Talk:Second Chechen War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply

If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply to Moscow appartment house bombings, please visit the page September_11,_2001_attacks and try to change the word 'terrorism' to something you feel more "approptiate" or "neutral" there first. --Gene s 05:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously it was terrorism but the question of who was responsible has not been adequately addressed. It seemed very convenient for Putin to happen coming up to a presidential election. mango2005

Wow.. you're an idiot.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

If anything, the Moscow bombing decreased Putin's popularity, and he didn't even have the ambulances on hand. Mango - you win the 2006 Wikipedia Idiocy Award! Reading wikipedia is very entertaining!

"User ABC

Apparently that's the reason why he so amazingly won the president elections, and was quoted by most of the country. "Whack those damn terrorists in toilets!"...Yeah that made him extremely unpopular...SARCASM! 81.23.56.19 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's the leader on the pro-independence Chechen side ?

Provide evidence if he's Basayev.

Of course there is no such evidence because the current president is Alu Alkhanov. Do you need evidence for that?

No. Alu doesn't lead the resistance, because he's the next Kremlin pick-up for a puppet administrator. The elections were heavily criticised for example by the US dept. of state.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But just provide evidence if he leads the resistance instead of the pro-Moscow regime.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, see Yahoo Chechen list from 1999-2004 to get evidence of Mashadov's leadership.--BIR 13:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop refering to your useless list. The "list" is not a source of reliable data.

On the contrary, it is as reliable as the sources it quotes. Please, go there and read.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We had been over this many times before. The "list" is not a reliable source of information. Please stop using opinions as facts. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any web site where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any fighting in Chechnya since, say 2002? --Gene s 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may try the Chechenpress.com or .info. He's definitely on the lead as the commander-in-chief of the ChRI resistance army. You already know that. For a long time, it has been a russian trick to deny his status in media purposely, and now you try the same...--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a page where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any military action in Chechnya since 2002. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/ichkeria/dokumenty/prezident/index.shtml --BIR 15:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/news/2004/09/16/18.shtml --BIR 15:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You posted a link where Maskhadov condones the terrorist act in Beslan and otherwise defends the terrorists. What do you want to do with this link?

Actually, after consideration I won't object if you link Maskhadov with terrorists. He is a terrorist after all, you proved it. Good job. --Gene s 04:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was asking for a real independent link. Do you want a counter link form Russian media? Try again. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If youn insist on calling the resistance, I'll have to insist on calling them terrorists. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are NO pro-independent forces in Chechnya, never were, there were bandits, who kill children of their own nationality, I would not call this pro-independent, I would call this criminals.

Regarding "independent" and "resistance"

• Resistance to what? The word "forces" is neutral.

I am not sure if I'll repent, but, this time ok.

• Provide evidence that the islamic groups are independent.

In one of the latest international interviews of Reuters, BBC, or AFP etc. might be also a Russian one (don't remember which one anymore, but definitely one of them) that was also published some time ago on the LIST when asked about Basayev's position in the ChRI administration Mashadov stated something like "Basayev has chosen to act separately from us".--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you don't have a valid link. No link - no discussion. The "list" is not a mainstream media. Your personal opinion cannot be treated as fact. Even if an interview with Maskhadov was publshed by BBC, I am sure BBC also published Putin when he said that both Maskhadov and Basayev are terrorists. Don't mix propaganda with valid sources of information. --Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In an aftermach of the Dubrovka act of terror, also Basayev was interviewed by the mass media many times. He admitted his partisipation and resigned from the ChRI administration, and told details like that the Dubrovka wasn't the planned target but the Duma deputants were. The operation, reportedly, turned off-tracked by one Terbikayev, a FSB counter-agent of Chechen origin, and resulted an anti-ChRI inhuman carnage which only strengtened Putin's political position leading finally to the topical attempt of cancellation of democracy.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I remember Putin said Maskhadov is in the same group of terrorists as Basayev. Why should separatist propaganda be treated differenntly than federalist propaganda?

You seem to be condoning terrorism. Do you belive killing Duma deputies would not have been a terrorist act? Do you believe that "off-tracking" of the killing of deputies by FSB makes it OK to kill other people?

--Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Gene s 14:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killing a deputy is a politically motivated assination. Ericd 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should also consider that terrorism includes state-terror against civilians. mango2005

Here's the definition of Terror that is accepted by most Western Historians, (and prolly Russian Historians too). A terrorist is one who kills unarmed people with the purpose of inflicting fear into the society at large. The Russian State killing armed rebels is called unconventional warfare, not terrorism. The case of Dubrovka was an act of terror, because unarmed people were killed with the purpose of inflicting fear unto the Russian population. If one fires a gun at a criminal, misses and hits a baby, it's called murder, not self-defense.

User ABC

A determination for Putin's campaign ?

I would like to remind you again that this is not a political forum. This is an encyclopedia. Any discussion not related to the content of the current article (Second Chechen War) is off topic.

• Would you say that the war still underway is either a simple war or an antiterrorist operation ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say the last paragraph of the article is quite clear on it.

• Given that the ChRI MFA site tells that about 24 000 Chechen children have already died due to the war, do you consider that as an overestimation, or true?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the "MFA" is a propaganda outlet. Any data from there is a suspect.

• In this regard, how would you determinate Putin's personal style of conduct on the scale of A short-sighted plain terrorist ending in a forever ingenious statesman ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would determine that Putin's personal conduct is off-topic unless you justify inclusion of it here. There is an article Vladimir Putin. You may want to read it.

• For your eyes only, as the British say - even if you wasn't a James Bond;=)
• The Dagestan ProvocationJust looks like a Finnish site, near your home, I think.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record - this was yet another nationalistic remark from you.

Just for somebody's record, I didn't regard you a Brit nor a Finn, if you red carefully. In plain English, you is often a passive form, and near your home doesn't mean that you are a Finn.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the article, the author is pedding his/her agenda. It's apparent even from the title. No self-respecting journalist would open an article as The series of events known as the Dagestan provocation. Known by whom? Known where? The conclusion opens the investigation. Really impartial, right?

Actually, the title is The Eurasian Politician - October 2003, The Background of Chechen Independence Movement V:,The Dagestan Provocation. Don't be afraid to read, for then the facts may be known by you, too.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to think. Who is this "Eurasian Politician"? Why is this propaganda web site any better than any other propaganda web site? Are you saying the title "Dagestan provocation" is unbiased and impartial?

The article seems to belong to [http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/main.htm

the Eurasian Politician] collections, and for one I regard it highly.

And we already established that your opinion makes no difference. It does not matter if you regard them highly or completely disregard them. Who are they? It looks to me that are some university students.

