moskvy".
Mr. Nemtsov's support for the war in Chechnya seems not to have been consistent. In fact, a quick Web search produces reports only about his opposition.
http://tvrain.ru/articles/doch_borisa_nemtsova_versija_sledstvija_smeshna_i_bessmyslenna-384000/
http://www.istpravda.ru/research/13128/
Post a Comment