Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aren't ties starting to actually be cut between the U.S. and Russia due to the recent missile strikes on that Syrian airbase? Nothing directly from leader to leader, but I believe the Russians cut a hotline that till recently served as a link between each country's respective military.

I would imagine such events will see the two countries gradually edging away from one another as conflicts of interests continue to occur.

(Post in response to other posts commenting on Trump's attempts to be buddy-buddy with Russia)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saudi Arabia still executed legally people for being homosexual and US and all of Europe we all dance for the arabic sheiks...

And many of us have a huge problem with this part of US foreign policy.

Yeah, I totally aggre with that sentiment, just pointing out that at least for me, I'll like my country to broke pacts with other countrys before Russia.

For example, Sierra Leona and the mines of Bauxite. I know its vital to microchips and basically everything that we base our systems now, but... c'mon. They are using children and basically slaves to mine it.

PD: I have consulted it, and it wasn't Bauxite the mineral I was thinking of, it was Coltan! And it was the Congo, not Sierra Leona. But actually, both are good examples of the same thing.

 Galas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saudi Arabia still executed legally people for being homosexual and US and all of Europe we all dance for the arabic sheiks...

And many of us have a huge problem with this part of US foreign policy.

Yeah, I totally aggre with that sentiment, just pointing out that at least for me, I'll like my country to broke pacts with other countrys before Russia.

For example, Sierra Leona and the mines of Bauxite. I know its vital to microchips and basically everything that we base our systems now, but... c'mon. They are using children and basically slaves to mine it.

PD: I have consulted it, and it wasn't Bauxite the mineral I was thinking of, it was Coltan! And it was the Congo, not Sierra Leona. But actually, both are good examples of the same thing.

Rare earth metals. Gold, valuable metals and ores.
Africa is rather rich in those and not high on miners welfare or laws.

Blood diamonds too, though there better known than the others.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As noted, while Russia certainly has its issues with discrimination and even unofficially condoned violence against LGBT people, Chechnya is a near autonomous mini state that is ruled by an unaccountable backwards thug, and it really shouldnt reflect on Russia as a whole. Chechnya is a very different place than the rest of Russia.

Russia doesn't get this excuse. Putin seems to have endorsed this "solution" to Chechnya, so the Russian government gets to be held responsible for it. If the thug is unaccountable then someone has made a decision to let them be unaccountable. It's like if the governor of Texas decided to start mass executions of immigrants because the federal government wasn't building the border wall fast enough, and everyone else just shrugged and said "well, that's Texas". Obviously at that point it would be entirely fair and accurate to blame the US as a whole for letting this happen.

It is pragmatism.
What would you have done in his place?
Send thousands to their deaths in yet another pointless war? Risk another string of terrorist attacks on civilians across Russia? And what if you do win said war, what then? No outsider will be able to rule over the Chechens, so you must find a government for them that is 1. loyal to you and 2. also not chosen by you (the Chechens would not accept a Russian puppet as leader). It goes without saying that condition 1 is pretty much impossible to fulfill while also fulfilling condition 2, unless you cut a deal with a local warlord like Kadyrov. Otherwise, the Chechens will just continue resisting and attacking you until either you give up or they are all death.
So basically Putin can choose between the following options:
1. Let Kadyrov rule Chechnya and make him a friend. This means Kadyrov is in charge with all the bad things that implies, but it also means Chechnya is nice and quiet (mostly).
2. Let Chechnya be independent. Likely, this will still mean Kadyrov is in charge, except that now he won't feel any loyalty towards you and Chechnya is unlikely to be nice and quiet and quite likely to raid your territory in the same way they have always done when they were independent. It also means sacrificing the strategic Caucasus mountains border which is vital for Russian security.
3. Firmly establish Russian authority in Chechnya. This doesn't mean Kadyrov in charge, and it means that Russian laws (which are overall quite just and fair) will apply to Chechnya. Unfortunately it also means having to kill tens of thousand of violently resisting Chechens and sacrificing thousands of Russian lives for an area that has seen far too much Russian blood already. It also means a surge in radicalism on both sides, war atrocities and terrorist attacks and all kinds of nasty things that feed a vicious circle in which Russians and Chechens keep killing each other with no end in sight.