What impartial investigations ? By whom, given the recent political developments, right?--BIR 08:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you agree that these people are biased? Then if you believe they are biased, why are you posting links to them? --Gene s 08:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the recent political developments, read the given sources to get informed, please.

You avoded the issue of bias again. If I write someting and post it to the web, does it become a source of information worthy of inclusion here? Why should I read ramblings of some students? Are they good students getting straight A's or something?

The paragraph above is just your personal opinion, that grants nothing either.

Well, I explained why I believe so. You posted no rebuttal, making it clear that you agree with my assessment of bias.

So, you agreed that Putin's methods in the regards of Chechnya resemble more the ones of terror than acts of an statesman ? Right.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to the statement where I said so. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gradually, your techniques of dispute (endless feedbacks etc.) have started to repeat themselves,

You are the master of evasive discussion. You never answer my questions. Whenever you find it difficult to answer or to find evidence, you just start a new section. I suggest you look at your own act. Remember, it was you who barged in and started rewriting articles with loaded language and false information.

so, please, present new ones to keep me awaken.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you miss the point again. I don't care if you sleep or not. Let me remind you. You have an agenda of adding loaded language and kooked-up opinions to Chechnya-related articles. I was prety much satisfied with the way they were written until you appeared. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to educate your English, not k but c like cooked-up.

Dear English teacher, please spend a few seconds of your valuable time and look up the word "kook" in a dictionary before you make a fool of yourself again. For example here.

You don't give up easily. Don't you ? I like it. Although I am no teacher, but just in case, I can't help but help if necessary. I think the online dictionary you suggested doesn't know literally a combined expression "kooked up" you used in the fist place. In addition, there are a valid commonly-known expression "to cook up" and its derivation "cooked up". --BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition, my dictionary and the other online ones I searched gave none or following results about a "kook": Keepers Of Odd Knowledge; Kook, Abraham Isaac, Jewish mystic, fervent Zionist...; Albert J. Kook, Early Chinese Bronzes (1970); and of course the one you linked; someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, a word "kook" really is an American slang expression, but further "kooked" or even "kooked up" do not exist in dictionaries. Instead, such expressions as a "cook-up", "to cook up", or "cooked-up" are proper standard English. Given the context where you kindly used "kooked up" you seemingly ment "cooked up". Otherwise it either doesn't make sense or it is'nt English.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then decently, back to the issue, i.e. your views on Putin's reported methods, please.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chechnya article was nothing but accurate or even encyclopedic.

Ok. I correct. The Chechnya article was anything but accurate or even encyclopedic.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have agree with that. Maybe your statement is even a bit too flattering.

Thanks. Let's agree on that you had to agree with that--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is quite narrow by its content, and I doubt that anyone seriously in this field can exploit it fully. Just lazy additional journalists may try it for some hinterland papers expecially if there are professionally written articles avaiable on the internet, including the LIST sources and footnotes, of course.

I just found it full of embedded elements of pro-Moscow propaganda I red all too often done by the tecniques I saw all too often.

Oh, I see. You really meant something else in the first phrase. You should really get someone to help you with English. Anyway, if you felt that way, why did you refuse to argue the article points, but concentrated on adding loaded language? If you believe it's full of pro-Moscow propaganda, why did not you remove it? Instead you were only adding pro-separatist propaganda. Do you think an article full of pro-separatist propaganda is better that an article full of pro-Moscow propaganda?

Factually, I considered it as tool to lead the lazy journalists up to the guarden path. In short; the ChRI and her leadership's role were ignored; for example, just Basayev was shown to lead some islamist insurgents and that's all the resistance, Kadyro's puppet regime was regarded as the ChRI one etc.--BIR 10:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links, links, links. No links, no discussion. And no, the "list" is not a source. --10:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basayev's militants independent !

The globalsecurity link you provided did confirm crearly that Basayev's groups operated independently from the Chechen governement. Therefore, I agree that the word independent must be added contextually there in the text body.--BIR 10:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They are saying so. Without providing a source for this information, but I guess it's no big deal. But you, as already happened many times before, don't recognize a difference between years. The last paragraph is about post-2002, the SF is about 1999. Why is it so difficult for you to see a 3+ year difference? Why do you keep adding external links to the article body? --Gene s 10:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Independent analyses and reports

• the beginning of the crisis

- *[ http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30389.pdf "De Facto independence", "Chechen resistance" etc.]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechnatism.htm Chechen Nationalism and the Tragedy of the Struggle for Independence]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechtale.htm A Tale of Two Theaters: Russian Actions in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999; "The 1999 intervention was executed according to a well-conceived plan. According to the former Minister of Internal Affairs and Yeltsin loyalist Sergei Stepashin, the plan was prepared for execution in March 1999 but was delayed."]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/secchech/secchech.htm The Second Chechen War: The Information Component]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/mvd/post_cccp.htm FAS: Post-Soviet Developments]

-*[ http://phrusa.org/research/chechnya/chech_rep.html Physicians for Human Rights: Endless Brutality, Ongoing Human Rights Violations in Chechnya]

• In the heat of the crisis

_ *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?download=1&doc_id=6093 IHF Report: The Silencing of Human Rights Defenders in Chechnya and Ingushetia]

- *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=6087 Russian Federation: Joint NGO Statement on the Beslan Hostage Tragedy]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/riyadus.htm FAS: Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM)]

-* [ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/iipb.htm FAS: Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)]

• Signs of 'Realpolitik' on Chechnya developments

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/09/uk9329.htm HRW: ä U.K.: Postponing Rights Report Sends ‘Wrong Message’]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/08/russia8415.htm HRW: Russia: Conditions in Chechnya and Ingushetia Deteriorate]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/russia7248.htm HRW: Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights]

-*[ http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/cau_200409_253_1_eng.txt IPWR: Life After Beslan]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000002-000016&lang=1 Prague Wacthdog: Is Beslan the result of Russian policies in the Caucasus?]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000001-000120&lang=1 Prague Watchdog: Four Putinist years in Chechnya]

-*[ http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=caucasus Yahoo Chechnya page]

you mean "independent"

section How the existent war turned publicly non-existent

The section is currently not much more than a collection of external links. Thus, it violates the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Please rewrite the section in a meaningful way, so it actually represents a digest of linked articles instead of being a list of external links. Otherwise, the section should be removed because it does nto add much to the content of the article. --Gene s 10:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section continues to be completely unclear. What is it supposed to represent? What is the purpose of this section. It seems to be some random text copied from somewhere and pasted here without a context.

