Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yaacov who wrote (15008)	10/20/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Chechnya is just as much a part of Russia as Dagestan is""">>>> Old Soviet era joke..."Amerians travel by plane, Europeans by car, and Russians by tanks...<gg> and another Version "What country USSR has a border with? Any country that USSR wishes to" PS Ivan is a much stronger claim on Caucasus than on Baltics, right?...<gg>

To: Yaacov who wrote (15008)	10/21/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

Oops, Yaacov, wrong Ivan! Kabarda was "united" with Russia in 1557, when Ivan the Terrible(not Ivan Kalita) married the Kabardin princess Maria Timryukovna. And the Kabardins (unlike the "free" Cherkess societies and the Chechens) had a developed feudal structure at the time. Thus Maria Tirmyukovna was more than just a "horse-traders' daughter." This marriage is not cited as the basis for the Russian claim to the entire North Caucasus. Today, for the most part, that claim is based on the "right of conquest." For a time there, in the 70's and 80's, there was a massive attempt, on the part of the "scholarly community" (snicker), to prove that in every case (including the Chechen one), the "unification with Russia" was "voluntary." To bolster that preposterous notion, the scholars cited various agreements that were signed by representatives of one or another community. In fact, of course, these "agreements" were often exacted under duress; in other cases, the representatives who signed could not, and did not, speak for the community as a whole; or, like the Kabardins (who were notorious for playing both sides), they signed similar agreements with the "competition" (e.g., the Turks, the Crimean Tatars), and so forth. The "voluntary unification with Russia" interpretation has since (deservedly) fallen into disrepute. I presume that the standard Russian argument today would be that it is pointless to argue the rights & the wrongs of the conquest of the North Caucasus, just as it would be pointless to argue the rights and the wrongs of the American expropriation of Indian lands. In short, their position would probably be that it's now "ours," and we aren't going to give it back.