Dear Peregrine, what would you do?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As noted, while Russia certainly has its issues with discrimination and even unofficially condoned violence against LGBT people, Chechnya is a near autonomous mini state that is ruled by an unaccountable backwards thug, and it really shouldnt reflect on Russia as a whole. Chechnya is a very different place than the rest of Russia.

Russia doesn't get this excuse. Putin seems to have endorsed this "solution" to Chechnya, so the Russian government gets to be held responsible for it. If the thug is unaccountable then someone has made a decision to let them be unaccountable. It's like if the governor of Texas decided to start mass executions of immigrants because the federal government wasn't building the border wall fast enough, and everyone else just shrugged and said "well, that's Texas". Obviously at that point it would be entirely fair and accurate to blame the US as a whole for letting this happen.

Hrm, no, the primary problem would still.be Texas in that case. The larger US federal gov may share some responsibility, but it in and of itself did not engage in that conduct. In this case, Russia has to deal with allowing it to continue, they have their share of responsibility, but making it out like Chechnya's behavior is representative of Russia as a whole is also disingenuous.

Ultimately Chechnya is a festering mess, and Russia chose the option to deal with it that results in the least harm to them as a whole. Chechen alternatives that could hold power there would probably not prove any better on the LGBT count, perhaps even worse. Kadyrov is small time Saddam in his small playground and the Russians tolerate him so long as Chechnya no longer threatens Moscow's power or causes issues in the rest of Russia, which Kadyrov has done thus far. Unfortunately the kind of people that want to replace him and who would be most likely to do so arenr going to be any better.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
it means that Russian laws (which are overall quite just and fair) will apply to Chechnya.

Not exactly LGBT-friendly though. In Russia, Overwatch comics censor you .

Well, this its one of the only thins that I can be pround about my country, being the fifth in the world in social homosexual acceptance... but Russia its more near Africa or Middle East levels... so this its not a surprise.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

But the title of this post seems a little click-bait... no?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
it means that Russian laws (which are overall quite just and fair) will apply to Chechnya.

Not exactly LGBT-friendly though. In Russia, Overwatch comics censor you .

Not exactly LGBT-friendly, no. But a whole lot better than the islamic bullcrap they have now in Chechnya. Under Russian law, at least gay people are allowed to exist.

 Peregrine wrote:
And many of us have a huge problem with this part of US foreign policy.

Indeed. I mean, say what you want about the left, but at least they're consistent. We all remember the weekly protest marches in major cities related to Obama's foreign policy.

While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Well, this its one of the only thins that I can be pround about my country, being the fifth in the world in social homosexual acceptance... but Russia its more near Africa or Middle East levels... so this its not a surprise.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

But the title of this post seems a little click-bait... no?

Wait, how did you read into this research that Spain is the 5th most accepting nation? If based on just the replies Spain comes in 1st place, although I can certainly contest that this leaves out a lot of European nations. As far as I can see some pretty liberal nations such as the whole of Scandinavia or the Benelux have been left out, which could certainly contest Spain's position on the list as 1st. Going by other lists I see Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland end up above Spain on acceptance, although Spain certainly does very well as a 'catholic' country which tend to be slightly more conservative in Europe. Of course ymmv depending on the survey and who actually responds.

 Galas wrote:
Saudi Arabia still executed legally people for being homosexual and US and all of Europe we all dance for the arabic sheiks... if we, occident, treated as enemys countrys that treat bad his own citizens, then we should be in war with basically all of Africa and 70% of Asia, and the mayority of Center and South America.

You raise a good point that Russia is hardly alone in treating its citizens terribly. But I think you stretch your point, in assuming that recognising a country as having an awful government doesn't mean you have to become their enemy, and it certainly doesn't mean going to war with them. You can instead just recognise how they are horrible, and then determine if that warrants reduced trade and contract, or maybe pressuring them to reform.

The reason Russia has been punished has nothing to do with awful domestic policy, it's because they twice broke Ukraine's sovereignty, and the second time around their military proxies shot down a commercial air liner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Indeed. I mean, say what you want about the left, but at least they're consistent. We all remember the weekly protest marches in major cities related to Obama's foreign policy.

Yes, because there are weekly protests against Trump over his Saudi policy. Good point, Seaward, glad to see you decided to log in again to give us that doozy.

 Galas wrote:
Well, this its one of the only thins that I can be pround about my country, being the fifth in the world in social homosexual acceptance... but Russia its more near Africa or Middle East levels... so this its not a surprise.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

But the title of this post seems a little click-bait... no?

