IzzyR said:
you’re back with more of the same type of junk. You post an inordinately large amount of text copied from some website that you claim proves your point. I wade through it all and see that it deals primarily with government controlled press, so I respond that this does not imply lack of press freedom. Then you respond by pasting an even greater chunk of stuff from your favored website, unconnected with your previous assertion, with the vague assertion that this proves your point. I cannot be wasting my time plowing through all sorts of regurgitated jive that you’ve mindlessly copied and pasted from some website. If you have a point to make, copy the relevant parts and show how it supports your point.
In this case, most of what you’ve put forth relates to stuff that you’ve already posted and to which I’ve already responded to. In sum, I don’t see anything here that suggests that there is a lack of press freedom in Russia. Though the possibility is suggested that some new laws might be expanded in a manner that might curb press freedom. And it is possible that some of the press might be subject to a mild form of government harassment over sensitive issues. I am not going to bother repeating this again, should you pull the same shtick.
**Eva Luna ** replied:
I’m sorry if you think a few paragraphs of news reports are “an inordinately large amount of text.” My “favored website,” as you call it, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,is a standard information and reference source in those sections of the academic community that deal with the geographic areas it covers. I cite it merely for convenience, as it is the most centralized and detailed source of news and analysis on the area that can be found online and in English. From their Web site (of course, you probably think this is too long):
“Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international communications service to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East, funded by the United States Congress. In the broadcast region, RFE/RL radio programs reach 35 million listeners who rely on RFE/RL’s daily news, analysis, and current affairs programming to provide a coherent, objective account of happenings in their region and the around world. Concentrating on events within this complex region, RFE/RL provides balanced, reliable information to bolster democratic development and market economies in countries where peaceful evolution to civil societies is of vital national interest to the U.S. With one of the most comprehensive news operations in the region, RFE/RL maintains 28 bureaus across 13 time zones of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Over 1,000 freelancers report local news and current affairs. RFE/RL broadcasts almost 1,000 hours a week from its operations center, located in Prague, Czech Republic, and programs can be heard on shortwave frequencies by listeners across the entire region. RFE/RL has built a network of over 200 affiliate partners which relay programs on almost 500 local radio stations. Political circumstances do not currently permit local rebroadcasting in Belarus, Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan(http://affiliates.rferl.org). RFE/RL is also gaining a large new audience throughout the world via the Internet. In September 2001 alone, the RFE/RL website registered over 800,000 unique visitors and almost 5 million page views. Its multilingual website features both audio and text content and all RFE/RL audio broadcasts are available live in Real Audio.”
IzzyR said:
I tend to think that a “no-go area for outsiders” and “Many parts of Chechnya are controlled by armed bands and the region is awash with crime and violence” and “Maskhadov was unable to establish order and Chechnya descended into lawlessness” implies a level of anarchy not found in the rest of Russia. And the truth is that I am not basing my assertion on these quotes – as I’ve mentioned, the facts that I’ve described are well known to anyone who has followed the Chechen saga even slightly. Personally, I think your denial here says more about your warped perspective with regards to this issue than about anything else. But, if you simply refuse to acknowledge it, I doubt if anything could convince you - we will have to leave it here.
Eva Luna replied:
Again, a very large reason why the area is not safe for outsiders is that ** there is a war going on. ** I knew people in grad school (1994-95) who traveled without incident throughout Chechnya and other parts of the North Caucasus, as well as the Reuters correspondent who covered the area during that time, also without incident. Again, I highly recommend Anne Nivat’s Chienne de Guerre. Perhaps you will respect the opinion of a Western journalist (she is French, with a Ph.D. in political science, and speaks fluent Russian), one of the few (if not the only) who actually covered the current Chechen conflict from inside Chechnya. As the Russian government refused to allow her to travel there, she went undercover, disguised as a Chechen peasant woman., transmitting her reports to Paris via satellite phone. For her trouble, she was expelled from Chechnya. Does that tell you something about the Russian government’s treatment of journalistic coverage of Chechnya? I met her when she spoke in Chicago last year, and some of her stories would make any decent person want to vomit.
