Article

2004-09-19 Home Front: Politix

AlGore says Putin's stronger govt moves understandable

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-19 2:47:54 AM|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Gore told an international forum on St. Petersburg on Russian economic development that the U.S. leadership had taken similar measures in a similar situation.

Appointed governors? Hmmm - I was delusional when I voted for Arnie here in California last October...

Posted by BigEd 2004-09-19 6:11:36 AM|| 2004-09-19 6:11:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Gore sinks even further into ????. His words prove he's certifiably insane - and mind-numbingly stupid.

This move by Tsar Putty, if successful, I believe will signal the end of the Russian experiment with actual democracy. Putty's blatant powergrab is an obvious return to the farce of Soviet "Republics". The Russian people must be as dumb as dirt to tolerate this transparently leechy little leprechaun. Fools.

Gore should be deported there so he can enjoy the benefits of the system he's apologizing for.

Posted by .com 2004-09-19 8:20:41 AM|| 2004-09-19 8:20:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'd like to hear from the RBers who once held out hope that Putty would turn out to be a good leader. I'd say he's failed you - miserably. How do you feel about him now? Is there anyone, other than the appropriately anonymous A6391, that still thinks there's any hope for Putty?

I posted, way back when, that I thought that America and Russia might someday become both great allies and great friends - so much complimentary potential there. No longer. Sigh, what could've been...

Posted by .com 2004-09-19 9:00:13 AM|| 2004-09-19 9:00:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 As the resident Russophile I have a few things to say.

There is still some element of democracy left in Russia. There is still a Duma and the plan for appointing governors is dependant on local legislatures approving the choices.

Putin is, uneccesarily in my view, changing the rules of the game for purposes of national security. He doesn't have to make these changes to enhance national security against Islamic terrorists. It seems to be a power play by to be sure. I figure that he came to the conclusion that the only answer to Chechen terror is a return to the KGB-lite, with emphasis on kidnappings and extra judicial killings by security forces being seen as the only way to quell the terrorism in Chehchnya which is spilling over out of Chechnya herself. Unfortunately, he may be right and that is a tragedy given the autocratic nature of the enemy. But, gee, I sure hope he isn't.

I would have figured that declaring martial law along the southern border would have been a much better way to deal with infiltration of Islamic terroorism than this move by Putin.

Unfortunately I must write additional paragraphs given that our resident euroweenie Aris will start crying about how Russians had it coming from the Moose Limbs and how 10 years of war hasn't quelled terrorism in Russia, Russia is a terrorist nation, badanov supports terrorism, etc, you all know the drill iffin' you have read any of his bullsh*t at all.

Understand also that Russia is starting to rearm. This is actually the second year in a row that defense expenditures have increased. The Russian military suspects soemthing is up, and my guess is they expect war soon, but it is difficult to guage against whom. Along with increased military spending comes a lot of the accotrements associated with a more militant society, the secrecy, et al, and this is the stage that Putin is at now.

There is still hope for democracy. This is a mere stumble along the road. Understand, please that Russia until 13 years ago knew nothing of democratic institutions. The Ministry of Defense seems to still be fairly open to reporting and criticism and the Russian press is still critical of the government. The military hasn't drunk the kool-aid, yet.

Now, I haven't read any of what Putin has said about these measures. I would think if he wants to quell fears about a return to a Stalinist-lite society, he would recommend these measures be voted on on a regular basis. But I have heard nothing about this either way.

Just my opinion. I still like kittens and baby ducks.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-19 9:38:15 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-19 9:38:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Someone noted that the Russian people faced Beslan (and IMO will face the power grab) with anger -- but also resignation ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-09-19 11:06:37 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-09-19 11:06:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I once held out hope that Putin would be a "tolerable" leader (quite a benefit of the doubt, given his past).

Putin's dilemma is a problem I am having a hard timing working through. (Please correct me if I am wrong on any of my statements below.)

