Stop the America-bashing!

[jasev]

Originally posted by Serb
But we have hymn of SU now. Oh man, I really love that song.

I must confess it sounds good. but I thought it was the same music with a different lyric. It really doesn't matter, I'm not able to difference between them

Edit: Almost forget SU union flag is the official flag of our army, the same old red banner.

Really? With the sickle and the hammer in the upper left corner? Curious. Really interesting.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb
[

You forget about invasion in Vietnam and bombardments of Yugoslavia. Oops I suppose its different case, my mistake. I’ve forget that this was done by Americans and it can be wrong or bad, of course their have honorable and righteous reasons for those actions, not to install puppet governments.

Vietnam wasn't an invasion. They were invited by the South Vietnam government to help them in their civil war. Before you start bashing the US for rewriting history, I'd suggest you take a look at some of the misinformation your government has passed out. I suspect they're just as much at fault as the US. Propoganda has no borders, it's a tool used by all governments. And I'm sorry to say, the SU was notorious for this.

[Willem]

Originally posted by jasev

Really? With the sickle and the hammer in the upper left corner? Curious. Really interesting.

And also a little scary. It makes me wonder where their allegiances lie. That's all the world needs right now, a military coup to reinstall the Soviet system.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Willem
Vietnam wasn't an invasion. They were invited by the South Vietnam government to help them in their civil war.

So did the SU in Afghanistan. And the US armed the mudjaideen that fought against them: many russian veterans may have still nightmares with the stinger missiles that destroyed their helicopters. The difference is that after the US left Vietnam, a state was stablished. Not a very humanitary state (my god, what an euphemysm... I'm starting to talk like a politician), but a solid state after all. When the SU left Afghanistan... well, we all know what happened.

[Willem]

Originally posted by jasev


So did the SU in Afghanistan. And the US armed the mudjaideen that fought against them: many russian veterans may have still nightmares with the stinger missiles that destroyed their helicopters. The difference is that after the US left Vietnam, a state was stablished. Not a very humanitary state (my god, what an euphemysm... I'm starting to talk like a politician), but a solid state after all. When the SU left Afghanistan... well, we all know what happened.

Well you can't hold the SU totally responsible for that. America had every opportunity of staying behind and helping the Afghans rebuild their country. But since it was no longer of any strategic value, they just left their so-called allies high and dry. That's not a very honourable way of treating a country who helped defeat an enemy. I'm really not surprised that there was so much resentment against the US there, the Afghan people were essentially abandoned and left to make the best of a ruined country. Though somehow I doubt very much the US will make the same mistake again.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Willem
Well you can't hold the SU totally responsible for that.

My god. Is my english SO poor that you didn't understand me at all?
I didn't hold the SU responsible for "that" at all.

[Willem]

Originally posted by jasev


My god. Is my english SO poor that you didn't understand me at all?
I didn't hold the SU responsible for "that" at all.

Sorry, I misunderstood. So what was your point then?

[Serb]

Originally posted by jasev


I must confess it sounds good. but I thought it was the same music with a different lyric. It really doesn't matter, I'm not able to difference between them

Yeah, you right its the same music with little different lyric, but I realy happy that this song returns as our official hymn. It's so cool.

Really? With the sickle and the hammer in the upper left corner? Curious. Really interesting.

Yes it is. A year ago our parlament makes law by which 3 colored buner is an official flag of Russia, song of Alexandrov and Michalkov (btw, he is an author of all previos versions of lyric for that hymn, he is about 90 year old, but still write!) is an official hymn of Russia and makes old red buner with the sickle and the hammer in the upper left corner is an official flag of Russian army.

To Willem:

And also a little scary. It makes me wonder where their allegiances lie.

Yeah, its fear time.
Warning!!! Russians are coming.

That's all the world needs right now, a military coup to reinstall the Soviet system.

I'm glad that you think so. It's not my words, but yours.

P.S. Am I scare you enough? Sorry I was kidding. Don't take it so serious.

P.S.S. But don't forget about this. Your's worse nightmare is return. The day will come and we will come for you, for all of you. We are so evil, so terrible so...
Oops, I think I did it again...Sorry

[Serb]

Originally posted by Arrian
You were born in the former USSR. Do you live in Russia now?