If, however, you want to stick to mainstream U.S. news media, who do not report from the area, and are therefore reliant on secondhand information at best, I’m sorry that’s the case. If you’re going to stick to MSNBC, though, I’ll be quite happy to lay this issue to rest for the moment, since as I’ve stated before, there is no reliable information on how much crime and violence might be taking place in Chechnya if there weren’t a war on.
**IzzyR ** said:
the number of displaced I’ve read is about 150,000, not half the population. And – again, as previous – much of the killing is being done by Chechens rebels, in attacks on loyalists, in widespread use of landmines, and general all-purpose lawlessness. And much of this was going on even before the Russians invaded. And your assertion about murdering huge numbers of civilians remains undocumented, also as noted.
** Eva Luna** replied:
As stated previously, I hardly think that 100,000 dead and 150,000 refugees in Ingushetia since 1999 alone, as well as unknown numbers of internally displaced in Chechnya and throughout the rest of the RF, out of a 1989 census population of ~1,000,000, are insignificant figures.
IzzyR asked:
what evidence would you accept as “shown to be the work of any Chechen”?
**Eva Luna ** replied:
I’d prefer “tried and convicted in a court of law, with evidence provided to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” but I’d probably settle for arrests of Chechen rebels by the FSB for which the evidence was more than just finding a couple of Chechen guys in the neighborhood. I’ve seen neither.
IzzyR said:
When people hate other people enough, bombing them to pieces starts to make a lot more sense than it otherwise would. Further, even if you don’t claim responsibility outright, the very fact that most people assume it is your work serves your ends as well.
But again, if you will believe that the Russians blew up their own people to create a pretext to invade Chechnya, I can’t stop you. As you may know, there are a lot of people who believe that the CIA (or the Mossad) blew up the WTC, as a pretext to go to war with Islam (or to access some pipeline in Afghanistan). So you are in good company.
Eva Luna replied:
Your first sentence above proves my point at least as well as it proves yours. And I maintain that there is no reliable evidence that Chechen rebels blew up the Moscow apartment buildings, so the FSB theory is at least as reliable. Again, I’m not saying for sure that they did, just that the theory is at least as sensible. The case has never been solved.
I think the FSB’s behavior during and after the Moscow theater siege amply proves my point that the Russian security forces are more than willing to sacrifice Russian civilians in pursuit of their eventual goal of wiping out the Chechen resistance. And there are certainly Russians who agree with me, as demonstrated by a) public reaction reported by foreign and Russian independent news media at the revelation that the FSB lied about how many hostages died of gunshot wounds vs. as a result of being gassed by the FSB, as well as b) the frustration expressed by Russian doctors who were unable to obtain from the FSB necessary information about the gas that might have saved a large proportion of the hostages’ lives.
IzzyR said:
However many struggles you may consider it, the Russian use of “lawlessness” as a pretext for invading occurred in 1999, not in 1994. When I said that how much crime there was before “the last two wars” is irrelevant, it was because my comments to this thread concern the situation that developed since the Russian pullout in 1996. When you turned around and said that it is relevant because the Russians used lawlessness as a pretext for invading, you were switching horses, from talking about the situation that prevailed before the 1994 invasion (before “the last two wars”) to talking about the 1999 invasion. Frankly I suspect that you were being disingenuous, but it is also possible that you are simply confused.
**Eva Luna ** replied:
I am not confused, nor am I being disingenuous. “Lawlessness” was used as a pretext for both invasions, to varying degrees. It is a commonly held opinion among Russians that Chechens and other Muslim peoples in the FSU are a bunch of uncivilized, lawless barbarians. Sorry, I can’t provide a cite; this is based on the statements of hundreds of Russians I have spoken to on the subject, both within and outside of Russia, since my initial period of residence in Russia in 1989 (and a repeat stay in 1995). Even otherwise educated and enlightened Russians insist that the Chechens are better off under Russian control than they would have been otherwise. If you insist, I’ll try to dig up a cite, but it’ll probably be in Russian, so either you’ll have to find a Russian speaker to read it for you, or you’ll have to trust someone with my perceived biases to provide an accurate translation.
It seems horribly imperialistic and outdated.