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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (39969)	8/26/2002 12:57:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you are wrong on this issue. Long ago, when the Russian suppression of Chechnya was big news in the West, Sure it was.. There was considerable sympathy because of the comparison to the plight of the Bosnians and Kosovars. Russia took a "strong hand" in dealing with the Chechens in part, because of the oil refineries in Grozny and the pipeline, but also because of the potential for additional muslim unrest to arise throughout the rest of the CIS. It was probably the wrong way to go, but they perceived they had significant economic interests at risk that could have hobbled the Russian economy (and who's to say the US didn't provide some measure of support to the Chechans in order to undercut the Russian "robber barons" trying to grab that oil. Very complex issues here, and lots of co-mingled interests from various parties. But I still don't believe the Chechen revolt was initiated as an attempt to create an Islamic state in the Caucasus anymore than I believe the Irish rebellion was about turning Ireland into a communist state (despite the fact that the IRA was initiated as a marxist insurgency). So just as Muhadjideen flocked to fight the Serbs in Bosnia, they flocked to fight the Russians in Chechnya. Afterall, the Muhadjideen really have only one marketable skill... waging Jihad. Hawk