Nop. Believe or not, it's my own product based on the given international independent and unbiased sources.--BIR 13:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information warfare has been the kernel of war on the Russian side while the onfield operations turned into a stalemate resulting wide-scale abuses on the Chechen civilians.--BIR 13:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section Prospects of warfare in the cricis [sic!] should be rewritten to remove all loaded language and dubious claims (like "usually reliable Chechen resistance news agency". "usually reliable"? By what standards? Who is the judge?) and should be actally incorporated with the rest of the article. Grammar and spelling need improvements as well. --Gene s 13:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could't provide evidence for your point. Give a valid reputable international and impartial URL to justify your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance and its news agency. Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part, and another aiming to make it independent. To be encyclopedic you must take both views into account.--BIR 13:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try one last time, although I am pretty sure it's futile.

"You could't provide evidence for your point" - which exactly point is that? Let's see. I said (a) the loaded language should be removed; (b) claims like "usually reliable" are dubious; (c) the section should be incorporated with the rest of the article; (d) your grammar and spelling need improvement. Now you are saying I need to prove some of these points. Please be specific. What kind of proof do you need?

"your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance". Please give me a link to my edits in the article space that illustrate my "extreme pro-Kremlin opinion". Please be specific. Provide a link to the diff which you see as "extreme pro-Kremlin".

"Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part". You actually try to remember that the "ratling parties" (whatever that means) do not have such disagreement. You may have an agenda to keep/not keep Chechnya in Russia. I only want to edit this article for clarity and NPOV. My disagreement is over the content of this article, not political issues. I don't like the fact that you pollute the articles with loaded language, dubious claims, huge number of external links, and odd writing.

--Gene s 09:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A ratling party is a standard expression in the Queen's English. I based my writings on the impartial international sources which contribution I quite didn't perfect yet. For one, you've skilfully curbed the facts that may harm one ratling party of the conflict by way of Wiki rules contradicting its original purposes beginning from the nature of the Dubrovka gas lately ending in labouring the copy rights procedures against the Wiki-publishing of the origins of the war, and not to speak about "separatism" which was enough to make another ratling party's official internet site unmerited. Until proven otherwise I regard your ways of editing biased and dubious. The fact that some 250-300 000 people (not such "insurgents" but civilians en masse) have got killed already on the spot doesn't quite indicate your do-not-have-such-disagreement claims.--BIR 15:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edited

I felt the need to edit a little bit because whoever recently edited this has some spelling problems. I'm not really an expert on the war so I didn't add any info but maybe one of you people could do it. Well......Bye!-Flyingcheese 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yeah,do any of you know the proper way to spell Chechnya? Or is it Checna? Or Chechnia? I don't know could somebody tell me, PLEASE? Thanks!!!-Flyingcheese 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, use google test:

• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnya 2,290,000
• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnia 30,600
• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechna 1,100

"Chechnya" wins --Gene s 05:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.-Flyingcheese 10:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...........

Hey BIR you should take spelling lessons if you can't spell view (which you spelt as viw) and nope (which you spelt as nop). Yeeaahh, well anyway just wanted to tell you that.-Flyingcheese 10:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I need new spectacles because I seemingly hit wrong keys, too--BIR 11:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was sarcasm you know,right?-Flyingcheese 11:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=)--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah,what are spectacles?-Flyingcheese 11:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Eyeglasses--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also that's missing keys altogether not just hitting different ones.-Flyingcheese 11:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) True--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good glad that's over.-Flyingcheese 12:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And here's another face: >_<-Flyingcheese 13:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another possible copyright violation

BIR: Did you obtain a permission to copy contents of www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm ? Please provide evidence of obtaining such permission. --Gene s 12:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gene S: I don't quite think I "copied" this one of the sources up to the extent that it shoud be highlighted with the regards of copy rights at all. Rather, the items were taken from the variety of sources.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your version:

In July 1999 the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The original:

In July 1999, the storm clouds started to gather, as the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The work is clearly derived. Thus it is a copyright violation. By polluting wiki with copyrighted text your are breaking the law. Stop doing it. If you do it one more time I will report you for repeated copyright violation. This is the third of fourth time when you knowingly pollute wiki with copyrighted texts. --Gene s 13:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. As everyone can see (in the original context) this fact proves that Russia first conducted an act of war, thus Basayev and others acted on their own but after 3 months of this mentioned act. Seemingly, this truth just makes you to worry here, not such as copy rights which you just laboured against the free delivery of Wiki info. Nor the quote of mine violates copy rights as everyone can see by oneself. The thuth is Russia started the war first. That's an undeniable encyclopedic fact.--BIR 13:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also I tend to keep on thinking that if I wrote facts freehand, you've asked reputable URLs, and if finally given such you'd just gainsaid by way of your own widened copy rights views. And then, if I wrote freehand and footnoted the facts quoted by reputable sources, you'd gainsaid by way of overprotracted Wiki practices of your own. Just perfect.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hereafter, this is for the records, I regard the measures above as the evidence of purposeful censorship in order to side with one overwhelming ratling party of this terrible conflict, if just not intentional vandalism against the original sanctified Wiki intentions.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking in NPOV, reads more like a mish-mash of both sides propoganda. The First Chechen War shows a content/style/structure if not perfect then certainly more preffered. It should focus more on facts not on `he said, she said`, and when areas on dispute arise (such as Basayev`s role in the rebel movement) a more balanced approach is needed. This conflict still runs today and many of the issues and facts are sill up in the air.--Mazzarin 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russians attacked Chechnya first to start the war? How can a country (because Chechnya is part of Russia) attack itself? The correct way to state that is Russia attacked the terrorist-supported Chechen insurgency; the attacked ignited tension, and hence started the war. Few people are disputing that Russia started the war, but the war was started against an insurgency movenment, not against the Chechen people or Chechnya.

User ABC

BBC viewpoints

Here are some prominent interviews of the people who are either observers or involved in the crisis [1]--BIR 08:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non copyvio rewrite

There is a rewrite of this article from scratch at Second Chechen War/Temp; hopefully it alleviates some of the NPOV concerns, as well.

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed copyvio material

Hi,

I've reverted the copyvio addition, and I'm in the process of merging in the fresh content from the temp article page. Hopefully this should address some of the NPOV concerns and help to remove the ugly profusion boxes on the page.

See also the talk page of the temporary article for further discussion (though further comment on the development of this article should be made here).

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Influence on Russian politics

I've drafted a beginning of a description of the effects of the Second Chechen War on Russian politics, but I'm definitely not an expert on the topic. Factual, neutral contributions are welcome; speculation should be sharply limited, however. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this article is actually really crap

i was expecting to find a large description of the actual fighting, technology and troop movements for the war rather then causes and affects of the war. so i think this article needs a major rewrite!--GregLoutsenko 14:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the miracle of the wiki—dive in and add material if you think it's missing something. I did a large part of the first rewrite; it was in very rough shape before. I'd be pleased to see an expert fill in the remaining gaps. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeltsin never lost the 2000 election

"Nevertheless, the guerilla war progressed, and public dissatisfaction over continued casualties and uncertainty may have contributed to Yeltsin's 2000 election loss" - I deleted this.Gaidash 30 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Excellent Improvement Wikepedians

When I last saw this article in Feb 05 it was in my opinion pretty bad, in style, structure, content and NPOV (or lack there of).