Woah the numbers for France are quite awful. Especially the trend one is TERRIBLE! 6% of the French population regressed .

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And then we contrast it with the views of his Vice-President, which he must clearly support as well, given it's his Vice-President...

That is one of the laziest arguments I have seen in OT for quite some time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry, didn't you say "because I support Trump"?
If that was rhetorical or sarcastic, I do apologise, I couldn't really tell over screen, but those words were said, leading me to that assumption.

Here is the quote in full;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Partisanship? How so? That would imply that I am objecting to the OP because I support Trump, and I await some evidence of this being my position.

It's better if you read the whole thing rather than cherry pick. I did not say that I supported Trump, in fact I objected to that insinuation and asked for evidence. The same thing that I did with you.

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And many of us have a huge problem with this part of US foreign policy.

Indeed. I mean, say what you want about the left, but at least they're consistent. We all remember the weekly protest marches in major cities related to Obama's foreign policy.

I think we should be grateful for the medical miracle that restored their voices on Nov. 8th and they were suddenly able to de-cry military intervention on a scale not seen since GW Bush.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Well, this its one of the only thins that I can be pround about my country, being the fifth in the world in social homosexual acceptance... but Russia its more near Africa or Middle East levels... so this its not a surprise.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

But the title of this post seems a little click-bait... no?

Wait, how did you read into this research that Spain is the 5th most accepting nation? If based on just the replies Spain comes in 1st place, although I can certainly contest that this leaves out a lot of European nations. As far as I can see some pretty liberal nations such as the whole of Scandinavia or the Benelux have been left out, which could certainly contest Spain's position on the list as 1st. Going by other lists I see Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland end up above Spain on acceptance, although Spain certainly does very well as a 'catholic' country which tend to be slightly more conservative in Europe. Of course ymmv depending on the survey and who actually responds.

In that survey, Spain comes as first, but in Wikipedia it comes 5th, after the countrys you have mentioned, yes. The ranking is:
1º- Netherlands with a 91%
2º- Sweden with a 90%
3º-Denmark with a 87%
4º-Iceland with a 87%
5º-Spain with a 84%

But, consulting other rankings, it depends based in the dates of the surveys, I asume the number of people asked, etc... in ones Spain its upper in the ranking, in others lower.

 sebster wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saudi Arabia still executed legally people for being homosexual and US and all of Europe we all dance for the arabic sheiks... if we, occident, treated as enemys countrys that treat bad his own citizens, then we should be in war with basically all of Africa and 70% of Asia, and the mayority of Center and South America.

You raise a good point that Russia is hardly alone in treating its citizens terribly. But I think you stretch your point, in assuming that recognising a country as having an awful government doesn't mean you have to become their enemy, and it certainly doesn't mean going to war with them. You can instead just recognise how they are horrible, and then determine if that warrants reduced trade and contract, or maybe pressuring them to reform.

The reason Russia has been punished has nothing to do with awful domestic policy, it's because they twice broke Ukraine's sovereignty, and the second time around their military proxies shot down a commercial air liner.

Oh no, I don't say that to defend Russia as I said early. I was just pointing the fact that a country treat his own citizens horrible its the norm, not the exception. The ideal would be to punish those goverments, but if they offer things that we or our goverments need, then we will look just to other side. Not that I'm okay with that, its obvious, I have participated myself in march and protest in my country against selling war ships to Saudi Arabia, but well... they just ignore that kind of things.

 Galas wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saudi Arabia still executed legally people for being homosexual and US and all of Europe we all dance for the arabic sheiks... if we, occident, treated as enemys countrys that treat bad his own citizens, then we should be in war with basically all of Africa and 70% of Asia, and the mayority of Center and South America.

You raise a good point that Russia is hardly alone in treating its citizens terribly. But I think you stretch your point, in assuming that recognising a country as having an awful government doesn't mean you have to become their enemy, and it certainly doesn't mean going to war with them. You can instead just recognise how they are horrible, and then determine if that warrants reduced trade and contract, or maybe pressuring them to reform.

The reason Russia has been punished has nothing to do with awful domestic policy, it's because they twice broke Ukraine's sovereignty, and the second time around their military proxies shot down a commercial air liner.