Chechnya was forced to be part of the Soviet Union. When the same enforcement happened in the Baltics, the United States refused to recognize those lands as part of the Soviet Union. Now we've got Chechens muddying up the RF territorial waters with terrorist actions, and in a Machiavellan maneuver, adopting the cries for a free Chechnya as a cover for Islamicist aspirations. Putin or no, what a mess.

Edward-it might have been me you're thinking of in terms of Russian resignation. I hadn't referred to Beslan in those terms, but maybe you have an interesting link?

Posted by jules 2 2004-09-19 11:40:17 AM|| 2004-09-19 11:40:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The Baltis states 'annexation' was a bald invasion couched in diplomatic language.

Chechen and the Russians have a long and sad history of antagonizism dating back before the Bolshviks.

The issue with Chechenya which sparked the war in 1999 (not the first war in 1994) was that Chechen Islamic terrorists decided to impose Sharia law in Dagestan with the help of Chechen and foreign fighters from Chechnya and Jordan with the ( speculative on my part )funding/blessings of the Saudi Wahhabis. In this fashion, fifteen percent of the population would determine the rules for the other 85 percent. Russian had to act in 1999 to preserve the CIS treaty to which Dagestan was a party.

Apparently a decision was made by the Russian MoD in August that now would be a good time to retake Chechnya, since the artillery/air strike campaign was having a positive efeect on the terrorists.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-19 12:09:12 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-19 12:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Dagestan's one of the federal republics of Russia. NOT a member of the CIS treaty, which AFAIK is between twelve now-independent states. (Namely the former Soviet Republics with the exception of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-19 7:55:42 PM|| 2004-09-19 7:55:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 badanov and Aris-thanks for your input.

Starting point-Beslan took place in Ossetia, "thanks" to Chechen rebels, right?

Did all the federal republics want to "stick with" Russia? How was it decided what the status of federal republics would be?

In terms of a consistent foreign policy, is there a similarity with the seizure of lands by the Soviet Union and the "incorporation" of republics?

Posted by jules 2 2004-09-19 8:08:49 PM|| 2004-09-19 8:08:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Jules> The old Soviet Uniot was composed of 15 "
So, the whole of Russia was a single "Soviet Republic" --- but in Russia's case it was itself subdivided into "republics", "oblasts" and "krays".

Russia *alone* has internally 21 republics, which used to have higher degrees of autonomy and self-determination than the "oblasts" and the "krays". Each tended to be the home of an ethnic minority. For example, The North Ossetian republic is home to the ethnic Ossetians. The Chechen republic is home to the Chechens, the Ingusetian republic to the Ingush, and so forth.

Dagestan is another such "republic", internal to Russia. In Dagestan's case there's a variety of small ethnicities composing it.

Many of the former "Soviet Republic" had once been parts of Russia, and later removed from Russia to form their own "Soviet Republics". For example Kazakhstan.

Though *all* the Soviet Republic seceded from the Soviet Union, none of Russia's own republics has been allowed to secede from Russia since the end of the Cold War. The Chechens are the only ones who've *really* given it a try though.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-19 8:29:35 PM|| 2004-09-19 8:29:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ick, my last post's first paragraph was messed up. It meant to say:

The old Soviet Uniot was composed of 15 "Soviet Republics". In the constitution of the old Soviet Union those all had the right to secede from the Soviet Union. (for the duration of the Cold War this "right" was practically meaningless ofcourse). In 1991 this was essentially the legalistic justification for the dissolution of the USSR, so all those 15 formerly Soviet Republics are now independent countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and ofcourse Russia)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-19 8:32:33 PM|| 2004-09-19 8:32:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 As a sidenote there are two Ossetias -- North Ossetia is a "republic" of Russia, South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. Now the South Ossetians want to go back to Russia, even as the Chechens want to leave it. Russia encourages the former separatism and discourages the latter.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-19 8:35:25 PM|| 2004-09-19 8:35:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Starting point-Beslan took place in Ossetia, "thanks" to Chechen rebels, right? Did all the federal republics want to "stick with" Russia?

