Talk:History of Chechnya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
History of Chechnya 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.

This part of the article on the Chechen history lacks info on the pre-Tsarist and Tsarist times. I'll try and add more info, but it'll take time. I want people to see the big picture about Chechnya, not just the 1990s. KNewman 15:41, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The second war didn't expire yet

Reportedly, the war continues behind and in spite the Russian news block. See news services--BIR 07:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale military operations ended in 2000. --Gene s 08:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reportedly, due to the overwhelming superior numbers in Russian troops the Chechen resistance changed tactics and since then it has conducted a partisan-styled warfare. True, the war of corps and keen fronts has ceased so far to be in practice. Since the plain demolition of Grozny there haven't been similar operations but abundantly smaller ones, thus often bloodier than before...--BIR 11:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not aware of any large scale military operations ("bloodier operations" by your definition) by separatists in Chechnya since downing of a helicopter in August 2002. Separatists conduct only terrorist acts against civilians and minor harrasment of Russian troops. Thus, the war itself has eded. The hostilities continue, but they cannot be called war due to limited scale and number of casualties. --Gene s 11:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well...Let's give a parallel example (although I guess you won't agree on the scale or on the possibly equal scenarios in the future but just for a joy and to keep you hot). During the Napoleonic wars, Moscow become conquered and burned down as well as Grozny did a little while ago. Then, the invaders we

re in a position to say that the war has ended and the Kutuzov-led Russian army and 'minutemen' could "conduct only terrorist acts against civilians and minor harrasment of Napoleonic troops". --BIR 08:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your example is completely unrelated. It describes a completely different history - a war between sovereign nations, as opposed to a war against a separatist movement; Napoleon stayed in Moscow for about 5 weeks, as opposed to 5 years; Russia retained regular army, while separatists did not; there is no evidence Kutuzov conducted raids against Frech or Russian civilians, while separatists conduct such raids. The list of differences would be a few pages long. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very likely they did say so then, or most surely they thought so. And if there were the kinds of the modern mass medias in Napoleon's use, no doubt the litles would have been similar to your view on the war in Chechnya. Now, back to Chechnya. The flow of war is pretty well-documented in the Yahoo's Chechen LIST and worldwide readable.
Your writing is unrelated to the subject of this discussion. Keep focused on the topic.
You are refering to the "list" again and yet another public message board. I assume you are doing it out of malice just to draw the discussion off topic. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From here, it just looks like the resistance could hold the fight well, and the military initiative is more or less in their hands in spite of the overwhelmingly superior invaders in numbers (occasionally, the resistance has even overtaken large areas just lately but withdrew according to classical ambush and disappear tactics. In this year, practically whole Ingushetia was overtaken thus Putin made some generals redundant etc.)Reportedly, the Russian weekly losses have been approximately 50-150 troops quite permanently for years. Of course, given that there are some 80 000 or more Russian troops in Chechnya, this amount is quite unsufficient to make Russia to change her politics on the Chechen issue.--BIR 08:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please keep focus on the topic. List the military operations of separatists since 2002. Prove they are "bloodier" as you said. Refer only to mainstream sources of information. Do not post links to the "list" and other public message boards. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But, by no means, don't read my lips but the news clips I mentioned.
You mentioned nothing of use. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleonic parallels and comparisons

I am sorry to find your knowledge of the Napoleonic 'second Polish war' quite poor, so please read ahead. Napoleon really called the patriotic war as a second Polish war. Just compare how Putin called the second Chechen war as an 'antiterrotist operation' in the beginning.

See [1] especially The Capture of Moscow and Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812

The invaders faced scorched soil ahead, and partisans in the rear. Especially, pay attention to the scorched soil tactics that Kutuzov deployed and what it must have ment to the ordinary Russian civilians.