Yes I do. The most part of my life was spent in Siberia (you know, where a bears walking on a streets , actually I live in city with 1 500 000 inhabitants). Well, to prevent further questions I must say that I’m not of Serbian origin and even never was in Serbia, I am 100% Russian. My nickname is simple combination of first three letters of my name and first letter of my family name, and yes I am living in Russia now.

I'm just curious, and if you do, I'm curious about one other thing - are you glad you can vote and communicate your thoughts freely to others? Those are things I tend to take for granted, but if I were to ever lose those basic rights, I would be unable to accept that loss. Stalin, as I recall, didn't give a damn about those rights (I imagine he feared them, actually, just like any other despot). ").

I am happy about this. You do not need to convince me that freedom is cool stuff, I know this, and I have the same views on this subject.

One of the things that angers me most about my goverment's policies is that they seem to care about freedom & democracy just about as much as Stalin did when it comes to other countries (e.g. "Sure, go ahead and oppress your people, so long as you sell us oil

On the other hand USA government may take military action against democratic country if they don’t like an absolutely legitimacy elected president of this country. USA government is truly defender of democracy in the world.

You mentioned that you think I unfairly characterize what the USSR did as bad, "simply because SU has different ideology." Well, ideology is pretty important. And to be completely honest, I don't think much of that Soviet ideology. I was discussing oppression and/or the lack of personal freedom.

I’ve already told you that I have the same views about oppression or lack of personal freedom. But I’ve talked about something a little different. I was tried to said that crimes are always crimes, and no meter who is a criminal- a communist, democrat, fascist or whatever he is still criminal. Thinking that murderer with democratic views is much better than murderer with communist’s views is simple insane as I see it, and I hope you agree with that.

A quick thought about nukes. There is nothing I hate more than hypocrisy, and the USA is pretty damn hypocritical about "weapons of mass destruction" considering we're the only ones to every actually use nuclear weapons to kill people. I'm not particularly worried about governments having nukes... it's the fanatic with a mini nuke in a backpack that I see as a threat (not that I lose sleep over it... what's the point of that?).

Yes, USA government two-facedness really drives me mad. But USA have double standards not only for weapons of mass destruction but for many other questions too.

As for the talks with Russia to reduce the number of nukes we've got, I was under the impression that Bush wanted to just unilaterally reduce the USA's nuclear arsenal and hope Russian reciprocated, with no formal treaty. I lost track of that issue after Sept. 11th, I admit, so I could be wrong.

Well, actually it was Putin initiative to reduce both of ours nuclear potentials. But Bush’s answer really put us in prostration. I know that Americans are very practical people, so tell me would you trust to WORDS of the men who easily breaks official agreements signed on paper? I suppose you wouldn’t. And the one more thing Bush actually do not want to destroy whose nukes he saying to us- ‘Hey guys we are friends now, so you have to destroy your missiles, and I can assure you we’ll make the same… someday…. maybe… and don’t take it so hard that we break official treaties those treaties were so old…. So just trust to our words… we can not lie to you… we are friends now remember?..” What is it a joke? He think that we are idiots? Ah, one more thing, his last proposal is that USA will not actually destroy the nukes just disarm the missiles and put warheads to storage till better days. Do you know how many time it takes to attach a warhead to missile? Few hours I suppose. Is it reduction of nukes?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb

To Willem:

Yeah, its fear time.
Warning!!! Russians are coming.

I'm glad that you think so. It's not my words, but yours.

P.S. Am I scare you enough? Sorry I was kidding. Don't take it so serious.

P.S.S. But don't forget about this. Your's worse nightmare is return. The day will come and we will come for you, for all of you. We are so evil, so terrible so...
Oops, I think I did it again...Sorry

Well pardon me for being concerned, but having grown up in the MAD era, I really don't want to go through that again. There's enough things to worry about in this world, I don't want to put another nuclear arms race back on my list. If a revolution happened once in Russia, it can happen again. Having a cultural precedence makes the possibility that much more tangible, especially considering the problems your country has been experiencing since the fall of the SU. I'm not trying to imply that Russians are evil, I know they're not, but I'm sure you yourself must realize that there are still many people who miss the old ways of running your country.

