Talk:Aslan Maskhadov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Russia Portal
Aslan Maskhadov is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

"After helping to end the Lithuanian nationalist movement in 1991, Maskhadov became the Chief of Staff for the Chechen army."

Lithuanian nationalist movement was not forced to "end". It ended after Lithuania become independed state. Besides, seems like Maskhadov was not involved in 1991 events, although he served at the time in Lithuania.

Nor this is quite accurate:

"Maskhadov's attempts to stifle Wahhabism and other fundamentalist Muslim groups, coupled with his inability to keep Chechens from trying to drive Russians out of neighboring Dagestan, made him appear incompetent and incapable of controlling his country."

It's documented that Russian prepared in advance for the invasion (see the link, and 1999 messages there) LIST, and also there are grounds to assume that Basayev's people were just lured to action in order to justify the invasion that developed into open warfare, called the Chechen war two.

Also there are grounds to assume that Maskhadov is pretty well controlling his country in spite of alleged 80 000 or even 300 000 foreign troops in its territory. --BIR 11:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Birth year?

From the article: "Aslan Alivitch Maskhadov (September 21, 1951 - March 8, 2005) was a ... Early life - Maskhadov was born in Kazakhstan in 1957 ..."

Which one is correct year? I tried various news reports of his death but none I read mentioned his birth year. —mikko (speak) 17:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. It's definitely 1951 (see http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/bio/president.htm ). -- ChrisO 18:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Middle" name

His middle name, Алиевич in Russian, is pronounced "Aliyevi(t)ch", not "Alivitch" --193.2.136.41 05:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected that. -- ChrisO 08:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Basayev

Basayev and Mashhadov did not agree on many things but Mr. basayev would never make or allow an attemt on Mr. Mashhadovs' life to take place.

AS WELL YOU STATE AS A FACT THAT MR. BASAYEV WAS REPONSIBLE FOR THE APARTMENT BOMBINGS.ARE YOU A INTEL AGENT OR JUST REPEATING putins' PROPAGANDA.

One such as yourself is not qualified to speak Mr. Mashadovs' name let alone write an article about him.

FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA. FREE YOUR MIND.


[edit] Real information on the Chechen Resistance

KAVKAZCENTER.COM

Maskhadov was also of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order. Sometime between the two wars, he was initiated into the order. This might have added to some of the friction with Basayev's more hardline followers.

[edit] Reported death?

"Reportedly killed"? This should be edited because there is no proof to the contrary. Neither the Russian nor the separatists sides ever attempted to deny that Maskhadov was killed. Kazak 02:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "State-controlled" media

The Russian media is not controlled by the government, but is largely owned by allies of the government. There is a difference. In the United States, FOX is accused by many of heavy pro-Republican bias, but nobody goes around calling it "state-controlled". Please avoid such non-NPOV refrences in the future. Kazak 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's state-controlled. Like in the Soviet times. There's still some 'free' press and radio (notably Ekho Moskvy), though.

[edit] Vilnius

The source link does not exist and although there are other mentionings online that Maskhadov took part in the mentioned events, none of them are based on real documents; it was so that somebody decided that he must have taken part in the events just because he served at Vilnius at the time and thus the hoax started - it continues to be repeated in many biographies, including pro-Maskhadov ones. A version of this hoax is an urban legend which states that Maskhadov got immidietly promoted in rank from captain to colonel (or general) for the participation in the events; in addition to these hoaxes there as well exists another hoax which claims that Maskhadov was ordered to participate in the events but refused to do so (usually this hoax is being said by the supporters of Maskhadov, while the beforementioned one - by people who do not support Maskhadov). Investigations were done by journalists several times but neither hoax was confirmed anyhow, so it turns out that Maskhadov neither received orders to participate in the events nor did he participate in them; after all, he was in rockets and artillery section and not all Soviet troops partitioned in Vilnius took part in the events. I can give links to the articles about such investingations, if you understand Lithuanian they will be useful. 193.219.141.198 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The source worked for me a few hours ago, but not now. Anyway, what you said is quite believable, so I will left it as is. If you can dig the Lithuanian references it would be great. We could put something like: Some sources [...] claim that Alan Maskhadov ..., but investigation by Lithuanian journalists [...] have shown that.... It would be of much more value than just blanking the text. I, personally, can not read Lithuanian, but somebody could and at anyway the Babelfish could help to get the general meaning. abakharev 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok the link worked for me in a few minutes after the first failure. It is a biography of Maskhadov, appear to be in neutral language. There is only one phrase about the Vilnius and it is kind of ambiguous:
      Maskhadov commanded a platoon in 1972-78. He next was a battery commander and chief of staff of a battalion in the Far East. In 1981-86 he served in Szeged, Hungary, with the Southern Group of Troops and then from 1986 in the Baltic Military District, first as commander of a self-propelled artillery regiment and from the autumn of 1990 as chief of staff of missile and artillery forces of the Vilnius, Lithuania, garrison and deputy commander of the 7th division. In January 1991 Aslan took part in the "Vilnius events" (the seizure of the television tower by Soviet troops). abakharev 13:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear 193.219.141.198, show sources supporting your conclusion or stop reverting. And please register (as I have already advised you on your temporary user page). Moonshiner 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your given sources as I have of course searched the internet before reverting, but all sources are similar biogaraphies that are most likely copied from each other; no source explains it better, while here I give links to investigative articles about the topic and as well other sources which support other hoax (that Maskhadov supposedly refused the orders given to him and that Maskhadov: http://www.veidas.lt/lt/leidinys.full/423aac5d1a14b.2?veidas=58a9ee0d993c7b1 - this article cites Maskhadov's own words which he said in the interview for Moskovskiye Novosti.