Oh no, I don't say that to defend Russia as I said early. I was just pointing the fact that a country treat his own citizens horrible its the norm, not the exception. The ideal would be to punish those goverments, but if they offer things that we or our goverments need, then we will look just to other side. Not that I'm okay with that, its obvious, I have participated myself in march and protest in my country against selling war ships to Saudi Arabia, but well... they just ignore that kind of things.

Good point, the amount of attention and outrage given to these kinds of human rights abuses is dependent far more on which govt is doing it rather than the fact that it happens. If a govt is an ally or friend or just useful a lot of stuff can be ignored or swept under the rug and if a govt is an enemy or economic rival then any bad behavior becomes fuel to foster enmity, outrage and disgust.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Well, this its one of the only thins that I can be pround about my country, being the fifth in the world in social homosexual acceptance... but Russia its more near Africa or Middle East levels... so this its not a surprise.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

But the title of this post seems a little click-bait... no?

Wait, how did you read into this research that Spain is the 5th most accepting nation? If based on just the replies Spain comes in 1st place, although I can certainly contest that this leaves out a lot of European nations. As far as I can see some pretty liberal nations such as the whole of Scandinavia or the Benelux have been left out, which could certainly contest Spain's position on the list as 1st. Going by other lists I see Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland end up above Spain on acceptance, although Spain certainly does very well as a 'catholic' country which tend to be slightly more conservative in Europe. Of course ymmv depending on the survey and who actually responds.

In that survey, Spain comes as first, but in Wikipedia it comes 5th, after the countrys you have mentioned, yes. The ranking is:
1º- Netherlands with a 91%
2º- Sweden with a 90%
3º-Denmark with a 87%
4º-Iceland with a 87%
5º-Spain with a 84%

But, consulting other rankings, it depends based in the dates of the surveys, I asume the number of people asked, etc... in ones Spain its upper in the ranking, in others lower.

Thats what confused me based on what you posted. But if you look into the PEW survey for example you see they did multiple different types of surveys different in each country. And only interviewed about a 1000 people each. Nevertheless Europe has always ranked well on this issue in the last two decades. I think its just easier not to rank nations, but just say we range in the 80-90% as margin of error on these things can be 3 to 4% which means that all these positions are almost interchangeable.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

There are stories going around that depicting Putin as a "gay clown" can get you arrested in Russia. Do you think this is true?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

Oh I never said Russia pretended to be a standard bearer. Its not exactly a strange position to take as many countries consider human rights a Western instead of universal concept that smacks of cultural imperialism. I study a lot about China for example and it agrees human rights exist but it would frame them completely different and the good of the country comes before the good of the individual. That's the more normal concept in the world currently. To us living in 'the West' it always seems such a strange concept, but unless your the one negatively affected by this lack of human rights the majority of people in those nations believe in the good of the country first.

I would dispute that all the negative focus on LGBTQ rights in Russia is all propaganda, but we certainly ignore some less than friendly neighbours. Best of all we would condemn everyone, but then politics tend to get in the way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

It certainly does and the history of Russia and the conflicts it had in what is now the Black Sea/Caucasus region do go back centuries. But then a lot of bad blood also comes from the fact that centuries of Russian imperialism and russification have not exactly made the population more friendly (although you can play the blame game for ages, lets just take the point were Muscovy starts pushing outwards for the beginning, leaving the Mongol invasions aside for a moment). The problem is that Chechnya is in one of those regions that Russia would be loathe to let go (especially after the amount already lost in 1991), but this ignores the fact that it is not what its population wants. Furthermore while it is true that Russia has always worried about it security, it is highly unlikely that Chechnya will be a cornerstone to the defence of the Caucasus. Realistically speaking (if going for just defence and not occupation) any independent Chechnya is not going to be much more than a speed-bump for its much larger neighbour when push comes to shove and an actual sizable attack on Russia will have been picked up by intelligence/not go through the Caucasus, leaving enough time to take out the speed-bump.

The problem with prevailing attitudes is that the territory as a whole is very poor, keeping older traditions to supplement their way of life alive. Eventually this would have resolved itself if Chechnya wasn't subsequently devastated by two wars. In the end if Russia does well Chechnya will be nothing more than a friendly/unfriendly fly on its border, in the worst case the Russian army can overrun the important part going on to defend the Caucasus in a week. Radical Chechnya is very much a creation of Russian history. True, the independent khanates were never on friendly terms with its Russian neighbours, but then they really didn't have a history of centuries of imperialism and russification in the previous centuries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
There are stories going around that depicting Putin as a "gay clown" can get you arrested in Russia. Do you think this is true?