[Serb]

Willem,
You do not have to worry about this.
We have a nice saying –“ nikogda ne nastupai na grabli dvajdy.» It means- never put yourself in the same troubles twice. We suffer enough to understand that totalitarianism is not the best government type. I can assure you that our today’s problems are much, much lesser than in it was in 1991. It is myth created by Hollywood, that in Russia many people are still missing the old ways of running my country. I’ve laugh long enough when I saw “Air Force One” with Harrison Ford, I really like him as an actor, so I don’t understand how he agreed to shoot in this movie. Such silly films create myths that we are still threatening the world. I think Hollywood needs someone to be bad; it needs “image of enemy”. They choose Russians for that role long time ago, in times of Cold war, and still can’t let us go. If you come to Russia you will see that there is nothing common between Hollywood movies and our real life. So don’t worry, we will never return to Communism, no one want it here. As for our symbols, I can see nothing wrong in fact that Red banner is an official flag of our army now. You know how it calls here in Russia? The banner of victory (victory in WW2 of course), it was always an official banner of our army. I can see nothing wrong in fact that we treat our traditions.
I think other thing should concern you. We all should be concerned by actions of USA government, it is they who starting another nuclear arms race. They broke the major agreement about anti-missile defense signed in 1972, they start to build an anti-missile shield and they greatly increased money spending for military purposes. The result of such actions is that Russia, China and if I am not mistaken India already increased their military budget. Any military expert may say you that so-called “renegade countries” is no real threat for USA, that the major goal of American national anti-missile shield is to neutralize nuclear potentials of India, Pakistan and China on the first stage, and in perspective (within 20-25 years) to neutralize nuclear potential of Russia. Isn’t it the beginning of new arms race?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb

I think other thing should concern you. We all should be concerned by actions of USA government, it is they who starting another nuclear arms race. They broke the major agreement about anti-missile defense signed in 1972, they start to build an anti-missile shield and they greatly increased money spending for military purposes. The result of such actions is that Russia, China and if I am not mistaken India already increased their military budget. Any military expert may say you that so-called “renegade countries” is no real treat to USA, that the major goal of American national anti-missile shield is to neutralize nuclear potentials of India, Pakistan and China on the first stage, and in perspective (within 20-25 years) to neutralize nuclear potential of Russia. Isn’t it the beginning of new arms race?

Believe me, I'm no more happy about US policy on this issue than you are. I think it was wrong to unilaterally revoke the ABM treaty, and I think the whole missile defence idea is just a big waste of money and resources. Not to mention, as you say, that it does leave open the possibilty of a new arms race. This notion of the Bush administeration that they're protecting themselves from rogue states is absolutely absurd. And as Sept. 11 has revealed, a missile attack is the least of their worries. If they're concerned about a rogue state, they'd be better off worrying about a suitcase bomb, rather than a missile falling from the sky.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem


and I think the whole missile defence idea is just a big waste of money and resources.

Absolutely. They already wanted to build SDI once. None defense system can give 100% guaranty that it will not be penetrated by missile.
I am glad that you agree that they are lying about threat of rogue states. As for me, they are making a really big mistake.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Willem
the whole missile defence idea is just a big waste of money and resources.

That's the point. Do you know who will recieve that money? I'll state a theory: the companies that will design and buid the missile defense system gave a huge amount of money to G.W. Bush presidential campaign.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb

Absolutely. They already wanted to build SDI once. None defense system can give 100% guaranty that it will not be penetrated by missile.

Agreed. They'd be much better off if they just fostered good relations with other countries and showed a sincere desire to be a "good neighbour" in the world community. So far Bush has failed miserably in that regard. The only reason he's been able to pull together this anti-terrorist coalition is through sheer sympathy. Frankly, this rhetoric about the "axis of evil" he's uttering makes me rather nervous. I certainly hope he's not foolish enough to go after Iraq or Iran when he's finished mopping up in Afghanistan.

As for them lying about their intentions, I don't believe they're stupid enough to really take the threat of a rogue state seriously, however I do believe that their intention is purely defensive. They're merely trying to provide themselves with a sense of security, albeit a misguided one.