excerpt: (...)paklaustas, ar jam nėra sunku bendrauti su Rusijos karininkais, jis sakė: "Man regis, jie dabar atsidūrę tokioje pat padėtyje, kokioje buvau aš tarnaudamas Vilniuje. Juk man tuomet irgi kalė į galvą: raudonoji armija nenugalima, kova vyksta dėl teisaus reikalo ir panašiai. Todėl kai prasidėjo įvykiai Pabaltijyje, aš nesupratau, kas vyksta: ko gi, maniau aš, jie nenori gyventi Sovietų Sąjungoje? Man gėda, kad aš buvau Vilniuje. Nors Sausio 13-osios įvykiuose aš nedalyvavau, man gėda dėl mano tuometinio požiūrio į juos. Jeigu Rusijos kariškiai, šiuo metu esantys Čečėnijoje, savo kailiu patirtų, kaip tai sunku – matyti, kai naikinama tavo tauta, – jie elgtųsi visiškai kitaip."

translation: When asked if it is not hard for him to talk with the Russian officers now he said: "It seems they are now in such a situation in which I was when I served in Vilnius. Back then it was said to me as well: the Red Army is undefeatable, the fight is for the right cause and such. Thus when the events in the Baltics started I did not understood what is going on: why, I thought, they does not want to live in the Soviet Union? I am ashamed that I was in Vilnius. Although I haven't taken part in the events of January 13th I am ashamed because of the view towards them I held back then. If the Russian soldiers who are now in Chechnya, would feel themselves how hard it is to see how your nation is being destroyed, they would act differently". (bolding done by me)

As you see, he was ashamed of his views rather than his participation; and these biographies mixed it. Translate with Babel if you don't believe or maybe you will find the original Russian quote somewhere as it was published.

There were more investigations of the said hoax here, and I am giving another example of articles mentioning other viewpoints: http://www.xxiamzius.lt/archyvas/xxiamzius/20030131/aktu.html (see chapter "Įtartinas bruzdesys") - this article denounces the hoax and explains that Maskhadov was stationed in Vilnius, but did not took part, while general Uskhopchik led the attack.

I hope this is enough. As for registering, I am not really active in Wikipedia, this is a university IP address, many people had edited Wikipedia from it and most of contributions are not mine. 193.219.141.198 09:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I deleted the section about Bush not naming Maskhadov, because it is not pertinent or sourced. Epsoul 00:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New picture

If we want a better fair-use picture of him as he looked not long before his death, there's one at the end of the link.[1] --Estrellador* 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Anonims add different complicated Arabic-sounded names for Maskhadov. I think this should be sourced, otherwise it is an original research. Of particular concern for me is the part "Ibn Alievich". The -ich suffix is a Russian form for patronimic it means son of Ali. The Arabic Ibn means exactly the same. I guess he might be either "Ibn Ali" or "Alievich" but Ibn Alievich is simply wrong. I also not sure that the Arabic names are appropriate for a Chechen leader (Russian names are somehow appropriate since most of his life he was a Russian military officer). Alex Bakharev 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I see little point in adding all the formal names unless they really are commonly used and can be cited in some official text (not just some random forum).—Perceval 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, same problem with Doku Umarov.—Perceval 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-European action for giving out Maskhadov's body to his relatives for burial

http://eng.kavkaz.memo.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1188808.html --84.234.60.154 10:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maskhadov and Basayev

Does anyone know when exactly that picture of Aslan and Shamil was taken? I'm wondering if it was before or after the Beslan massacre. Aslan often said that he was against the killing of innocent life and that Shamil should be put to trial for Beslan, however it doesn't seem like there's any tension between the two of them if that picture was taken after Beslan.