If any of that is true, I think you can put it down to being about Putin's ego, not necessarily the gay angle.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And then we contrast it with the views of his Vice-President, which he must clearly support as well, given it's his Vice-President...

That is one of the laziest arguments I have seen in OT for quite some time.

I aim to please.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry, didn't you say "because I support Trump"?
If that was rhetorical or sarcastic, I do apologise, I couldn't really tell over screen, but those words were said, leading me to that assumption.

Here is the quote in full;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Partisanship? How so? That would imply that I am objecting to the OP because I support Trump, and I await some evidence of this being my position.

It's better if you read the whole thing rather than cherry pick. I did not say that I supported Trump, in fact I objected to that insinuation and asked for evidence. The same thing that I did with you.

It was hard to get the gist of what you were saying, I do apologise for that, but I wasn't sure if that was serious or sarcastic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

Putin will still have they leader there on a tight leash on other things such as threats to Russia, ensuring the terrorist insmcidants do not happen.
Also I doubt very much Putin actively approved his decsions in this regard and its clear his laws and enforcement stop at his borders.

Putin is not some Dr evil.

 jhe90 wrote:
Also I doubt very much Putin actively approved his decsions in this regard and its clear his laws and enforcement stop at his borders.

Putin is not some Dr evil.

Tell that to Alexander Litvinenko.

 jhe90 wrote:


Putin is not some Dr evil.

Of course not. Dr Evil from the Austin Powers series is amusing and incompetent. Putin is Dr. Evil from the dark, gritty reboot.

feeder wrote:There are stories going around that depicting Putin as a "gay clown" can get you arrested in Russia. Do you think this is true?

Yeah. Like in many countries, in Russia it is not allowed to insult a head of state (however, it is unlikely to get you arrested unless you rub it in a policeman's face or something like that). And apparently, the justice ministry has specifically included the picture of Putin as a gay clown in a list of 'extremist materials' Altough they didn't say anything related to homosexuality, so it was probably just the make-up rather than the gay part that they had an issue with.
Still, maybe someone was feeling insecure?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

Oh I never said Russia pretended to be a standard bearer. Its not exactly a strange position to take as many countries consider human rights a Western instead of universal concept that smacks of cultural imperialism. I study a lot about China for example and it agrees human rights exist but it would frame them completely different and the good of the country comes before the good of the individual. That's the more normal concept in the world currently. To us living in 'the West' it always seems such a strange concept, but unless your the one negatively affected by this lack of human rights the majority of people in those nations believe in the good of the country first.

True. That is a tradition of thought that has always been very strong in Russia, and especially with the siloviki that are currently in power.

Disciple of Fate wrote:I would dispute that all the negative focus on LGBTQ rights in Russia is all propaganda, but we certainly ignore some less than friendly neighbours. Best of all we would condemn everyone, but then politics tend to get in the way.

It definitely includes a lot of fair criticism, but the fact that Russia is always singled out makes it hard to take seriously. It certainly isn't doing the gay community in Russia any favours.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

It certainly does and the history of Russia and the conflicts it had in what is now the Black Sea/Caucasus region do go back centuries. But then a lot of bad blood also comes from the fact that centuries of Russian imperialism and russification have not exactly made the population more friendly (although you can play the blame game for ages, lets just take the point were Muscovy starts pushing outwards for the beginning, leaving the Mongol invasions aside for a moment). The problem is that Chechnya is in one of those regions that Russia would be loathe to let go (especially after the amount already lost in 1991), but this ignores the fact that it is not what its population wants. Furthermore while it is true that Russia has always worried about it security, it is highly unlikely that Chechnya will be a cornerstone to the defence of the Caucasus. Realistically speaking (if going for just defence and not occupation) any independent Chechnya is not going to be much more than a speed-bump for its much larger neighbour when push comes to shove and an actual sizable attack on Russia will have been picked up by intelligence/not go through the Caucasus, leaving enough time to take out the speed-bump.