[Serb]

Originally posted by jasev


That's the point. Do you know who will recieve that money? I'll state a theory: the companies that will design and buid the missile defense system gave a huge amount of money to G.W. Bush presidential campaign.

Looks like you found the first admirer of your theory. It’s me. I’ve also thought that this is the main reason for their actions.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem
Vietnam wasn't an invasion. They were invited by the South Vietnam government to help them in their civil war. Before you start bashing the US for rewriting history, I'd suggest you take a look at some of the misinformation your government has passed out. I suspect they're just as much at fault as the US. Propoganda has no borders, it's a tool used by all governments. And I'm sorry to say, the SU was notorious for this.

Willem,
Well you see, you do not count Vietnam is an invasion, on the other hand I suppose you sure that Afghanistan was an invasion. It is absolutely the same events. SU governments were also asked by Afghanistan’s government to help them in their civil war. In both cases it was intervention to preserve friendly government. But I’m agree with you propaganda really has no borders.

Sorry, I misunderstood. So what was your point then?

Well, if you interested you may read my version.
First of all, it is not a secret that in Vietnam USSR supplied North with weapons and military instructors. When Americans left Vietnam there was installed government friendly to USSR. Now about Afghanistan, it was the mirror situation. USA supplied Afghan rebels who fought against USSR. When soviet army left Afghanistan, (btw not because of military defeat but because Gorbatchev has come to power and all this perestroika and other stuff started, the political situation has changed) in Afghanistan was formed coalition government leads by president Nagibula (he was a man of Kremlin). This government consists of 33%- Nagibula’s mens (former, friendly to soviets government), 33% -former rebels (mudjaideen) and 33% were people of former king of Afghanistan. This government does not lived long, after a year or two it was overthrown and president Nagibula was brutally murdered, SU did not support him in hard times (I do not mean military operation, Gorbatchev refused even to sell fuel for Nagibula’s tanks, I suppose it calls a betrayal.) Later Taliban has come to power.
So, when we left Afghanistan America actually do not “has every opportunity of staying behind and helping the Afghans rebuild their country”, because Afghanistan was ruled by Nagibula- Kremlin’s men. Only when his government was overthrown they have such opportunity. Btw, there was almost nothing to rebuild. The major part of Afghan industry and infrastructure was build by Russians in times of occupation as gift from all soviet people to Afghan brothers. Should I say about reasons why USA was so passive in fate of his former ally? Why USA does not tried to establish democratic government after Nagibula’s fall? Well, I have two versions. The first is: the USA government was interested that Russia has so dangerous and aggressive neighbor as Afghanistan under Taliban’s rule. All this years we have to maintain contingent in Tajikistan to prevent Taliban’s border attacks. The second is: may be US thought that it is possible to control Taliban. If you find my versions too unbelievable, then I should remind that Osama ben Laden was sponsored by CIA during war vs. USSR. CIA seriously thought that it can control such monster and supported him with money and weapons, but when war vs. SU was over ben Laden turned against his masters.
This is only my opinion, may be you have another explanation why they do not installed a government friendly to US, after USSR left Afghanistan and regime of Nagibula was fall.

[jasev]

Perfect, Serb. That was almost exactly what I tried to say. It looks that your english is quite better than mine. Maybe you had good teacher who helped you with the irregular verbs

Just a thing: the soviet army left afghanistan because they were unable to defeat the rebels (it looks like a stalemate) and were suffering many losses. No country can't maintain a war that can't be won, so the retreat was the most logical option. Not to mention that the public opinion was against the war.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb

Well you see, you do not count Vietnam is an invasion, on the other hand I suppose you sure that Afghanistan was an invasion. It is absolutely the same events. SU governments were also asked by Afghanistan’s government to help them in their civil war. In both cases it was intervention to preserve friendly government.

Yes I'm fully aware that the SU was invited by the Afghan government of the time. I don't recall saying that they weren't. In almost every way, it was Russia's version of Vietnam. Except they were fighting in hills, not jungles.