All the member states of CIS are independant nations, with their own governments, some having armies, some having navies, etc. Consider the CIS as a common market.

Dagestan may well be independant but Russia maintains a military airfield in Kaspiysk, which is in Dagestan, so apparently military cooperation is close between Russia and Dagestan.

How was it decided what the status of federal republics would be?

No idea.

In terms of a consistent foreign policy, is there a similarity with the seizure of lands by the Soviet Union and the "incorporation" of republics?

In terms of foreign policy, Chechnya is part of Russia, always has been, as is North Ossetia, where Beslan is, and Ingushetia.

In term of how the Soviet Union was formed, I have zero idea about that as well, and zero idea on the CIS.

****

The war in Chechnya began in 1994, when Russia attempted to taske the capital of Grozny. A few months later Russia withdrew defeated.

In August 1999, Chechen rebels attempted to seize parts of Dagestan, to the east of Chechnya by imposing Sharia law. That is when Russia invaded Chechnya following a relatively successful artillery/air campaign in Dagetstan.

This second war in Chechnya has been very bloody -- for both sides -- but earlier this year or late last year, the rate of terrorist events dropped dramatically to the point where the MoD considered the war over. Election were held in Chechnya and a new government was elected; and Russia began recruiting local Chechens for a local security force.

The attack in Beslan is hard to wrap around in that its purpose was hard to figure. If we assume the explosions in the gym were accidents and that the Chechen reallty expected to escape alive, this attack was mucked up badly. But if we assume the Chechens never figured on getting out alive, the purpose of the attack is hard for me to figure. If ever there is an event which has turned opinion against the Chechens in general, it is Beslan.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-19 8:46:11 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-19 8:46:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Aris, thank you.

So, if Chechnya is accepted in international terms as part of Russia, does this explain in part Putin's heavy hand? (What if California decided it wanted to break away from the US; what means would we use to keep it in?)

Should we lay aside consideration of Chechnyan independence and focus on the area simply as a hotbed of Islamicist action?

If, by some chance strike of lightning, one of these internal republics was struggling to break free of Russia without using the barbarians' tool of terror, would the rest of the republics try to follow suit, do you think?

Posted by jules 2 2004-09-19 8:47:10 PM|| 2004-09-19 8:47:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Badanov, once again: Dagestan is not independent. It's a part of Russia. *Russia* is a member of the CIS, neither Dagestan nor Ossetia. In fact CIS has absolutely *nothing* to do with either Dagestan, Ossetia or Chechnya.

Saying "military cooperation is close between Russia and Dagestan" is like saying "military cooperation is close between USA and Utah". No, Utah is a part of the USA, and Dagestan is a part of the Russian federation.

Aris, thank you. So, if Chechnya is accepted in international terms as part of Russia, does this explain in part Putin's heavy hand?

It explain why Chechen independence is not recognized by outsiders, and why Putin can call his attacks "internal affairs" rather than invasion of another nation.

If, by some chance strike of lightning, one of these internal republics was struggling to break free of Russia without using the barbarians' tool of terror, would the rest of the republics try to follow suit, do you think?

I don't really understand your question. Do you think that it's Chechen terrorism that makes the other republics *not* try to follow suit? I'd think that the fear of the Russian response was more important in dissuading them.

Besides, some of these republics are isolated, located deep in Russian territory. Those couldn't be independent nations even if they wanted. See here.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-19 9:01:50 PM|| 2004-09-19 9:01:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#16
#15 Badanov, once again: Dagestan is not independent. It's a part of Russia. *Russia* is a member of the CIS, neither Dagestan nor Ossetia. In fact CIS has absolutely *nothing* to do with either Dagestan, Ossetia or Chechnya. Saying "military cooperation is close between Russia and Dagestan" is like saying "military cooperation is close between USA and Utah". No, Utah is a part of the USA, and Dagestan is a part of the Russian federation.