The problem with prevailing attitudes is that the territory as a whole is very poor, keeping older traditions to supplement their way of life alive. Eventually this would have resolved itself if Chechnya wasn't subsequently devastated by two wars. In the end if Russia does well Chechnya will be nothing more than a friendly/unfriendly fly on its border, in the worst case the Russian army can overrun the important part going on to defend the Caucasus in a week. Radical Chechnya is very much a creation of Russian history. True, the independent khanates were never on friendly terms with its Russian neighbours, but then they really didn't have a history of centuries of imperialism and russification in the previous centuries.

If past wars against the Chechens have shown us anything, it is that Chechnya isn't going to be overrun in a matter of weeks. And when you are trying to defend your borders from foreign invasion, it is not very handy to have a bunch of heavily armed, hostile guerillas behind your lines.
Russia was actually okay with losing Chechnya after the 1st Chechen war though. They were de-facto independent and everyone was just fine with letting the matter rest. No one wanted another bloody war. It was only when the radical islamists defeated the Chechen nationalists in the internal struggles that followed the war and started attacking neighbouring regions of the Russian Federation that it became clear that Russia had to act.
I think the current situation is making the best out of a very nasty and complicated problem. Kadyrov won't live forever, and in due time Chechnya could develop into a more stable and nicer place. But say you were Putin, how would you handle the Chechnya problem? You think there is a solution better than the current one?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
While Chechnya certainly is a difficulty case. Prevailing Russian attitudes towards homosexuality weren't exactly very open to begin with coupled with radicalism in a region that suffered two wars makes this seem like a foregone conclusion. Russia has never been exactly a standard bearer for human rights.

And unlike certain other countries, Russia has never pretended to be.
Russian attitudes to homosexuality are not at all different from the prevailing attitudes in all of Eastern Europe and most of the world. Russia is nothing special in that regard and does not treat its homosexual population especially badly or anything. Homosexuality is legal in Russia, there is gay clubs, a large gay porn industry and everything. Compared to the many many countries where homosexuality can get you fined, jailed or even executed Russia is gay heaven. All the negative focus on LGBT rights in Russia is nothing but propaganda, as the same kind of attention is not given to other places where LGBT rights are similarly bad or much worse.

Oh I never said Russia pretended to be a standard bearer. Its not exactly a strange position to take as many countries consider human rights a Western instead of universal concept that smacks of cultural imperialism. I study a lot about China for example and it agrees human rights exist but it would frame them completely different and the good of the country comes before the good of the individual. That's the more normal concept in the world currently. To us living in 'the West' it always seems such a strange concept, but unless your the one negatively affected by this lack of human rights the majority of people in those nations believe in the good of the country first.

True. That is a tradition of thought that has always been very strong in Russia, and especially with the siloviki that are currently in power.

Hell this tradition of thought was quite strong even in Europe up until Hitler came in and made a good part of Europe horrified of the more blatant nationalism that also espoused this view.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I would dispute that all the negative focus on LGBTQ rights in Russia is all propaganda, but we certainly ignore some less than friendly neighbours. Best of all we would condemn everyone, but then politics tend to get in the way.

It definitely includes a lot of fair criticism, but the fact that Russia is always singled out makes it hard to take seriously. It certainly isn't doing the gay community in Russia any favours.

Russia always gets singled out because its our bigger geopolitical competitor who also happens to be a direct neighbour. Singled out or not, the fact Russia is seen as such a threat means everything it does will be examined with a fine comb. Foreign criticism however should never lead to an even more negative approach in the country being criticized, as it just adds fuel to the argument. Russia does a lot of things wrong, but they believe its right. I hold on to the wrong part because of where I was raised, the values I got instilled and the knowledge I posses, even though I can 'understand' why other countries do what they do I will never accept or justify it (not saying you do, I'm just making my personal position clear)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sebster is right though when he says the situation in Chechnya was mostly self inflicted by Russia. Even if the terror attacks that preceded the second invasion were committed by Chechens (which remains a big if) the invasions certainly didn't help warming to local population up to Russia. Nevertheless Putin frequently likes parading around the fact Russia was one of the first 'Western' nations fighting radical Islam after 9/11, conveniently not mentioning why they had a need to fight it. All in all a poor showing.