I have no idea about the exact date. The picture is completely unsourced. I also found this and this undated photos, and also this which I believe is from the first war. --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it's quite easy to determine. On Kavkazcenter it said the picture was during the holy month of Ramadan of 2004. However, I'm not sure if the date of Ramadan is the same in every country.77.250.171.134 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
KC isn't exactly what I'd call a perfect source. --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
KC doesnt even say from when that picture is, nm - PietervHuis (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Succession box

I'd like to keep it that way. One might want to see the actual succession of Heads of State in Chechnya and not only guerilla leaders. Granted, it's a bit heavy, but there is a succession line between Mashkadov and Akhmad Kadyrov (as actual, ruling presidents), not only with Abdul-Halim Sadulayev (as clandestine separatist leader). Wedineinheck (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kadyrov did not succeed maskhadov. He was already the "official" leader of Chechnya before Maskhadov got killed. Maskhadov remained the president in exile. those are not to be confused. Also Kadyrov wasnt fairly elected. There's really no need for this, the infobox at the end of the page already has the information you want. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be useful. The logic in that succession box is that Kadyrov succeeded Maskhadov as the actual, presidential ruler of Chechnya (granted, he wasn't fairly elected, but that is another matter), while Maskhadov, though still alive and claiming to be still president, was reduced to being a clandestine guerilla leader. Hence, it helps readers to figure out who actually ruled Chechnya. (IMHO, infoboxes at the end of the pages are not visible enough)Wedineinheck (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kadyrov became the president of the Chechen Republic. Abdul-Halim Sadulayev became the succesor of Maskhadov of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. You're not making things any more clear, instead it only adds confusion and is very unusual. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to help navigate between the various Chechen heads of state. Granted, it may appear confusing at first glance (as the situation itself is convoluted) but it can also help readers to see a line of succession between who actually ruled the country (or the province of Russia, depending on the viewpoint). The problem is that after 1999, Mashkadov was not in power any more and was de facto deposed, so the succession box has to take notice of this. I do not aim to give credit to Kadyrov, but one cannot consider Sadulayev as Mashkadov's only successor, as he was only a guerilla leader. Whether one likes Kadyrov or not (personnally, I don't), one can't deny that he was Chechnya's formal ruler, while Mashkadov was on the run. Please take note that the infobox makes it clear that Kadyrov did succeed Mashkadov as head of state, but did not bear the same title. One may compare this to President Mohammed Daoud Khan, who succeeded King Mohammed Zahir Shah as head of state, though not in the same capacity. Wedineinheck (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he's listed as the President of Ichkeria. The presidents you're talking about are the President of the Chechen Republic. Sadulayev was factually the succesor of Maskhadov, and took on the position as President of Ichkeria. There's really no need or "logic" to add anything related to Kadyrov in the infobox. It already says that the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was in exile since 2000. It's only making the infoboxes appear more chaotic. Something like that should belong in the text of the page, not the infobox. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The infobox was fine the way it was. It clearly says President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. In this capacity he was succeeded by Sadulayev so there is no need to add all sorts of detailed information in the infobox, that's not what it's for. Also, for someone who pretends to edit with the sole intention of making things clear I find your choice of words rather odd. Calling Kadyrov 'Chechnya's first elected president' and Maskhadov and Sadulayev 'clandestine' presidents suggests other intentions. Please refrain from editing again untill we have reached a consensus on this matter in this discussion.ForrestSjap (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is a rather complex issue : Kadyrov was indeed elected (though unfairly) and he did succeed Maskhadov as "President of Chechnya" (in the broadest sense of the expression), so he can be considered to be his successor, even in a different capacity. It is fair to consider that Maskhadov's tenure ended in 1999 with the second russian invasion, when he was forced to go into hiding. Regardless of one's opinion, this is comparable to Saddam Hussein, who claimed that he still was President of Irak at the time of his trial (while his tenure effectively ended in 2003, much like Maskhadov's ended in 1999). Sadulayev was a clandestine, guerilla leader, during all of his "tenure", so I think listing him as "President of Chechnya" is rather disingenuous, or at least non-neutral, as he never formally ruled the country. Same thing for Doku Umarov. IMHO, if we are to remain neutral, we have to aknowledge the complexity of the situation. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say Maskhadov and Sadulayev were "President of Chechnya". It says they were President of Ichkeria. It was impossible for Kadyrov to have succeeded Maskhadov, since Kadyrov was appointed president before Maskhadov's death. During the time of armed conflict, especially the first period, it's impossible to say who had most authority over Chechnya. Your comparison Maskhadov-Hussein is a bit insulting, Hussein wasn't elected president and was a dictator. Eventually he was captured so it was impossible for him to challenge Iraqi politics. During his hiding he wasn't considered president of Iraq anymore, but still President of the Ba'aat party, just like how Maskhadov remained president of Ichkeria.