In this regards, it's tempting to compare Kutuzov with Maskhadov further. The former was contemporary to the greatest military genius of all times, Suvorov, and therefore his quick-to-learn pupil in Rimmik (unfortunately Suvorov himself died already in 1800 beeing in shadow), and Maskhadov is a product of the Suvorovian traditions of the military adademies who hasn't yet lost a principal battle either given the premises he has had. From the Russian side the battle of Grozny was a plain militarily unprofessional demolition, say, a war crime, from where the Chechen main force withdrew relatively successfully in the way Kutuzov did in Moscow. In his way, the later has appeared even more skilled than Suvorov. He could establish a true profesionally fighting army out of the scattered Caucasian hotheads that nobody could govern up to this extent before. I doubt that not even Suvorov could have done this.

[2] In Kutuzov's words 'the war had just begun'.

  1. You started a new section again insted of answering the previous section
  2. You accused me of ignorance while yourself failed to note that wordiq.com is just a copy of corresponding article in this wiki.
  3. I will not discuss your comparison of 1812 war with the second Chechen war further unless you prove every item in the list:
    1. Napoleon stayed in Moscow for 5 year, instead of 5 weeks.
    2. Kutuzov purposefully attacked Russian civilians in September 1812 in order to get political settlement with Napoleon
    3. Kutuzov purposefully attacked French civilians in September 1812 in order to get political settlement with Napoleon
    4. Napoleon successfully enthroned a new Russian tsar
    5. Russia was a subdivision of France before the invasion
--Gene s 06:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The military operations of the Chechen resistance since 2002

The most easily you could get info from the "other side of war" while surfing the LIST. If you put there "A review of the 265th week of war", "A review of the 264th...", "A review of the 263th ..." etc. in the search archive box.

If you're patient enough you may easily draw weekly statistics of losses in troops, vehicles, planes, helicopters etc. if you just mind. If you then compared these with the Russian official and unofficial periodic announcement of military losses you'll realise an approximate truth of war.

And to see some traces of the invaders' abuses on the civilians see photos here.--BIR 14:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You failed to provide a list of military operations conducted by separatists in 2003 and 2004. You failed to provide supporting evidence in the form of URLs of reputable sources of infrmation. Thus there is nothing to discuss further. --Gene s 06:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Achievements of the Chechen resistance, October - June 2004

Tool: Google, Search text: A review of the 267 th week of war, A review of the 265th week of war etc.

[3] A review of the 267 th week of war (16 - 22 October 2004 ), KIAs, 73, injured 88, vehicles, 14

[4] A review of the 265th week of war (2 - 8 October 2004), KIAs, 103, injured 136, vehiles 21

[5] A review of the 264th week of war (25 September ? 1 October 2004), KIAs, 118, injured 149, vehicles 24, one MI-8

[6] A review of the 263rd week of war (19 ? 26 September 2004), KIAs 109, injured 133, vehicles 19

You failed to provide evidence in the form of URLs to reputable sources of information. Chechenpress is a separatist propaganda outlet. --Gene s 11:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The CP is the official ChRI news agency
Exactly. It's their propaganda news agency.
and what you stated is just your private biased opinion.
And you just repeat separatist propaganda.
Further, you failed to provide any consistent evidence to dispute the details of the articles above.--BIR 11:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's impossible to prove that something did NOT happen. If it did not happen, noone writes about it, right? If no one writes, then there is no link to nothing. Thus, the burden of proof is yours. Chechenpress is NOT a neutral source of information. --Gene s
Quite unbelievable !
Yes, it is quite unbelievable that you insist on using propaganda in place of news. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then the non-existent people die in a non-existent war
People die in terrorist attacks too. Not every death is due to war. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and all this fuss about it is in vain:=) You've red your Orwell all too well.--BIR 11:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If what you are saing is correct, then you should have no difficulty providing links to reputable and desirably neutral sources of information in support of your views. So far you failed to provide a single such link. All your references are either separatist propaganda web site or public message forum. Find BBC or CNN or WSJ or NYT links. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