I stand corrected. ;o)

Posted by badanov 2004-09-19 9:13:56 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-19 9:13:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Just dropping my two cents into the jar here...

This is very reminiscent of the years between Russia's peace with Germany in 1917 and the rise of the USSR in 1922. During this five year interval, the western and southern fringes of the Russian Empire grabbed at independence, but only Finland never looked back (though Poland and the Baltic states enjoyed twenty fleeting years of independence until WW2 and the Cold War). Everyone else -- Belarus, Ukraine, the three Transcaucasus states (individually and collectively as a short-lived federation) and even bits of Siberia like Tuva and the Far Eastern Republic -- all found themselves back under Moscow's rule after a few pathetic weeks, months, or even years of self-rule (which usually amounted to total anarchy, particularly in the horrific Ukrainian civil war).* And even some of those autonomous republics deep inside Russia proper gave it a shot.

I am no admirer of Putin, but I fully understand the rationale behind "the devil you know" when talking about the Caucasus. Suppose the Russian Federation does follow the path of the USSR and fragment into even more nations, particularly in the Caucasus. A belt of "free" states in the North Caucasus would reinvent the African Great Lakes region in the heart of Eurasia. Such a situation would be geopolitically unsustainable; soon, very soon, an outside power would establish authority over the region. The only other options for controlling the region -- besides us -- are all more frightening than Moscow. Maybe Europe in another decade or two, but not yet, and perhaps never (and, as many people here feel, they may be a less-than-desirable option too).

No one here denies that Russia foolishly pushed Chechnya into extremism and terrorism. Be that as it may, Chechen terrorists have allied themselves with America's enemies, making Russia the enemy of our enemy (even if Putin is reluctant to accept this reality himself). We reached a similar understanding with Stalin in the face of an overriding common threat. The "enemy of my enemy" logic, weak as it may be, was valid then, and it is valid now. What's more, the costs of such cooperation are now less. Instead of surrendering half of Europe to Stalin, we need only write off the North Caucasus. Call me uncaring, but I can live with that. If Russia is having trouble securing its own territorial integrity, then the outside world can concentrate on other, more immediate threats for the time being. As we should.

*Two tiny qualifications: Bessarabia -- most of modern Moldova -- rejoined Romania for twenty years until WW2 when it changed hands about 4,000 times and ultimately became a Soviet republic, and Tuva -- in southern Siberia along the Mongolian border -- was grudgingly tolerated as a separate nation until 1940 when it was quietly absorbed by the RSFSR.

Posted by The Caucasus Nerd 2004-09-19 9:25:43 PM|| 2004-09-19 9:25:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Keep in mind folks, (relatively) recent polling showed that 1/3 of the people in the ex-USSR states (and Russia itself) would prefer a return to the Soviet Union, or a union of some type. There are still a lot of people who look upon the old days with fondness. This might give you some perspective into Putin's actions. My guess is that you won't see mass riots in the streets of Moscow as a result of anything that he does.

My advice for those skeptical of Putin, judge him by his foreign policy, his relationship with Europe and the US for instance, and not by what he does or does not do internally. Unfortunately, in mother Russia, it can still get much worse than Putin. Be thankful Zhirinovsky isn't in power :)

Posted by Rafael 2004-09-19 10:50:09 PM|| 2004-09-19 10:50:09 PM|| Front Page Top

02:16 Anonymous6543
02:16 Anonymous6543
00:19 Anonymous6540
00:19 Anonymous6540
12:30 Bomb-a-rama
12:28 Bomb-a-rama
12:11 Bomb-a-rama
00:34 CrazyFool
00:09 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:49 Matt
23:45 Anonymous6555
23:38 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:35 Anonymous6134
23:32 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:09 Chuck Simmins
23:08 Chuck Simmins
23:06 Mark Espinola
22:50 Rafael
22:45 Capt America
22:37 trailing wife
22:35 Mark Espinola
22:33 Mark Espinola
22:27 Zenster
22:20 Sock Puppet of Doom