Now its a very readable and informative article and I think shows what the open nature of wikipedia can achieve. Congrats.

--Mazzarin 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to 'List of terrorist incidents'

I have recently taken a list of Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 from List of terrorist incidents and given them their own page, while keeping a link to the new page from the old. The original page also lists a number of Chechen attacks within Russia, especially over the period 2001-2005, and I would like to do something similar - removing that information to this page, and then linking to it. However, the attacks in question are discussed by category here, rather than chronologically, rendering linkage difficult. Any suggestions? Mporter 12:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

English

Am I the only one that has noticed the poor wording in parts of this article? I have started to edit parts but do not have the time to do it all in one go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHoughton (talk • contribs)

The NPOV of this Article is Bullshit

This article is incredibly biased. The language used to describe the battle for Grozny is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, it does not provide enough links for it's claims, it refers to possible Russian war crimes as fact, even thought they are unproven, and the language used sounds more like an action novel. And I believe it is a copy-paste from another web-site Ive read before, even though I haven't been able to find it just now. DarthJesus 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely unsympathetic to Russia and Russians. I think it needs a few touch-ups. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.169 (talk • contribs)

Why should this article be sympathetic towards that russians? their presence in Chechnya is purely illegal.

Russian Troops being on Russian soil is purely illegal? Chechnya was never recognized as an independent country by the UN. Also, this NPOV in this article is bullshit; it doesn't make the connection between Mudjahadeen and Taliban. Since 1922 Chechnya was considered to be a part of Russia by the League of Nations. Prior to that, at the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Chechnya was considered a part of Russia. Since when was Chechnya not considered a part of Russia? During the Russian Civil War when the government was an anarchy? Communists didn't achieve real power to be called a government until NEP. Also, do you people not see how this leads into the Russo-Georgian Conflict today? BTW, Russia won the war and no one is disputing their presence in Chechnya today. Read Newsweek. Also NATO-style tactics? Umm, those failed in Iraq, so I don't think it was NATO-style tactics. Please preserve this hilarious article, for future generations to read and know what true propaganda looks like!

- User ABC

I agree with ABC here, the article is purely ANTI-russian, and does not deserve to be called encyclopedia article.

Re: Accuracy of this article

I've read this article yesterday. And I was surprised to see the article say that Russians used Vaccum Bombs contrary to international conventions to destroy Grozny.

I was following western media news reports during the war. And I've never heard any reports that such bombs were used in Grozny.

I've read this article again today. And I was surprised again to see that now there is no mention of Vaccum Bombs being used in Grozny.

Apparently, some people editing articles here are intent on spreading false rumors and propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick36 (talk • contribs)

It's very easy to check: vacuum bombs leave craters, so one could just check the land, I am sure some reporters are allowed in, and a vacuum bomb use can be spotted from satellite, so please city facts; if Russia would use the bombs, we'd have the photos!

User ABC

Chechen Propaganda?

Who wrote this version of this article? Some one-legged chechen male, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.176.124 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

Ive cut out most of the incidents mentioned in the Guerilla war section to cut down on the length of the article. Ive also had to edit other parts talking about the battle for Grozny due to neutrality and grammar issues. I also have to say that much about the Chechen war cannot be independently confirmed so we should only put info into the article that we are sure is accurate. This includes reports by Human Rights Watch and other orginizations since they are based solely on eye-witness accounts. You can mention these allegations but you have to make sure that they are not written as undeniably true.

Other parts, like mentioning the Russians were losing 25 soldiers a day are not appropriate for the article unless we have firm confirmation that it is true. And the "vaccum-bomb" use in Grozny is also not confirmed. It should not be mentioned in the article since people will accept it as truth, when it is far from certain it is true. The Chechen War is a very controversial issue among many people and we have to be very careful about what is written in the article to insure we produce a neutral and balanced view. DarthJesus 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. As for lenght of the article, the Iraqi insurgency since just 2003 is similiar, and it doesn't even include the "major hostilities"; I believe these incidents are important, as some of the more famous ones. The aerial FAE bombs in Grozny were not confirmed, but the ground-launched TOS-1 rockets were (NTV footage), as well as an infantry RPO Shmel weapons (the latter were used even in the first war); for sure the vacuum bombs were dropped on Tando in Dagestan, however, and there are very strong allegations as of on Katyr-Yurt in 2000.

The massacres were documented on video (after, of course), and in Alkhan-Yurt there's even a footage of a drunken Russian soldier shouting "We will shoot you" to no less but the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia himself [2]. Casaulties in Grozny - 25 is conservative. Up to 50 a day, and never less than 10 [3]. Officially they suffered some 500 dead in 19 days, too, so some 25 is actually official(!).

As for a balance and neutrality, I wrote everything on the issue of terrorist bombings - which wasn't even touched before (and I think omitted some - but no, the Moscow passage bomb was just from a gang war). Grammar - be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs)

The BBC reports all rely on unnamed witness accounts and they are denied by the Russians. I know you're going to say who can trust the Russians? But all we have are allegations of crimes and accounts from supposed eye-witnesses. This does not confirm it as true. The BBC itself says it does not have independent confirmation of the charges. The 25 dead a day figure is a pointless number, the only reason for including it is to imply that the Russians were incompetent, and taking massive casualties from the Chechens. Put the casualties in a section at the end and use the total numbers. As for the videos: lets see them. The vaccum bombs; no the TOS-1 has not been confirmed as being used on Grozny. Lets see that video as well. Whether or not FAE's were used in Dagestan or elsewhere is meaningless since this article is talking about Grozny.

The length of the Iraqi article doesn't matter since we are talking about Chechnya. Why are all the events listed under guerilla war crucial? And you need more links; where are you getting your information about these attacks from?

And remeber to sign your discussions DarthJesus 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All the information you put in this article must be verifiable. A single report from BBC or Guardian quoting un-named witnesses is not a verifiable source. That story about the Russian soldiers killed after they were not exchanged is a myth. The Chechens released photos of dead Russian soldiers with their throats cut and the Russians said that the pictures were from the first war. Unless you have verifiable information about it do not put it into the article. That article coming from Pavel Felghaneur; where is he getting his information from? And why is he considered an expert analyst on the Russsian military?