So, when we left Afghanistan America actually do not “has every opportunity of staying behind and helping the Afghans rebuild their country”, because Afghanistan was ruled by Nagibula- Kremlin’s men.

Well that I wasn't aware of. I was assuming that the government that took power afterwards would be sympathetic to the US for assisting them. I suppose it wouldn't make very much sense for the US to help a government still sympathetic to their enemy.

Should I say about reasons why USA was so passive in fate of his former ally? Why USA does not tried to establish democratic government after Nagibula’s fall? Well, I have to versions. The first is: the USA government was interested that Russia has so dangerous and aggressive neighbor as Afghanistan under Taliban’s rule. All this years we have to maintain contingent in Tajikistan to prevent Taliban’s border attacks. The second is: may be US thought that it is possible to control Taliban. If you find my versions too unbelievable, then I should remind that Osama ben Laden was sponsored by CIA during war vs. USSR. CIA seriously thought that it can control such monster and supported him with money and weapons, but when war vs. SU was over ben Laden turned against his masters.
This is only my opinion, may be you have another explanation why they do not installed a government friendly to US, after USSR left Afghanistan and regime of Nagibula was fall.

Well you might be right, but my opinion is that they no longer cared. The SU was crumbling, they had won. There was no need for them to involve themselves since it was no longer of any strategic importance for them to do so. The US may preach about Democracy and freedom but they only put their money where their mouth is when it serves some purpose. Heaven forbid they should get involved strictly out of principle! It sounds to me that the whole world abandoned Afghanistan, not just the US. Though I can understand that, as a former enemy, Russia couldn't have done very much at the time.

[Serb]

Originally posted by jasev
Perfect, Serb. That was almost exactly what I tried to say. It looks that your english is quite better than mine. Maybe you had good teacher who helped you with the irregular verbs

Just a thing: the soviet army left afghanistan because they were unable to defeat the rebels (it looks like a stalemate) and were suffering many losses. No country can't maintain a war that can't be won, so the retreat was the most logical option. Not to mention that the public opinion was against the war.

Don’t make me laugh I know my English is terrible.

Yes, I agree that none country is able to maintain a war that cannot be win; fighting against partisans in mountainous country like Afghanistan is very complicated task. I think that sending troops to Afghanistan was a mistake, but our casualties was not huge, during ten years of war we’ve lost 14 500 men KIA in compare with American casualties in Vietnam it is not very much. Yes, the situation was looks like stalemate, but since 1985 it was looks like we’ve started to win slightly (only slightly) and when Afghan government was informed that soviet army is gone leave their country they thought that it is a joke, they were addicted to presence of soviet army and do not know what could happen to them if soviets leave. And one more thing, the SU government never was concerned about public opinion, an anti-war demonstrations and actions of protest like in USA in times of war in Vietnam are never happens in SU. I suppose Gorbachev make decision to left Afghanistan by political reasons (may be to show to the rest of the world that he is absolutely new type of soviet leader, that he want to correct the mistakes of previous leaders, but most likely he make this decision because we have too many internal problems and he thought that its time to stop wasting time and money in Afghanistan), theoretically we was able to continue this campaign no less than few years. But I think it was right decision; it is impossible to fight constantly against partisans, it is impossible to win. We shouldn’t come to Afghanistan, well it is better to leave later then to leave never.
P.S. I am just curios, is the Russian Empire survive the attack of mighty Spanish army in your Civ2 game?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem


Yes I'm fully aware that the SU was invited by the Afghan government of the time. I don't recall saying that they weren't. In almost every way, it was Russia's version of Vietnam. Except they were fighting in hills, not jungles.

Sorry, I’ve actually do not mean you, we’ve talked about propaganda remember? I’ve just wanted to say that it is popular view created by propaganda (for example by films like Rambo 3). And I am not bashing Americans for this; I realize that soviet propaganda do the same, with only difference that it make propaganda within own country while Americans do it worldwide

Well you might be right, but my opinion is that they no longer cared. The SU was crumbling, they had won. There was no need for them to involve themselves since it was no longer of any strategic importance for them to do so. The US may preach about Democracy and freedom but they only put their money where their mouth is when it serves some purpose.