The bad history between Russians and Chechens goes back far, far further than that. Far before Putin, his parents or even his grandparents were ever born. Nothing Putin could have ever done could have changed it. The Chechen people are fiercely independent, they have always resisted foreign would-be conquerors since Antiquity. They have never truly bowed down to Russian rule, and they never will. And neither will Russia ever give up its border in the Caucasus mountains. Without those mountains, Russia's south would be wide open to any enemy, just as it was in the past. Of old, the Chechens have always been raiders, attacking their neighbours to take wealth and slaves. Those ways were revived as soon as Chechnya became independent after the first Chechen War. That is another reason why Russia can't abandon Chechnya, especially now that this attitude has been given a religious boost with the rise of radical islam.
In short, Russians and Chechens have been fighting each other continuously since the 18th century. Nothing that Putin could have ever done would have warmed up the Chechens to finally peacefully submit to Russian rule. War was really the only realistic option that he had.

It certainly does and the history of Russia and the conflicts it had in what is now the Black Sea/Caucasus region do go back centuries. But then a lot of bad blood also comes from the fact that centuries of Russian imperialism and russification have not exactly made the population more friendly (although you can play the blame game for ages, lets just take the point were Muscovy starts pushing outwards for the beginning, leaving the Mongol invasions aside for a moment). The problem is that Chechnya is in one of those regions that Russia would be loathe to let go (especially after the amount already lost in 1991), but this ignores the fact that it is not what its population wants. Furthermore while it is true that Russia has always worried about it security, it is highly unlikely that Chechnya will be a cornerstone to the defence of the Caucasus. Realistically speaking (if going for just defence and not occupation) any independent Chechnya is not going to be much more than a speed-bump for its much larger neighbour when push comes to shove and an actual sizable attack on Russia will have been picked up by intelligence/not go through the Caucasus, leaving enough time to take out the speed-bump.

The problem with prevailing attitudes is that the territory as a whole is very poor, keeping older traditions to supplement their way of life alive. Eventually this would have resolved itself if Chechnya wasn't subsequently devastated by two wars. In the end if Russia does well Chechnya will be nothing more than a friendly/unfriendly fly on its border, in the worst case the Russian army can overrun the important part going on to defend the Caucasus in a week. Radical Chechnya is very much a creation of Russian history. True, the independent khanates were never on friendly terms with its Russian neighbours, but then they really didn't have a history of centuries of imperialism and russification in the previous centuries.

If past wars against the Chechens have shown us anything, it is that Chechnya isn't going to be overrun in a matter of weeks. And when you are trying to defend your borders from foreign invasion, it is not very handy to have a bunch of heavily armed, hostile guerillas behind your lines.
Russia was actually okay with losing Chechnya after the 1st Chechen war though. They were de-facto independent and everyone was just fine with letting the matter rest. No one wanted another bloody war. It was only when the radical islamists defeated the Chechen nationalists in the internal struggles that followed the war and started attacking neighbouring regions of the Russian Federation that it became clear that Russia had to act.
I think the current situation is making the best out of a very nasty and complicated problem. Kadyrov won't live forever, and in due time Chechnya could develop into a more stable and nicer place. But say you were Putin, how would you handle the Chechnya problem? You think there is a solution better than the current one?

Not exactly, history has shown you Chechnya will not be pacified in a matter of weeks due to urban resistance. This resistance however can be neutralized by circumventing it unless Russia needs these urban areas to fight in, in which case there are many other cities in Russia to do so from. Of course we can have a giant debate on the effectiveness of guerrillas and the amount of forces needed to tie them down or just keep them contained in a certain area. But lets be honest, if Russia is going to lose an international war due to Chechnyan independence its highly unlikely it won't lose that war regardless of Chechnya's position.
The problem with the first war is that it created the opportunity for the rise of this radicalism and the moment that Chechnya would commit any attacks on Russian soil a second invasion would certainly have happened (it is still not clear who committed those large attacks that led to invasion number two and we all know the arguments that the FSB was involved). Nobody would deny that Russia would have the right to defend itself. What is up for debate of course is exactly in what way you should have the right to defend yourself, such as not using excessive force, which Russia certainly not shies away from when needed.
The current situation certainly is the best for Russia of course, which is all that matters in the end for Moscow. The problem for Putin is that people like Kadyrov seem to be getting much to comfortable in their position and Putin will most likely have someone to replace him if Kadyrov steps out of line. The problem with asking me how to solve Chechnya is that it involves turning back time, as Sebster explained with the rise of radicalism. My issue is that Putin should keep his dogs on the leash a bit tighter, as this also harm him internationally for zero gain, unless Kadyrov can't be pressured by Putin anymore, which certainly makes him a threat.