The stories of the massacres in Grozny and the bombing of the white flag convoys; Human Rights Watch is a more respectable source than BBC or the Guardian but the allegations still are not confirmed. Put them into the war crimes section. The story about the Chechen anti-terrorist group that has supposedly defected; that is another unverifiable story. All we have are reports from the Chechen side that this has occured. The Chechen government denies it. And if it is true why do we have no info about it, why have the names of the defectors not been released, why are there no photos of the men? All we have about that story is a report from the Chechen rebels, which is not a verifiable source. DarthJesus 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article repeatedly uses un-verifiable sources. I repeat my earlier statement: A single report from BBC or Guardian quoting un-named witnesses is not a verifiable source. DarthJesus 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mass Graves

We need some links for the mass grave sections. The article has that rather large section with all those entries and not a single linke to any of them. DarthJesus 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WWII relocation

During World War II Chechens were accused by Stalin of aiding Nazi forces. In 1944, Stalin deported nearly all the Chechens and Ingushs to Kazakh SSR and Kirghiz SSR, and Siberia. About quarter to half of the population perished in the process

What is the source for the last notion? And if we mention "halfs" or "quarters", shouldn't there also be some real numbers, at least that of the population of Chechnya prior to relocation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theocide (talk • contribs)

Stalin did deport the Chechen people because they were allegedly planning and anti-Soviet independence movement. Was it real, or part of Stalin's paranoia, we will never know, but I can provide citations that Stalin deported the Chechen people; is all of the encylopedias existing a good citation? But you need to be more specific with numbers, we're not flipping coins but counting people's lives, so have some damn decency! Cite evidence, such as 400,000 approximately 400,000 Chechens were deported; no one knows how many perished, but you can write about how many returned! Not quarters and halves, talking like tht one sounds like a mafia shmuck. "We killz quarter o dat mob". Also, they weren't the only ones deported! The most deported were the Volga Germans, about 435,000 to 450,000. Others too, had to be deported due to Stalin's craziness and/or other issues. Stalin wasn't exactly angellic...

User ABC

Chechen invasion of Dagestan

Why isn't the chechen invasion of Dagestan mentioned as a beginning of the Second Chechen War?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theocide (talk • contribs)

It does state that Chechen fighters invaded Dagestan, TO HELP ISLAMIC FIGHTERS UNDER ATTACK IN DAGESTSAN BY RUSSIAN FORCES. First of all, Russia had all the rights to take out such fighters in Dagestan, but after the Chechen fighters invaded, it gave Russia a reason to counter the Chechen fighters with an attack on their own grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.150.61 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using  ~~~~

Thanks Travb (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds "under attack by russian forces" a bit anti-russian? Dagestan was officially Russia and the islamic fighters there were nothing but terrorists. I've phrased it more accurately if nobody jests.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaamat Sharia

Is this the same thing as Shariat? If so, then Makasharipov was replaced by Rappani Khalilov.

Casualties:

Can someone please start investigating or adding the number of dead from all the massacres, battles, hostages crisis and other causes because the number of dead at the infobox looks unupdated.

The problem is: No one knows. Really - there are only estimates, and these vary radically. Memorial does a count on civilians, but they cover only about 30% of the territory, and it's the more peaceful lowlands, so it doesn't count either. --HanzoHattori 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kavkhaz Center

Why isn’t the Kavkaz center part of the links collection? Biased as it is (and it is one of the best examples of blatant, laughable bias I can think of) it is one of the few sources for covering this war day-to-day. Also, the phenomenon of Chechen video madness on the internet (examplia gratia, the fascination of non-Russians, non-Chechens, and non-Muslims such as myself with Chechnya) should be addressed.

KC uses an infamously incomprehensible newspeak, and has a mostly mind-boggling selection of world news, but yes, they're at least (and at last) have a quite realistic daily battlefield reports if anyone needs these. Nowadays they most often say of an unknown yet casaulties, or cite reports from Russian and international media (often based on official Russian stuff), and it's reasonable enough. In the past, they would make some really absurd claims most people would only roll their eyes on (one I remember was they would run straight into a Russian encampment, guns blazing and throwing grenades everywhere like in some bad action movie, "and killed 50" or something). No more I think. Of course, the other side (ITAR-TASS) had a plenty of a very hairy stories too. But for anything else, Chechnya Weekly rather. --HanzoHattori 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unified Timeline

What do you think of unifying the timeline?

Keep the paragraphs as they are, only bring all the timelines together into one unified whole.

Neutralaccounting 06:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We really need one. I'm not sure if people get the idea this is still going on.

Need a template

For the new articles. --HanzoHattori 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay

I guess I finished this one. --HanzoHattori 10:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Battles box

Wrong for following reasons:

• un-chronological
• Moscow? Beslan?
• I don't think it's really needed at all

--HanzoHattori 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone please explain how the dates in the infobox (1999 — 2002) combine with the result in the same infobox (Ongoing)? --AVIosad 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chechen War is still ongoing

Really?! Wow, it's news to me, guess you learn something everyday. Well I can see how people are confused, Putin hasn't made the official announcement yet, although he can make it anytime he wants to; he's prolly waiting for America to pull out of Iraq and then say: "we won our war against insurgents, you lost yours haha, let's have a parade. Can't he just make the announcement already, so that most Russians can breathe easier? Gah, politicians are so annoying with their jabs.

User ABC

yeah, you're probably right I also haven't heard for a Chechen IED, ambush or terror attack for a while... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

we certainly do not need Putin's announcement to see it's over --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Putin said it many times, first in February 2000, last time this year (2007). Also: Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya "The war is over and you have won," Yeltsin told Russian troops in the Chechen capital of Grozny, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. The date: May 28, 1996.

In November 2001, Akhmad Kadyrov, then head of the pro-Russian administration in Chechnya, declared that "there is no more need to use aviation and artillery in the region" and that "the police should fight with the remnants of the rebels" (Newsru.com, November 12, 2001).

Five years have passed since that time. Akhmad Kadyrov had been killed, the Kremlin has declared the war over and Kadyrov's son Ramzan, who is now the new Chechen president, promises to bring a stable peace to Chechnya.

What has not changed since 2001 is the shelling and bombardment of the Chechen mountains and forests. On November 24 of last year, representatives of the Russian military command in Chechnya met with deputies of the local pro-Russian parliament. The parliamentary deputies wanted to ask the security officials (including deputy heads of the Russian military group in Chechnya, the officials of the Chechen branch of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Interior Ministry officials) when they would stop the air strikes and the shelling of Chechnya's mountainous areas. The parliamentary deputies said that in 2006, livestock, land under cultivation and private houses had been damaged in five districts of Chechnya (Shatoi, Vedeno, Nozhai-Yurt, Shali and Itum-Kale) as a result of endless artillery barrages. According to the Chechen Forestry Department, bombardment and shelling have caused serious damage to the mountains' natural environment (Vesti-Severny Kavkaz, November 24, 2006).

