Talk:Ichkeria

Untitled

What's wrong with the explanation of international status of Chechnya and why is this paragraph fought for? Halibutt 13:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's full with false statements and inaccuracies, in addition it tries to create an alternative version of history as opposed to History_of_Chechnya. For example "Mikhail Gorbachev refused to recognize". That's untrue. He did not refuse. He was not in a capacity to refuse anything because he effectively lost any power following August 1991 coup. The "main reason for the discriminative treatment of different independence declarations" is some kind of wild speculation. "the international community decided to recognize" and the rest of the phrase is wrong. "mainly Chechnya and Dagestan," is yet another speculation with respect to Dagestan. In my opinion, the writing is horribly broken. --Gene s 13:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute ! Gorby returned back to the office for a short period after the coup d'etat failed, but nevertheless he didn't recognise Chechnya then, nor Yeltsin did but sent troops in.--BIR 14:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Produce evidence of a statement by Gorbachev, where he refused to recognize Chechnya. I empheside refused to recognize, not just ignored their claim of independence.

I would like to point out that the other objections were ignored. --Gene s

This is very usual...

Personally, I tend to believe this is a kind of information war. Anyway, this has been commonplace all too often --BIR 13:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And besides, dear Gene S, you didn't dare to read the given documents well enough before you counter-edited. Don't you want that the people read unbiased info instead of pro-Moscow versions of the issues?--BIR 14:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please answer objections listed above one by one. Otherwise I will revert again. --Gene s 14:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to re-insist you on reading the given documents. Furthermore, I tend to believe that you would benefit in this regard from discussing for example with Mr Storobin about the said details up to the extent of utmost eruditeness.--BIR 14:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I insist that you produce evidence from an impartial source. The "given document" opens as Brought to their knees after years of war, Chechens have temporarily accepted Russian rule. That is NOT a document. It's POV propaganda. --Gene s

What yuo said above is just your opinion. Do you know the difference between the fact and the opinion ? Provide some reliable evidence that Mr Storobin deliveres just propaganda otherwise I keep on believing that either you can't English properly, or you just amuse yourself as an diletante without any scholar view on things you discuss about.--BIR 15:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record. You failed to provide any evidence in support of your claims. The reasonable URLs that you gave http://www.newsbee.net/moscow/chhistory.html and http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/031006/story.html actulally do not support your claims. --Gene s 15:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fot the record. You failed to provide evidence for your counter-act but produced some quasi-scientific nit-picking instead. You might be just misleading. The reasonable URL you lef aside (purposely?) don't support your claim. http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=20 --BIR 15:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Storobin Responds

1. It's interesting that I am being accused of pro-Islamic propaganda. I do pride myself on being a straight shooter, and if that means siding with Muslims or against Muslims, so be it. People who read only a small part of my writing and disagree with it, sometimes accuse me of bias. Yet, you'll find that I take different stands on different issues, regardless of the people's race, religion or ethnicity. In my articles, available at http://www.globalpolitician.com, you'll find that I never take a stand for or against anyone on consistent basis and judge all by the actions they've taken in the current situation.

That's very good that you pride yourself. On the other hand, here you appear as someone who mostly tries to promote a web site by adding links to every political article and claiming credits. Do you see any other wiki articles where people add "this paragraph was written by Joe Schmoe from www.example.com"? That's called link spamming. Even in this discussion you don't forget to insert a link to your web site.

Any discussion should be about merits of the writing, and about provable facts. The writing which starts as Brought to their knees after years of war, Chechens have temporarily accepted Russian rule sounds like loaded (language) and propaganda to me. You are NOT accused of anything else, but producing a piece which looks like point-of-view propaganda. It's possible that all your other writing is perfectly balanced, but this specific piece looks like propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. I've spent a significant amount of time in Chechnya. Anyone who thinks that Chechens accepted being part of Russia out of their sudden love for Russians is simply ignorant of what's going on there. Chechens hate Russians. Russians may or may not deserve their hate, but Chechens truly hate them. If they could win independence, they would continue to fight. And trust me, in time, they will rise again.

I've been to Vatican many times. That does not make me an expert in Pope affairs. Please produce poll results where N% of Chechens say they hate Russians. That would be a great addition to any Chechnya-related article. On the other hand, if you find any article where it says "Chechens accepted being part of Russia out of their sudden love for Russians", please let me know. I would immediately correct it as a false statement.