Of course they do nothing without profit, but I don’t think that they was no longer cared. You see, Afghanistan always have big strategic importance because of its geographical position in this region. It is always was a welcome target for conquerors, even mighty Britain Empire tried to conquer it. But Afghanistan have strategic importance not only because its position, by natural resources it is very, very rich country. Do you notice how many countries want to be a friend of Afghanistan now? I can assure you USA has, and have now its national interests in this country.

I suppose it wouldn't make very much sense for the US to help a government still sympathetic to their enemy.

That’s why the government of Nagibula was overthrown. For USA he was unwelcome as the leader of Afghanistan, he was unwelcome because he sympathize to SU. I am really sorry about what happen to him, he was hanged on the main square of Kabul. I don’t think that he deserved such fate. He was very educated men and brilliant politician. While soviet army leaved Afghanistan, he has every opportunity to create his own government, but he chooses another way. As I said earlier he formed a coalition government, on 1/3 it consisted of his allies, on another 1/3 his former enemies- mudjaideen, and last 1/3 was the former king men’s. Nagibula make attempt to unite country, and actually he has progress on it. After he created a coalition of former enemies, civil war was stopped. Yes, he sympathized to SU, but only sympathized nothing more. After creation of coalition government Moscow lost any influence on Afghanistan. But Nagibula was the unwelcome figure for too many people. I am sure that CIA was involved in the beginning of new civil war in Afghanistan. About year ago I saw interview with former high official of Pakistan intelligence. And he said something like this- “ yes, president Nagibula’s was unwelcome for us (Pakistan and USA) and we’ve done everything to remove him.” CIA and Pakistan intelligence put bet on the Taliban, when they realized that they make wrong bet and they cannot control the Taliban it was too late. I suppose they realize now that it was horrible mistake.

It sounds to me that the whole world abandoned Afghanistan, not just the US. Though I can understand that, as a former enemy, Russia couldn't have done very much at the time.

That’s true, the whole world abandoned Afghanistan. But actually Russia was the only country that did not. After soviet army left Afghanistan Afghans stop to treat us as enemies. Two years ago we’ve started military support of Northern Alliance in their war against Taliban. We’ve sent them tanks, weapons, ammunition, military instructors; we share intelligence data and gave them consultations (btw, the major offence of Northern Alliance on Taliban was started after 3 days after big delegation of Northern Alliance commanders was meet in Tajikistan with delegation of Russian commanders leads by chief of HQ of Russian army). It was covert support because UN put an embargo on all trades with Afghanistan. What for we done this? It was in accordance with our national interests to do so. We was known very well what a terrorism is, the Taliban was the major sponsor of Chechen terrorists who blows up houses with hundreds of people within in Moscow, who steal people for ransom and slavery. And Taliban by itself threaten to our southern border, we have to maintain contingent on Tajik- Afghan border. So, we were interested to help Northern alliance. If you remember about year ago it was even talks on TV news that Russia may makes an air strikes to terrorists bases located on Afghanistan territory. It is sad that USA realized the real danger of terrorism only after September. Mr.Putin tried to convinced US administration to make common measures against Taliban long time ago since president Clinton was in charge. But all his proposals were denied.
Btw, today in Moscow arrived the defense minister of Afghanistan he meets with our defense minister. Their talks about further military cooperation between our countries, the most part of Afghan army equipped with soviet/russian design weapons we have huge field for cooperation on this subject. And one more thing, as I’ve said earlier major part of Afghan infrastructure (power plants, factories etc) was build by Russians with use of russian technologies, so rebuilding of this objects it is another huge field for cooperation between our countries.
So, as you may see Russians is one of the closest friends of Afghan people now.

[Willem]

Well thanks for sharing that information with me. It's always interesting being able to see the other side of the story. As you said, the US media certainly tends to portray Russia as the bad guy. So sometimes it's hard to get at the truth.

[Serb]

You are welcome.
The truth may be found only when you know both sides of the story. I am happy that I’ve describe to you our version of events, this is all I’ve wanted to do. The choices are yours.

[Willem]

So I'm curious, why is Russia trying so hard to hang on to Chechnya? When the SU fell, so many of the republics were just left alone to go their own way. Why not Chechnya as well?

