Posted by Lorraine Paul on November 15, 19100 at 21:47:53:
In Reply to: Re: Russia v. Chechnya posted by Bill Mandel on November 18, 1999 at 11:59:30:
: : Bill -
: : I have heard that Russia's military move deep into Chechneyan territory is being excused by the Russian government as a protective maneuver to insulate Russia from the terrorism of Chechnyan "rebels."
: : A few months ago explosions began taking apartment buildings down with record loss of lives. I read analysis that the government itself was the most likeley purpetrator, having the most to gain from the turmoil, excusing the incursion into Chechnya as pre-emptive.
: : Do you have any comment? Also, what does oil have to do with this confict?
: : -Wm
: Bill;s response: The Russian government's excuse is exactly as you stated. It says that its behavior is precisely what the U.S., aka NATO, did to Yugoslavia re Kosovo. In both cases, civilian casualties are high. Ira Straus, a contributor to the Russia-experts' Johnson's Russia List, says that Chechen noncombatant casualties are lower relative to the populations involved than those in the U.S. aka NATO action. Former Russian Premier Evgenii Primakov, a leading candidate in next year's presidential elections, insists that Russia cannot win a permanent victory by military means alone, and urges negotiations.
: It is not yet possible to pinpoint responsibility for the Moscow apartment-house explosions. The simplest explanation would be Chechen vengeance for Russian bombing of apartment houses and everything else in Grozny, capital of Chechnya, a couple of years ago. That may be true. A horrible alternative explanation is that the Russian government killed those Russian civilians at home itself in order to justify the new war seeking a final solution (!) to the Chechen problem. I don't know.
: One thing is certain. The situation reeks of oil. U.S. oil companies want control of the Caspian Sea area oil fields, which were prospected and where production was begun and brought to a high level long ago by the Soviet government, building on beginnings by Nobel and other Westerners a century ago. The U.S. wants Russia as weak as possible in the Caucasus, where the U.S. has no history whatever, while the Soviet government provided tremendous development at all levels of human existence, as I know from personal visits over a period of decades. Russia regards control over Chechnya as essential to countering the U.S., and hints that the U.S. is arming and supplying the rebels. That is quite possible in the light of similar American operations under like circumstances elsewhere in the world.
: The big issue is where the major pipeline from Azerbaijan to the outside world will be built. The cheapest route is due south via Iran. U.S. oil companies want that but the U.S. government is against it because of humiliation by Iran when the U.S. Embassy staff, including its full complement of CIA, was taken prisoner 20 years ago. The U.S. government wants the pipeline to go through Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. This means passage through Kurd territory, which has been permanently insecure. The CIA's help in capturing the leader of the Kurdish resistance in Africa unquestionably relates to the desire to stop the Kurdish revolt and justify that pipeline route.
: The Russian government wants the pipeline to go through Russian territory, of which Chechnya is officially part, so it can get the very considerable income from allowing the oil to travel through its territory.
: The situation is dangerous, the outcome unpredictable.
I'm still puzzled as to why newsreaders call Chechnya "a former Republic of the SU". There were 15 Republics and 9 autonomous regions in the old SU, Chechnya was never one of the Republics. A friend pointed out to me that when something is negative it is referred to as "former....Soviet Union", but when it is positive it is "Russia(n)". Any comments on that??