Please keep in mind that this talk page is NOT a political forum. It's not about your or mine political views. It's a discussion on the merits of specific writing in this online encyclodedia. Thank you.

--Gene s 08:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. This doesn't mean that I support Chechen independence. Due to the terror sponsored by Arab-sponsored Chechen fundamentalists, I now oppose sovereignty for them because it would signal to the world that terrorism works. But my opposition to Chechen independence does not mean that I cannot accurately state that they want sovereignty and statehood.

Copyright issue - verbatum copy

The edits [1] are nearly a verbatum copy of http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm. Please clarify the copyright issue. When was the permission obtained? --Gene s 15:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that a permission to republish was obtained from the copyright holder of http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm --Gene s 05:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cany anyone give me the political parties of the chechen presidents?? , V.C.

This is inaccurate, close to trolling:

== while some smaller but eagerly independence-minded republics (mainly Chechnya and Dagestan, but also Tatarstan and Tuva) had to choose between surrendering their nationhood or starting active resistance. == While yes, Chechens are fairly rebellous/independence-minded, and Dagestanians may be too (I'm unsure), claiming that Tatars "had to choose between surrendering their nationhood or starting active resistance" is just ridiculous.

As you might know, Tatarstan is located somewhat in exact center of Russian Federation, and Tatars are second largest nation in Russia with 3.4% == more than 5mln. Tatarstan is, I beleive, in top five richest provinces of Russian Federation, they are part of Russia for centuries (and yes, before that Russia was part of Tatar's Zolotaya Orda).

So now, I *never heard* they needing independence. They, surely, needed authonomy to some extent - more rights to their language, right to choose their script, their own government, preservation of their culture. They got all that in the meantime.

So please point us where did you got that claim or please, stop.

P.S. Yes, I'm Tatarian partially, albeit very few part :) and I don't really in their culture, but anyway.

-- Ilyak

-- terrorism -- I do not agree with the statement that Chechnya should not be independent, because that would mean terrorism works. These are the reasons: - Terrorist acts appeared only recently. They were absent at the beginning of the conflict (save for Russian acts of state terrorism). - Terrorist acts were not supported by the government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. The exception might have been the attack in Budennovsk, however, even in this case the first words of Dudayev were: "provocation of Russian special forces". Only later Dudayev seemed to support it, or rather tried to use it. Maskhadov always condemned any terrorist attacks. - The perpetrator of many terrorist attacks were not found and/or proved to be guilty (according to acceptable standards). That brings serious doubt about their connections with Chechen fighters. The only thing that can be stated without doubt is that "This would be convenient for Russia if the world could believe this was done by Chechen separatists.". - None of real or alleged Chechen terrorist acts poised any thread outside of Russian Federation. I know, I am cynical saying that, but this simply means that granting Chechnya independence will end any terrorist acts, because the cause of the acts will cease to exist.

Would Chechen independence encourage other nations? Possibly. Any fight for freedom can encourage the others. "Solidarity" movement in Poland encourage the others to get rid of communism. It was followed by the collapse of Soviet Union. Any example can be followed. The enthusiasts of a status quo have reasons to fear, but I'm not for status quo if it is unjust or wrong. Jasra 14:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Have seen any communism around lately? Me have not, too.

And, this article is just saying silly things. Tatarstan wishing for independence is like, say, USA state Nebraske wishing for independence. That is, a priory a pretty dumb idea.

On everything out, you have a lot of answers on unasked questions. Think about that. Ilyak 21:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

It is hard to say what communism is so it is even harder to say whether I have seen it. I gave the collaps of communism as an example of the collapse of a totalitarian system. From the news I got from Russia there might not be communism, but there is certainly an authoritarian regime, violating human rights in different fields, but at the same time preserving some attributes of democracy such as elections, political parties etc. Citizens have right to choose, but the role of government-controlled propaganda is so big that they always choose the person propaganda wants. I could discuss more, but now I would like to focus on the right of nations to decide whether they want to be independent or not. The case of Nebraska cannot be compared to the case of Chechnya of Tatarstan. Nebraska was made a state and was ethnically mixed, like other states of the US. It also joint US voluntarily. Chechnya and Tatarstan were conquered by Russian (it was long time ago, but it does not change the fact). Chechens and Tatars are ethnically different from Russians. Here the analogy would be more when you look at colonies wishing to get independence. The only difference is that Russian colonies are not overseas. As far as suppressing ethical identity is concerned - an example can be the order to use only Cyrillic alphabet. This supresses the identity of nations using their own alphabet and isolates from the external world nations so far using Latin alphabet. (Jasra 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC))

Tatrastan conquerer by Russians is something you probably don't want to tell your history teacher, that's nonsence. First, Tatars conquered Russia, ruled for something like 300 years, eventually control was retaken by russian part, but nontheless Tatarstan was always the part of Russia as we know it. NOT taking multikindom feudalism times, taking 500 years.