[Serb]

Well, when SU collapsed we do not has any problems with Chehnya it was absolutly clear for all that it is part of Russia. Our problems started later, when Chehen terrorists takes support from their 'brothers' from Afghanistan, and from terroristic organizations from other countries.
You see, SU was consisted of 15 republics: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan etc. Chehnya was not one of them it is small , very small part of Russia. The Russian Federation consist of 89 subjects of federation and Chehnya is one of them. If we let them go whole Russian Federation may disintegrate like SU. Btw, Chehnya was free from Moscow's rule for the period of time since 1996 until 1999. While 'de juro' it remains one of the subjects of Russian Federation, 'de fucto' it was not. For the period of that time there were no any russian institutes of powers on that terriotory, they do not live upon our laws, they were not controled by federal center- Moscow, they do not pay taxes and etc. They were free to do what they want, and they establish anarchy as I call it, they establish the same state as it was in Afghanistan durring Taliban's rule, they lived in accordance with so called 'Shariat rule'- codex of very brutal, unhuman laws used by Muslim contries in medival's times (with cutt off hands as punishment for steal, for example). During this three years Chechnya become a 'foreign office of Taliban', in fact we has our own Afghanistan on our own territory. Chechnya become home for terrorists and villians of all kinds from all around the world, they used Chehnya as base for atacks on Russia, Their main bussines was to steal people for ransom and for using their victims as slaves. They steal people from cities in any corners of Russia and bring them to Chehnya, they make huge numbers of terroristic acts, the most horrible was destruction af few civilian houses in Moscow. Hundreds of people were killed, while this people peacefully sleaping in they homes, terrorists blows up buildings and when buildings collapsed its buried those people within ruins, only few surrvived those devastations. Only for those crimes we have moral right to destroy the bustards who did this. But our pation was over when Chehen terrorist launch an invasion in Dagestan, they wanted to capture more of Russian territory. It was the limit break. President Putin launched a massive counter terroristic operation, this time war against terrorists was sucsesful, constitutional order was established in Chehnya, and people return to peaceful life. All democratical, constitutional institutions of powers (administration, courts, right to vote, right to be elected and etc) returned to Chehen land.

[Willem]

Thanks again for the info. For the longest time the media here was portraying Chechnya in the same light as the other republics, like Ukraine etc. They made it out as if the Chechnyan people were only striving for their own government, just like the rest. But that was a long time ago, now they don't even mention it much. I think the Western attitude changed after that bombing that you spoke of. The feeling had changed and the media no longer portrayed them as freedom fighters, which they did before. Now they say very little.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem
Thanks again for the info. For the longest time the media here was portraying Chechnya in the same light as the other republics, like Ukraine etc. They made it out as if the Chechnyan people were only striving for their own government, just like the rest. But that was a long time ago, now they don't even mention it much. I think the Western attitude changed after that bombing that you spoke of. The feeling had changed and the media no longer portrayed them as freedom fighters, which they did before. Now they say very little.

You are welcome.
I think someone was very, very interested that Western mass media portrayed Chehen terrorist as freedom fighters. I am glad if things changed now.

[jasev]

REally interesting, Serb. Now we know the russian point of view, so I wish to hear the chechenyan point of view.

P.S: Of course Russia survived: I always leave a city in peace to be able to build the SpaceShip.

[Serb]

I do not think that Chechen point of view is different. I suppose terrorists may have different point of view. But its not the same things. Terrorist has no nationalities, and I don’t think that they post on Civ’s forums.

P.S. Did Russians was unable to launch Gagarin earlier that Spanish Empire? No? What a shame for us…Oh no, I don’t know how I will survive such disgrace.

[jasev]

Of course terrorism has nationalities. Most times it is their only leit motiv. But the question is:

The trouble in Chechenya is really a terrorism problem? We have a terrorism problem in Basque Country and we don't use army helicopters and tanks to solve it (perhaps we should try it, at this moment we're not winning). You typed they are terrorists, but I'm sure they have a different point of view.

You wrote they're terrorists, and maybe you're right. But we haven't read the other side of the story, so forgive me if I still have doubts.