Yeah I know Chechnya is a geopolitical powder keg and complete mess. Honestly though this reads as nothing more than hopeful whining now that predictions of Russian regime change and Ukrainian battlefield victory have proven to be laughably short sighted.
I’m not sure that any of this will lead to significant problems for Russia, but anything at all that leads to any problems for Russia is a good thing, surely?
Sure, but could have bad consequences for us as well. Chechen extremists don’t always stay in Checnya – they come to Europe (see France and Samuel Paty killing) and USA (boston marathon) and commit terrorist attacks there
Surely things were better before when Europe was allowed to do business with Russia? For those in Europe certainly. For the US too although they thought they could do better. Only the Russians seem to be doing better now that they rely on themselves than they did before when they traded more with us. So, watch out what you wish for.
Milton Gibbon
11 days ago
Horrible “realpolitik” article which basically uses the Chechens who suffered a pretty brutal war within living memory as a pawn for the West’s interests. The casualties would be terrible now Russia knows what to do to stop terrorists (i.e. dont give a monkeys about civilian deaths). There is no hope of a Chechen victory. It would be less likely than in Ukraine as we couldn’t plausibly send weapons to them in the same way.
I sort of agree but then everyone was like that back in the day pretty much. What is different now is that the Russians have learnt that actually trying to kill civilians is the way to destroy insurgencies. They didn’t do it in Afghanistan and lost but did it in Chechnya and (helping their proxies) in Syria and won. The equation is simple – civilian destruction brings insurgents to their knees. The West’s “hearts and minds” approach is a stop gap at best.
Pretty sure plenty of innocent Afghan civilians got killed by the Russians. But what you appear to be saying is that the Russians have figured out that committing war crimes – deliberate slaughter of civilians – is they way forward here. Did I get that right ? And you seem to imply that this is “progress”. Is this a strategy you think we should have followed in Northern Ireland ? Or Israel today in Gaza ?
It’s nothing to do with the West !!! The Caucasus doesn’t need any help from us. Ethnic and tribal feuding is what they do best in that region. Fortunately a field in which we have little expertise (so far …). If you have any actual evidence of the West intervening in Chechnya, please do give it. I’ve never seen any. The West has clearly intervened in some places where it would have done better to stay out. I don’t see us ever being stupid enough to poke the Caucasus though. Leave the mess to the Russians.
Start with Brezhinskys autobiography. He brags about it
A D Kent
11 days ago
The final paragraph of this piece is chilling in the way that it blandly discusses the prospects of fermenting another catastrophic war. I’m sure the author wishes to remain analytical, dispassionate and all that, but it reads as borderline sociopathic.
Garner states without moral comment that the unleashing of another conflict would be an acceptable policy proposition if it could save an unspecified number of Ukrainian lives. There doesn’t appear to be any grounding to this moral equation that goes much further than ‘because Putin’.
Otherwise this piece does seem to be doing some ground-work for another little regime change operation – typically framing the local power as despotic and brutal. All of which may be true, but then again I wonder which of these cities the author may feel safer strolling around in right now: Baghdad, Damascus, Kabul, Tripoli or Grozny.
They will fight amongst themselves anyway. That’s what happens when a warlord dictator dies and there’s a power vacuum. Nothing we do – or do not do – will make any difference to that. There is no need – and no sense – in us getting involved. Leave this particular **** show to the Russians. They broke it. They can clean it up.
My thoughts exactly. Nobody of sense and compassion could seriously want Chechnya to descend back into the violent hell it used to be, just because it might help the West in its desire to defeat Russia in Ukraine? I mean, we’re already doing that by treating Ukrainians themselves as nothing more than a numbers game, which is bad enough without deciding that we can chuck another country on the bonfire too.
Don’t get me wrong: I support Ukraine and think the West should do more to assist its campaign against Russian aggression. But really, it’s enough of a mess as it is without this new nonsense.
j watson
11 days ago
You read about the Kadyrov regime and just further understand why Ukraine fights. That’s the sort of society they’d end up with too. And thus why we must support them
Alex Lekas
11 days ago
Whatever happens with Chechnya, can we please stop with this fantasy: “one that may provide an opportunity for Vladimir Putin’s opponents to get the better of Russia in Ukraine.” ——-> A half-million or more Ukrainians are already dead and the country is a mess. We, the West, have done quite enough in pursuing this wholly avoidable conflict. All Russia’s opponents need to do is fuel the ambitions of Kadyrov’s potential successors and encourage them to plot and commit violence against one another. ——-> Is this supposed to be an example of claiming the moral high ground, encouraging people to kill each other? Seriously? This obsession with Russia while the West implodes is quite the distraction. People like the author are rather cavalier about the lives of other people
Rather like Imperial Germany fantasising that Mexico could join the Central Powers and attack the USA. Is this all the West has left? Destroy one territory in order to save another? Acting like Guy Fawkes and using the lives of the Chechens as gunpowder. And, notably, hoping that religious divisions can be exploited; something that would be condemned in the UK or the USA.
Jerry Carroll
11 days ago
Kadyrov outlasted Susan Sontag. Just sayin’
0 0
6 days ago
Fifty years ago, Brezhinsky bought into Bernard Lewis’s idea of recruiting and forming Islamists to nibble at the Soviet Union and they’ve kept at it since even after 9:11 showed there can be blowback. In a misplaced tribute act to Mackinder, US neocons carry on to keep Europe and Russia apart whatever the cost even though Bush, Burns and Schroeder showed it was possible to do business wirh Putin. Good business. Too good for some, apparently.
Yeah I know Chechnya is a geopolitical powder keg and complete mess. Honestly though this reads as nothing more than hopeful whining now that predictions of Russian regime change and Ukrainian battlefield victory have proven to be laughably short sighted.
