3 ms·

The die is not cast at all. Troops can move within Russia back and forth without problems, there are no obligations to give an attack order just because the tro

The die is not cast at all. Troops can move within Russia back and forth without problems, there are no obligations to give an attack order just because the troops are standing near the border. There is no too much risks to his internal image, because according to propaganda he is fighting for peace and does not want to attack at all. I think that Putin has lost a chance to grab the eastern Ukraine in 2014. When Yanukovich fled Kiev, he could have made him ask for a military help, and in the post-maidan chaos could take everything east of Dnepr, creating a puppet state loyal to a legitimately elected president, and then slowly incorporate those territories into russia over the next few years or decades. Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Chechnya was an internal region with no international recognition ever, so this is an internal matter, and it's not so much 'grabbing territory' as 'restoring order'. Taking territory from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc is a different matter and is seen by state propaganda as bringing the rightful territory back into the fold.

grey-area 5y ago
While I agree each unhappy subject state is unhappy in its own way, the examples of Chechnya, Crimea and Georgia all show in different ways how machiavellian Putin is - anything goes and the lives of others (including his own citizens) simply don’t matter if he thinks he will get away with it. I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Both Chechen wars have started before Putin came to power. And both were lost by Russia, actually. Russia just picked one of many rivalling clans and pays tribute to them. So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.
fer 5y ago
> Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia. Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Last time a southern region where a slavery was practiced wanted to secede from the USA, Lincoln went to a civil war to stop them. Chechnya is also a southern region where slavery is practiced which wanted to secede, so equating these is quite sensible. Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand. As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
  - fer 5y ago
    We're not talking about USA.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Ever heard about analogies? This one is pretty direct here.
      - fer 5y ago
        Comparing a: • Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules. Against a: • Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all). Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad. That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Thing is, both are part of a larger state. I'm not supporting Putin's politics, but there is a very clear distinction between internal and foreign conflicts. US civil war and Chechnya secession wars are both of the former type, and in that regard they are very similar, and widespread slavery in Chechnya makes this comparison even more vivid. As for "X good, Y bad", every conflict in history is rooted in different understanding of what's good and what's bad by different groups of people. For Georgia, Abhazian independence bad, for Russia, Dagestan independence bad, as they both claim soverenity over these respective territories. I don't understand why are you talking about it in such grandstanding fashion, it is not some groundbreaking news. So no, you can't equate internal Chechnya wars with international conflicts like Crimea and Georgia. These are two very different conflicts with very different reasons.

grey-area 5y ago

While I agree each unhappy subject state is unhappy in its own way, the examples of Chechnya, Crimea and Georgia all show in different ways how machiavellian Putin is - anything goes and the lives of others (including his own citizens) simply don’t matter if he thinks he will get away with it. I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Both Chechen wars have started before Putin came to power. And both were lost by Russia, actually. Russia just picked one of many rivalling clans and pays tribute to them. So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.

fer 5y ago

> Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia. Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Last time a southern region where a slavery was practiced wanted to secede from the USA, Lincoln went to a civil war to stop them. Chechnya is also a southern region where slavery is practiced which wanted to secede, so equating these is quite sensible. Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand. As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
- fer 5y ago
  We're not talking about USA.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Ever heard about analogies? This one is pretty direct here.
    - fer 5y ago
      Comparing a: • Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules. Against a: • Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all). Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad. That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Thing is, both are part of a larger state. I'm not supporting Putin's politics, but there is a very clear distinction between internal and foreign conflicts. US civil war and Chechnya secession wars are both of the former type, and in that regard they are very similar, and widespread slavery in Chechnya makes this comparison even more vivid. As for "X good, Y bad", every conflict in history is rooted in different understanding of what's good and what's bad by different groups of people. For Georgia, Abhazian independence bad, for Russia, Dagestan independence bad, as they both claim soverenity over these respective territories. I don't understand why are you talking about it in such grandstanding fashion, it is not some groundbreaking news. So no, you can't equate internal Chechnya wars with international conflicts like Crimea and Georgia. These are two very different conflicts with very different reasons.