Also Sadulayev wasnt a "clandestine" leader, if I'm correct Maskhadov had said himself that if he were to die he'd want Sadulayev to take over his position as President of Ichkeria. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that Umarov, Sadulayev, Maskhadov and Kadyrov are all under the "Presidents of Chechnya" category. Given the fact that Sadulayev was always a clandestine leader (and by "clandestine", I mean that he was a guerilla leader, always on the run from Russian or official Chechen forces, and never de facto ruled the country), that seems a bit far-fetched (or POV). The fact is that Maskhadov was de facto deposed after the second russian invasion (more than five years before his death), so even if he still claimed to be President of Chechnya, he was not in power anymore : that is the similarity with Saddam Hussein (who was himself on the run for several months before his capture and still claimed to be President). So, if we follow the same logic, Saddam Hussein should still be listed as President of Iraq until the day of his death, as he was deposed by an armed invasion, much like Maskhadov (the similarities between the two ending there). Even though Maskhadov claimed to be still President and was arguably legitimate, it can be said that his tenure effectively ended in 1999. Wedineinheck (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He was the PRESIDENT IN EXILE. Kadyrov was also on the run from rebels, why else was he assasinated? Maskhadov indeed wasnt president of chechnya anymore, but still president of ichkeria, the government in exile since the outbreak of the war. Thats all it states, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing tricky or confusing about that. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I understand the distinction, of course. The only problem would be to find a line of succession between the people who actually ruled Chechnya. Would you object on a line stating that he was de facto deposed and in exile after october 1999 ?Wedineinheck (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes because Russia wasn't even legally allowed to depose Maskhadov from his position following the Khasav-Yurt Accord. There's no specific date in which his presidency turned into "exile", it might have been 2000, 2001 or 2002 or whatever, and after 1999 there wasnt even another president apointed. If it makes you feel better, below on the page above the conflict box it says he was president of the unrecognised chechen republic of ichkeria. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Also nobody is controlling chechnya completely atm. The rebels still control the mountains (probably forever). - PietervHuis (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd admit that the situation is somewhat convoluted, but regardless of the legality of Russia's actions, he cannot be considered to have still been in power after the second invasion. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since he did not leave Chechnya, he was hardly a president "in exile". He was deposed by Russian military intervention like Saddam Hussein by US invasion. One possible view is that Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not exist any more. It means that the line of successions was broken, and Saydullev was not his successor. Of course, the separatists and Zakayev (who is indeed in "exile") claim otherwise. So, this is something debatable.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the problem seems to be that some users apparently consider this succession box as related to the "legitimate" Chechen President, as opposed to the "actual, recognized" one. Given the fact that there are two parallel ways of considering the issue, I don't know if we can find a consensus. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well if you simply go to the Chechnya page, it says Kadyrov is president, not Umarov ;) - PietervHuis (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That is logical, whatever one thinks of Kadyrov. However, I still think it is a pity that the infobox does not help follow the chronology of the Chechen war by stating the approximative date of Mashkadov's status change (from actual President to guerilla leader). Also, I think listing Umarov and Sadulayev under the category "President of Chechnya" is POV, since, de facto and regardless of what one thinks of their legitimacy, they are not : they should be listed under "warlord" or "separatist leaders" (I don't know if the latter category exists, but there must be an equivalent).Wedineinheck (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Russian Sufis

Shouldn't Category:Chechen Sufis be better?

I also have problems to classify many many people. For example, Basayev was often said to be a Sufi, and then people were saying he's a "Wahhabi". I guess I'd be sure only of Maskhadov and the Kadyrovs... despite the republic being supposedly so-Sufi. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Same with "Russian Islamists", which I used for Vakha Arsanov (no infobox). Oh, there is also no category "Vice Presidents of Chechnya". --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did an artiucle on Vakha Arsanov

1998 declaratiion of war on the USA and all that. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Maskhadov ever appoint a new vice president? - PietervHuis (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)