259th week, KIAs 175, Injured 200, Units of vehicles 8+12+20. 258th week, KIAs 106, Injured 115, Pows 2, Units of vehicles 8+2+11. 256th week, KIAs 134, Injured 203, Units of vehicles 11+10+10 (Trotsev reportedly admitted 50 000 KIAs of the war before he was removed). 255th week, KIAs 88, Injured 103, Units of vehicles 3+1+5+8 (The Chechen takerover of Ingushetia, two generals removed). 252nd week, KIAs 79, Injured 60, Units of vehicles 1+4+4+1. 251st week, KIAs 108, Injured 163, Units of vehicles 3+2+2+1+6. 250th week, KIAs 140, Injured 180, POWs 10, Units of vehicles 3+10+1+1. Etc.

[edit] True numbers vs. officially forgered ones

Do you actually read what you post? Are you completely irresponsible? Or you want to promote your view by any means necessary?
  • Prague Watchdog Article from December 2000. NOT 2003 or 2004
  • Johnson's article Russian casualties in Chechnya in 2002. In 2002. NOT 2003 or 2004
  • Jamestown's article Russian casualties in Chechnya in 2002. Do you actually read what you post?
  • [7] April 2002. Do you understand difference between different years?
  • [8] February 2001.
  • [9] Use of land mines in Chechnya in 1996-2002
  • [10] Use of land mines by separatists in Chechnya, killing 13 y.o.
You still have not posted A SINGLE useful link. You post nothing but propaganda and irrelevant links. --Gene s 13:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do you finally agree ?

Do you mean that you admit the war exists or not ?

Have you provided the evidence? Look at the section above. Do you see any relevant links there? I don't. So far you seem to be consumed with Chewbacca Defence --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I put the info on the second Chechen war article, do you promise not to revise anymore ?

You have to keep in mind:
  1. The content you write should be factual and impartial. It should not contain loaded language, it should just report facts without judgement
  2. You should be able to provide supporting evidence in the form of URLs to reputable and desirably neutral sources or information (NOT "list" or separatist media)
  3. The content should be topical, i.e. it should correspond to the article
  4. There are no external links in the article body, unless absolutely necessary
  5. The posted material is not copyrighed
If you satisfy these requirements, I will not touch your writing. --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, I am afraid that I tend to continue in my way--BIR 10:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. So will I. --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] All the nit-pickers of the world, unite yourselves !

In my knowlegde, for example, (one) a thousand years, but (many) thousands of ..., like thousands of refugees, thousands of times etc.--BIR 14:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please consult your English teacher. Alternatively enter "forty thousand" and "forty thousands" in google and compare the number of results. --Gene s 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I will. But this case depends on what one wants to say. Indefinitely, about "forty thousands of Chechens...", or definitely, exactly "forty thousand Chechens...". In fact, they were a few less than forty thousands, but this 40 thousands is a handy amount to understand and remember.

In addition, ...sh+s can hardly be pronounced in English. E in between is quite definitely needed in these constructions. So, I think you have to put E there like an Ingush but many Ingushes.--BIR 14:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your spelling can be used. If you insist on it, please correct it everywhere in the article, not just in one spot. --Gene s 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well. It's the same with all similar ...sh+es in English, like ash-es, bush-es, crash-es, dash-es, flash-es, wash-es etc.
Nothing on earth is perfect, for only God, say, Allah is eternally perfect, neither my English, nor a language is in a steady state. --BIR 12:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a mistake?

There could be a mistake in the text. Someone wrote that the town of Tarki was founded by Ivan the Terrible. Well, my sources say that, first, Tarki is in Dagestan, second, it was founded some time in the 13th or 14th century, because Timur Khan passed through it in 1396. KNewman 14:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in Chechnya

I thought that the Chechens never converted to Christianity en masse. It is true that archaeologists have found evidence that Christianity had been practised in present-day Chechnya not long after the faith's evolution. However, the Chechens remained largely animist until the introduction of Islam in the 16th century.

[edit] Zavgayev?