The security officials said during the meeting that they also cared about Chechnya's future and promised to take measures against "unsanctioned shelling," as they called it.

Nevertheless, nothing changed after the meeting. On December 1, the Russian Air Force bombed the village of Sharon-Argun, located high in the mountains. According to Kavkazky Uzel, one private house was totally destroyed and two locals (the Gaytamirov brothers) were seriously injured. A girl, Zulpa Akhigova, experienced shell shock (Kavkazky Uzel, December 4, 2006). On December 24, artillery shelled the outskirts of the village of Avtury in Shali District (Kavkazky Uzel, December 28, 2006).

Earlier this year, as Ramzan Kadyrov was promising a bright future for the Chechens, the artillery barrages and bombardment were significantly intensified. On February 21, the Russian–Chechen Information Agency (RCIA) reported shelling of forests near the villages of Stary Atagi, Novy Atagi, Duba-Yurt, Chishki, Yulus-Kert, Agishti and Selmentauzen. These settlements are situated in Vedeno, Shali, Shatoi and Grozny districts. On February 27, Russian artillery shelled southeastern Chechnya (RCIA, February 27). On March 7, the rebel Kavkaz-Center website reported shelling in the Urus-Martan District. It should be noted that the areas and villages mentioned above are not high in the mountains, but rather in foothills and even valleys.

Last October, the commander of the Russian military group in Chechnya, Colonel-General Yevgeny Baryaev, said the shelling was needed to prevent the rebels from penetrating the population centers and to disrupt the supplying of rebel bases in the mountains (Chechnya Weekly, November 9, 2006).

Late last year, Baryaev was dismissed from his post and replaced by General Yakov Nedobitko, who had been deputy commander of the North Caucasian Military District (Vesti-Severny Kavkaz, December 12, 2006). After taking office, Nedobitko declared that significant progress had been made by the Russian military in fighting the insurgency. At the same time he ordered intensified shelling and air strikes in southern Chechnya. On January 17, Yakov Nedobitko told RIA Novosti that "special measures to neutralize the militants allow them no opportunity to conduct large-scale terrorist acts." On February 12, Leonid Krivonos, the military commandant of the Chechen Republic, said that the military had managed to prevent the rebels from organizing in large groups and that the insurgency could no longer mount a serious resistance to the authorities. However, despite Krivonos' optimism, it is clear that the military is increasing its shelling of the mountains as spring approaches.

It is a moot question how seriously the rebels' network in the Chechen woods can be damaged by the shelling. Yet there is no doubt that shells and bombs are very destructive to the natural environment and make civilians suffer. Last October, residents of the village of Serzhen-Yurt in Shali District met with Viktor Fomenko, the district military commandant, and demanded that he stop the shelling immediately. "People die of heart attacks, while livestock gets killed by shrapnel," Imran Ezhiev, a local activist, told the commandant. According to Ezhiev, 78 private houses were destroyed or damaged in 2006 due to the shelling in Serzhen-Yurt alone (Kavkazky Uzel, October 13, 2006).

Fomenko gave a strange response, saying that "the political will of the federal center is needed to stop the shelling." Fomenko certainly did not mean that each time the military in Chechnya wants to use artillery it asks the Kremlin for permission. He probably meant something else, something more global: that the shelling is just a part of the war and that the war can be stopped only on Moscow's orders.

The current use of artillery and aviation in Chechnya means that the situation in the region has not changed much since the beginning of the war in 1999. Five years ago, Akhmad Kadyrov already believed that the Chechen pro-Russian forces were capable of fighting the rebels without help of the Russian army, but it seems that even now the Russian generals still do not believe this enough to stop the shelling and withdraw their troops from the republic.

--HanzoHattori 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to copy/paste an article at least provide a link to it somewhere in the quote. And the Jamestown Foundation says a lot of things about Chechnya. They pretty much say the opposite of what the Russian government says about everything in Chechnya, whether or not what they are saying makes any sense. DarthJesus 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When the Russian commander says he needs artillery fire to prevent enemy from operating, it means the war is going on (Putin said last year they do "the same duties as elsewhere", but I don't think they shell the forests near Moscow). So, yesterday "militant on a federal wanted list blew up himself and a woman in refusal to surrender" in Ingushetia, RIAN reported.[4] The day before, KC reported a convoy of Russian lorries was ambushed in Chechnya.[5] Last week, Umarov called on the Muslims of the Caucasus and Russia to take part in a "jihad".[6]

Also, the article needs pictures. --HanzoHattori 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ingushetia is not Chechnya, as you would know if you looked at a map. KC is a ridiculous website and completely unreliable. Umarov's statement does not constitute a "war". There are groups in Scotland calling for independence from Great Britain, so does this mean there is a civil war going on in the United Kingdom? Actually the Russian Army probably does shell the woods near Moscow, since there are artillery ranges in the Moscow district used for practice. DarthJesus 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now "Chechen war" only by name, for a quite long time. Ingushetia is the rebel "front" now, and so is Dagestan, etc. As for Chechnya itself, for example [7] last month. You don't see this in Scotland? --HanzoHattori 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"2 unarmed volunteer police officers shot dead in New York"[8] So I guess this means theres a "war" going on in New York City? Or how about this "Officers outgunned on U.S. border" [9]and Nation of Aztlan. So we have US border agents being fired at on the border, police across the US being killed and we have groups calling for the secession of most of the American Southwest. By the standards of this article this means there is a war being fought inside the US. DarthJesus 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring absurd comparisions. We are talking about war here - do you mean there was no war in Chechnya, like there was no war in US since the 40's (and ended for sure, with the official surrender of Japan)? This is ridicalous, and you are REALLY trying too hard. We are talking about the war which was once the most destructive in Europe since WW2, now evolved into "only" low-level insurgency and dirty war, but it doesn't mean it "ended". The First War didn't end when Yeltsin rolled around and said it ended and they "won", it ended when the cease fire and then peace treaty was signed.

Also, like I said, it's not only Chechnya now - Stavropol "combat collision" officially reported, 1 "militant" killed, 2 captured, 1 police killed and 1 wounded. [10] Previous day, 3 police wounded and 1 civilian killed in a shootout in Dagestan - AP commentary: "Dagestan is plagued by violence, some of it seen as a spillover from neighboring Chechnya, where separatist rebels have been fighting Russian soldiers for most of the past dozen years" [11] On the day still before: "Gunman kills 2 Russian security agents in Dagestan (...) In the province of Ingushetia, west of Chechnya, police tracked down a suspected rebel in the town of Malgobek and killed him Thursday when he resisted arrest." [12] People are dying every day, even according to the official reports (you believe only the reports from one side - but okay, unless they film it it's technically uncomfirmable).