I’m not sure that any of this will lead to significant problems for Russia, but anything at all that leads to any problems for Russia is a good thing, surely?
Sure, but could have bad consequences for us as well. Chechen extremists don’t always stay in Checnya – they come to Europe (see France and Samuel Paty killing) and USA (boston marathon) and commit terrorist attacks there
Surely things were better before when Europe was allowed to do business with Russia? For those in Europe certainly. For the US too although they thought they could do better. Only the Russians seem to be doing better now that they rely on themselves than they did before when they traded more with us. So, watch out what you wish for.
Horrible “realpolitik” article which basically uses the Chechens who suffered a pretty brutal war within living memory as a pawn for the West’s interests. The casualties would be terrible now Russia knows what to do to stop terrorists (i.e. dont give a monkeys about civilian deaths). There is no hope of a Chechen victory. It would be less likely than in Ukraine as we couldn’t plausibly send weapons to them in the same way.
Don’t worry. Chechens have enough Russian weapons
Some Russian weapons are good (AK47s). Some Russian weapons are not so good (its tanks).
I doubt that Russia has “given a monkeys” about civilian deaths (including those of its own civilians) at any point in its history.
I sort of agree but then everyone was like that back in the day pretty much. What is different now is that the Russians have learnt that actually trying to kill civilians is the way to destroy insurgencies. They didn’t do it in Afghanistan and lost but did it in Chechnya and (helping their proxies) in Syria and won. The equation is simple – civilian destruction brings insurgents to their knees. The West’s “hearts and minds” approach is a stop gap at best.
Maybe, but Russians have always been at the front of the pack when it comes to committing war crimes.
Far behind the US now and the British before. Far behind.
So you say Boris.
Pretty sure plenty of innocent Afghan civilians got killed by the Russians.
But what you appear to be saying is that the Russians have figured out that committing war crimes – deliberate slaughter of civilians – is they way forward here. Did I get that right ?
And you seem to imply that this is “progress”.
Is this a strategy you think we should have followed in Northern Ireland ? Or Israel today in Gaza ?
Afghanistan – minimum 600.000 victims
Mainly a direct and indirect result of Islamists recruited and formed by Washington.
What governments do?
It’s nothing to do with the West !!!
The Caucasus doesn’t need any help from us. Ethnic and tribal feuding is what they do best in that region. Fortunately a field in which we have little expertise (so far …).
If you have any actual evidence of the West intervening in Chechnya, please do give it. I’ve never seen any.
The West has clearly intervened in some places where it would have done better to stay out. I don’t see us ever being stupid enough to poke the Caucasus though. Leave the mess to the Russians.
Start with Brezhinskys autobiography. He brags about it
The final paragraph of this piece is chilling in the way that it blandly discusses the prospects of fermenting another catastrophic war. I’m sure the author wishes to remain analytical, dispassionate and all that, but it reads as borderline sociopathic.
Garner states without moral comment that the unleashing of another conflict would be an acceptable policy proposition if it could save an unspecified number of Ukrainian lives. There doesn’t appear to be any grounding to this moral equation that goes much further than ‘because Putin’.
Otherwise this piece does seem to be doing some ground-work for another little regime change operation – typically framing the local power as despotic and brutal. All of which may be true, but then again I wonder which of these cities the author may feel safer strolling around in right now: Baghdad, Damascus, Kabul, Tripoli or Grozny.
There’s a porous “borderline” between Machiavellian “realpolitik” and sociopathy.
They will fight amongst themselves anyway. That’s what happens when a warlord dictator dies and there’s a power vacuum. Nothing we do – or do not do – will make any difference to that.
There is no need – and no sense – in us getting involved. Leave this particular **** show to the Russians. They broke it. They can clean it up.
Or New York City, it comes to that.
My thoughts exactly. Nobody of sense and compassion could seriously want Chechnya to descend back into the violent hell it used to be, just because it might help the West in its desire to defeat Russia in Ukraine? I mean, we’re already doing that by treating Ukrainians themselves as nothing more than a numbers game, which is bad enough without deciding that we can chuck another country on the bonfire too.
Don’t get me wrong: I support Ukraine and think the West should do more to assist its campaign against Russian aggression. But really, it’s enough of a mess as it is without this new nonsense.
You read about the Kadyrov regime and just further understand why Ukraine fights. That’s the sort of society they’d end up with too. And thus why we must support them
Whatever happens with Chechnya, can we please stop with this fantasy: “one that may provide an opportunity for Vladimir Putin’s opponents to get the better of Russia in Ukraine.” ——-> A half-million or more Ukrainians are already dead and the country is a mess. We, the West, have done quite enough in pursuing this wholly avoidable conflict.
All Russia’s opponents need to do is fuel the ambitions of Kadyrov’s potential successors and encourage them to plot and commit violence against one another. ——-> Is this supposed to be an example of claiming the moral high ground, encouraging people to kill each other? Seriously? This obsession with Russia while the West implodes is quite the distraction. People like the author are rather cavalier about the lives of other people
Rather like Imperial Germany fantasising that Mexico could join the Central Powers and attack the USA.
Is this all the West has left? Destroy one territory in order to save another? Acting like Guy Fawkes and using the lives of the Chechens as gunpowder. And, notably, hoping that religious divisions can be exploited; something that would be condemned in the UK or the USA.
Kadyrov outlasted Susan Sontag. Just sayin’
Fifty years ago, Brezhinsky bought into Bernard Lewis’s idea of recruiting and forming Islamists to nibble at the Soviet Union and they’ve kept at it since even after 9:11 showed there can be blowback. In a misplaced tribute act to Mackinder, US neocons carry on to keep Europe and Russia apart whatever the cost even though Bush, Burns and Schroeder showed it was possible to do business wirh Putin. Good business. Too good for some, apparently.