There is no mention of Doku Zavgayev anywhere in this article, or in Wikipedia as a whole for that matter. I feel he warrants at least a passing mention. Have I missed a discussion on this topic? PTav

[edit] Formation of OKChN

According to Robert Seely the OKChN was formed in November 1990, not the 1st of September 1991. Is there a cited surce for the date of it's formation?

[edit] What is Chechnya?

This article needs at least a defining sentence on what Chechnya is, or was, before discussing its history. Personally, I've never even heard of the place. Emmett5 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

What's your problem exactly?

-According to every historican the Caucasian War was an occupation, that's universal. Replacing it with "the long and brutal war" doesn't look very professional.

-The war didn't end in 2002.

-Insurgency hasn't "died down" that's only what the Russian media says. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see what Occupation is by definition: Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army. 1. By the end of the Caucasus War there were more Chechens and Avars fighting for Russia than againist them. 2. The Mountanous peoples never had an internationally recognised state. 3. The Russian Army was not hostile to them, only to those who opposed Russia. After the War the Caucasus was an integral part of Russia, and internationally recognised. And every historian is also not true, for example Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game. Sorry there is no universal that you claim. Insurgency has not died down? That's a new one. In 2001 Russia lost more than a thousand men, in 2007 only 54. All of the commanders are dead (and burning in Hell!) none of the large scale battles have been anywhere. Most of the administration has now become more and more beuracratic rather than military.
Next the order for the expulsion of the Chechens was not signed by Stalin but by Beria, and they were not deported to Siberia but to Kazakhstan. Please stop pushing the pro-Terrorist POV into the articles, remember Don't use wikipedia to make a point --Kuban Cossack 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Burning in hell? Terrorists? Please keep your POV away from wikipedia.

It was an occupation. 1. That there were more mountaineer rebels fighting for the Russians is speculation. 2. In those times many states were unrecognised. 3. Haha.

Insurgency has become less in Chechnya, yet increased in it's neighbouring regions. 54 men is obviously a lie, you didn't even include the police officers and spetsnaz units. In 2007 they lost up to 200 men in Chechnya alone. Large scale raids have happened, yet large scale battles aren't a requirement for it to be considered an ongoing conflict. It's called a guerrilla war for a reason. According to human rights groups the administration is still military. The northern part of Kazakhstan is also Siberia, Maskhadov himself said they were deported to Siberia. The only one who should stop using wikipedia to make a point is a nationalist like you. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the tone you are taking, I will ask the admin to have a third opinion here, and to also lock the article. Again read Peter Hopkirk's the Great Game, or any other cridible source on the topic (Kavkaz Center is not such one), the mountaneers fully agreed to take Russian citizenship, even Shamil himself after his surrender encouraged them to lay down his arms. Yermolov's formed the first units solely composed of Avars and Chechens that fought alongside Russians. Lie or no lie, who are you to decide what is a lie? Makhadov is dead... and independent western sources paint a different picture, besides it is not the northern part of Kazakhstan that they were exiled to. --Kuban Cossack 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for an admin right away nobody else has even commented on this. As far as I know Shamil surrendered after they were defeated, so there wasn't much choice. I'm sure we can work something out. This seems like a sensetive article for you since youre a veteran. I'll try to make a "compromise" - PietervHuis (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind your present version as provisional. Well Shamil was defeated, he had no more local support, hardly any followers and what's intersting is what happened to him after he was taken captive, we he tortured? Was he humiliated? No instead he was pardoned personally by the Tsar, taken to Saint Petersburg where he was shown factories, operas, railroads, ships etc, and told him that you will have this as well if you stop fighting. All I can say say is on the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the Second World War, and upon the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the Northern Caucasus was one a very pleasent place to visit and to live in. Shame that the Chechens never learn from their mistakes. --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for this article to be protected. Both of you seem to have gotten over the initial revert shock and are talking and listening and beginning to being nice to each other. Keep it up! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)