Anyway, when you think did the war "end"? With the death of Basayev, maybe? What about "the remaining 700 bandits", then? (I remember in 2001 it was supposedly "1,200".) No absurd answers or I'll just stop replying. --HanzoHattori 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you display an inability to read maps. Chechnya is seperate from Dagestan and Ingushetia. Therefore what happens in Dagestan is not a Chechen "war". And you're comment about the videos is exactly why I say it's should no longer be considered ongoing. Why are there no videos? KavkazCenter used to post dozens a year but there have been none for over 6 months now. I guess they broke all their video cameras. Or maybe its because there haven't been any attacks? I'll say it again; Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, and all the surrounding republics are NOT Chechnya. So therefore any attacks or criminal activity in them cannot be considered part of the Chechen War. DarthJesus 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's Chechen War. I look at the world map, and all of this including Chechnya is "Russia". Chechens officially declared they are now fighting the Russians in all of Russia (for example: where was Basayev killed? in Chechnya?), and the large numbers Ingushes, Dagestanis and others (among even ethnic Russians) are fighting in Chechnya since the very beginning (that is, 1994). They have one high command and all fight for the common cause - "liberation" of whole North Caucasus. In case if you failed to notice, the rebels are now fighting not for just the independence of Chechnya, but for the pan-Caucassian Islamic emirate in the style of of Imam Shamil and the other classical wars of Caucasus. I don't know how many can be added to remianing "150", "450", "700", "800", "1,000", or "well over 1,000" "remaining bandits in Chechnya" (various Russian figures right now, from Kadyrov to S. Yamadayev - and yes, they declare they are Russians now), but I don't think it's less than hundreds. As for your pictures from Chechnya, see [13] (and the captions too). Yamadayev: The war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years. Of course, some guy calling himself "DarthJesus" knows better. Oh, and the photos are from last month (March 2007). --HanzoHattori 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing or ended?

First paragraph says was, yet it says the conflict is ongoing. I am not familiar with the subject, so can someone clarify the issue?--71.141.139.184 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's user DarthJesus, as he pushes the position of the Kremlin onto Wikipedia. To quote Reuters yesterday (Gunmen attack Grozny checkpoint, injure 6 Russians): "The Kremlin has poured millions of dollars into reconstructing the destroyed province and now wants to present the war as over. (...) Sporadic fighting between Russian forces and rebels continues, although it is mainly confined to the mountainous southern areas of Chechnya." --HanzoHattori 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"The War in Chechnya ended in February 2005. It is impossible to get the exact day, but by the most pessimistic estimates, you can use the 28th. There are rebel bands who still operate in the area. This is a similar scenario to 1921, yet no one claimed that Russia was at war with Chechnya in 1921. The war ends when it is hopeless to win, and a few desperate fanatics fight on, but the war is over. According to the British definition of warfare, which coincides with the UN definition, (if there are less then 1,000 men left in rebellion against a well organized force, it is not a war). User HanzoHattori, stop accusing other users of being pro or anti-Kremlin, or any other country, when you know very little about the article. You have already been warned of doing so by Wikipedia in other cases. If you could actually back up your arguments, you would not need to accuse other users of spewing propaganda, as it is usually the user who accuses others of doing so, is actually the master bullshitter."

User ABC

Pictures

Why there are almost no pictures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Dagestan war

"Dagestan Incursions" is the first chapter of the "Second Chechnya War" in this source. Anyway, 'conducted' is a neutral word so why not to use it? Alæxis_¿question? 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, to the contaray, this source considers them as two separate wars. See [14], They are described as two separate wars in Wikipedia (two separate articles) and everywhere. War in Dagestan was in Dagestan. War in Chechya was in Chechnya. War in Dagestan was from August 7, 1999 to August 23, 1999. War in Chechya began August 26.Biophys 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no such words as "Dagestan war" here.

Secondly, this is how the table of contents looks on that site ([15])

1. Dagestan Incursions (Aug.-Sept. 1999)
2. Terrorist Attacks (Aug.-Sept. 1999)
3. Phase I - Air Campaign (Sept. 1999)
4. Phase II - Ground Campaign (Oct.-Nov. 1999)
5. Phase III (Nov. 1999)
6. Final Phase - (Feb. 2000)
7. Renewed Fighting - 2002
8. Beslan - 2004 Sept.
9. References

So, "Dagestan Incursions" is the first chapter of the "Second Chechnya War". Could you present some other source where they are described separately?

:: Finally, you haven't answered, why don't you like the neutral word 'conducted'?

sorry, looked first at the talk, then at the article

ps. How would you prove that they are described separately everywhere? :) Alæxis_¿question? 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Police

While investigations about the incidents in Bezhetsk and Blagoveshchensk are still under way, Dzhibladze concluded that the roots of such occurrences can be found not in Tver Oblast or Bashkortostan, but in Chechnya. "One of the clear roots of police violence is Chechnya," Dzhibladze said. "[Police] troops and officers are rotating there every half a year. They go back home and bring the experience of violence with impunity. The government is promoting such impunity -- there have been just a few cases where officers have been punished for crimes against civilians in Chechnya, out of -- you can imagine -- hundreds of cases in two wars. This gives a powerful, powerful signal to state agencies and forces that they are immune from prosecution whatever they do."

To support their comparison between the recent police raids and the conflict in Chechnya, Lokshina noted that a human rights lawyer working in Blagoveshchensk recently uncovered an internal Interior Ministry (MVD) document that described how police in "emergency circumstances" should organize "filtration centers" for the detention of suspects and their associates. "The lawyer found a certain MVD document stamped 'DSP,' or 'for internal use,' in which it is described how law enforcement should handle emergency circumstances -- not emergency situations as is already stipulated in the relevant law -- but some mysterious emergency circumstances. Within these mysterious emergency circumstances, the police have to organize filtration centers. It's there on paper. It's exactly what has been going on in Chechnya for years and now we suddenly find out that in any Russian city there can be a filtration center."

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/06/da84eb4b-5f23-4876-8d61-bc4d6f4f6260.html --HanzoHattori 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Refugees and IDPs

I think there would be a paragraph in the Impact on the Chechen population section, but I don't know how to write this (would be easier if I actually spoke English). There should be something about the refugee camps in Ingushetia (300,000 peak?) and their eventual liquidation (and 1999 closing of Ingush-Chechen border by Shamanov), and the refugees beyond Russia (notably European Union, and there Poland and maybe France), and of course on the IDPs.