On other side, you can not say that Tatarstan is not ethnically mixed. It is: "About 70 nationalities inhabit Tatarstan. Major ethnic groups are the Tatars (51.3%), Russians (41%)," - this republic have got almost half russian population, and, on other side, a lot of oblastes and republics (like Bashkortostan) have got a quite some number of tatars. "About a hundred nationalities inhabit Bashkortostan, including Russians (39%), Tatars (28%), Bashkirs (22%)," - you see, Bashkortostan, Bashkir republic, have got something more Tatars than Russians. Add it up to Tatarstan? Or cut it - will it be national country? - hardly.

The second-important reason is that if we think of independent Tatarstan, you see a country entirely surrounded by another, hostile (and how would you think it will not be hostile?), huge country. I guess your independent state will soon have troubles - it no longer have got any economics worth mentioning, as they can not buy/sell anything except by plane.

But it is not important as another thing - most (I assume 90%) tatars don't want to break damn their country. Tatarstan is a fairly advanced state, and it's hard to bribe advanced people into "fighting for independence". If you have another information on that topic, please, provide your sources. Mine is I, because I live in this country.

Ilyak 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And 'human rights' is just a european way to bitch about everything, just ignore such claims if they don't state: Who have got his rights violated and how.

P.P.S. And Latin alphabet is not the most used one (Hieroglyphes are, I guess), not it is native for Tatar language (arabic are), and it is just plain bad than it comes to sound-to-letter conversions. If you doubt, think how much letters have you added to it to correctly use polish language on top of it.

---

I found this page http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/tatarstan.html about Tatarstan. It states that Tartars conquered Russia and then were conquered by Russia. I guess in every society the views on independence vary. Thing which disturbs me is that the level of autonomy have diminished since Putin became Russian president. I don't want to argue which alphabet is better for any nation. I just want to say that it is up to this nation to solve this problem and not to the authorities of the Russian Federation. Speaking about the violation of human rights in Russia I mean the whole Federation. You can look at Amnesty International websites and read about it. I can just mention a few things: - Filtration camps in Chechnya - Arbitrary arrests in Chechnya - War action against civilians in Chechnya - Apalling conditions in Russian prisons - Problematic arrests of businessmen whose main fault was that they were too rich and they criticized the regime (Khodorkhovskii can be an example). - silencing media which are critical to the regime.

These actions cannot be justified by any means. Jasra 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Chechnya, chechnya, chechnya. I don't believe that chechnya've got more hostilities than, say, Iraq. But for some reason you're not blaming USA for Iraq? Having said that, I've never heard about things you stated. Common war hostilities, yes, I'm sure there are terrible many, but as for camps, actions about civilians - where the hell have you got that from? URL?

Prisons. Yes I beleive conditions are appaling there. Any ideas about how to make it better? Maybe you've got some money to donate for that? Nope? Then I guess you're not relevant.

Ходорковский's main fault was that he did not pay the taxes. Yes, sure, nobody did, but law does not state 'you can do foo if everyone does that'. That's barely a political thing, Ходорковский is a business man after all, not politican. Yes, and as a consequence we've got quite a few people paying taxes.

Media? Which ones? You know, when those houses in Moscow was blasted by explosion, quite a few medias published flamebait articles about FSB making these blasts happen. FSB argued they didn't and blamed those medias, but noone ever tried to silence or shut them down. On same occasion with 9/11 and american medias, they was pressed hardly, have not got any chance to publish such articles.

And, having say that, I'll prefer Putin to Bush any day :)

In short, I doubt that you know Russia enough to judge on things you just blamed. I could've list a top ten *real* Russia problems I (and everybody, for that matter) hate, but our lists would not intersect. Ilyak