Incidentally, there is a (badly done) Chechen refugees article already too. --HanzoHattori 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Write it yourself, your English is not bad at all. Others will improve it later. Alæxis_¿question? 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer someone else to write this. --HanzoHattori 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Civilian death toll

There are strange numbers: "According to the figures presented by the pro-Moscow Chechen administration, as well as the Chechen separatists, over 200,000[37] to some 500,000[38] people died or gone missing in the two wars". Links don't work. Please, could you provide working sources for that, or copypast the text? I'm also interested, who was that "pro-Moscow official". ellol 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand where the number 200,000 comes from: "Over 200,000 people have been killed in the Chechen Republic since 1994, the chairman of Chechnya’s State Council, Taus Djabrailov, told reporters on Friday, the Interfax news agency reports."[16] But it's a mistake, because Djabrailov actually claimed 160,000. [17][18] [19]. ellol 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

4 million

“ we have 4 million military personnel and personnel of equivalent status ”

This includes people who are in no way connected with Chechnya (the majority of them, actually). How is the number of traffic policemen, prison guards, etc related to the second chechen war? Alæxis_¿question? 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While there are some "personnel of equivalent status" who participated in the Second Chechen War the majority of them clearly didn't so their total number is irrelevant. Please remember 3RR also. Alæxis_¿question? 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, army soldiers outside Chechnya (and some of them also inside, where many do not leave Khankala at all, also because of the general hostility from the "pro-Russian" Chechen forces - and there were even report the FSB in Grozny "barricaded" in their headquarters) do only the mostly peacetime duties and are used in an emergencies (like the troops and tanks in Beslan for example). They are reserve.

The police, internal troops, and the FSB on the other hand actively raid the apartment buildings for example, and the army is called only when they get really bogged down ("Generally, if there is a tank as in the case of Makhachkala in 2005, they take the tank and shell the house where the defenders are located. But a tank a rare facility, it is available only in military units. Thus, they use whatever is available at the internal troops, such as armour[ed vehicles], flame throwers, etc."[20]).

Further, MVD and FSB are both massive agencies. OMON alone officially numbers about 20,000, and its only one of several special forces units of the police - for a comparison, entire Afghan police force numbers 60,000 (and army 50,000). In addition to the police and paramilitary forces, both have their own regular armed forces armed with a heavy weapons: the internal troops and the border guards (each larger and packing more firepower than many of the national armies of the Russia's neighbours). --HanzoHattori 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this. I'll try to explain why I think the 4 million total is irrelevant to the topic of the article. The number of troops and other men at arms in Chechnya has already been written in the article. There could be some logic in giving total number of Russia's forces who could be engaged in Chechnya (like OMON) although it's is also open to debate. The total number of "military personnel and personnel of equivalent status" includes people who haven't been to Chechnya and have no chance of coming there in future (I've given a couple of examples in the first post) so imho its inclusion here is not justified. Alæxis_¿question? 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any means to count who are engaged in the conflict (all the special forces are, especially the mobile and task force detachments, as are all agencies with the official counter-terrorist duties), but all of them are potentially avaible if anything happens in their area (for better or for worse). Counting only the Russian army soldiers is not really a solution. Average Russian soldier stays in his barracks occupied with the dedovschina, not the jaamats. --HanzoHattori 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing: Traffic police is a tricky question ("They were ordered to kill all personnel of the military, FSB, prosecutor's office and Interior Ministry, with the exception of traffic policemen. But the raiders also had inside help. "The terrorists could not have carried out the planned attack if they had not been helped by local police," Kalinina wrote. "The traffic police helped passively, allowing any means of transport through for money. But there were also active helpers. In the case files there are the names of several policemen who accompanied, for example, Shamil Basev, when in preparation for the terrorist attack he visited bases in Ingushetia by night. If his car was stopped, the policeman sitting next to the driver showed his ID and they were allowed through the checkpoint without anybody looking at who was sitting in the back seat."[21]). But anyway they are still the armed men in a Russian uniforms, and deployed in a large numbers everywhere in the populated areas. After Beslan they were blamed they let it happen, scapegoats or not (or was it some other police? I don't know). --HanzoHattori 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder on whose side you'd have to count those gaishniks who allowed terrorists to come to Beslan :( Anyway the war took place not in the whole Russia but only in part of Caucasus (Chechnya, parts of Ingushetia and Dagestan) so there's no reason to give total number of Russian troops (or other foces). Alæxis_¿question? 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Stavropol - and Moscow (when there were terrorist attacks and acts of industrial sabotage). Actually there were clashes even in Abkhazia, which is technically a breakaway part of Georgia. Where the various more-elite special forces are officially stationed doesn't matter - they are going in and out constantly when needed and are not pernamently or tour-of-duty deployed (actually, they have even names kept secret after their deaths are acknowledged). Do you have any official numbers/estimates of the siloviki in North Caucasus at least? --HanzoHattori 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the tours-of-duty of the police now (not only Chechnya):

Moreover, the number of Russian police units operating in the republic is increasing all the time, and the tour of duty for Russian policemen in Chechnya has been extended from three to six months. Now, policemen are sent not only to Chechnya but to other Caucasian regions as well. The geography is impressive. One can find police officers in the North Caucasus from almost all Russian regions, from Siberia to the Baltic Sea.[22]

At the same time, army conscripts are not to Chechnya itself (but may be stationed anywhere else in the region), and the army's role is now limited anyway (sappers, special forces, transport/construction, and when the heavy support is needed). --HanzoHattori 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First imho military operations should be distinguished from the acts of terrorism. Incursions into Dagestan and Ingushetiya could fall in the former group, however Beslan or Dubrovka crises weren't really military operations and so I cannot agree that the SCW was happening anywhere outside some part of North Caucasus. Finally if we don't have the numbers of Russian forces in that particular region it doesn't justify inclusion of unrelated info. Alæxis_¿question? 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IT's no longer just incursions. They're local groups, who just sign up for the Chechen-led jihad. They can include Chechens (or forigners) or not. There are covert urban cells, and there are uniformed guerillas in the Ingush forests or the mountains of Dagestan too (or even Mount Elbrus massive of Kabardino-Balkaria). Buddyonovsk crisis was a raid by the Chechens from Chechnya into Stavropol territory - now, the shootouts are with the local Nogais who once went to fight in Chechnya as the Nogai Battalion and then returned. A reading:[23] --HanzoHattori 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, where did you find 4 million? I could not find it in the RFE/RL reference that you provided: [24]Biophys 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

“ "We have an oversized military machine. If we look at colonels alone, who are on active duty, we have more than 100,000 of them! I'm not talking just about the Defense Ministry, but across the board. The president, last December, said we have 4 million military personnel and personnel of equivalent status. ”

Alæxis_¿question? 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite Ivanov's recent statement about successful reforms, Felgenhauer said the Russian military establishment remains hugely bloated and without a focused strategy. Defense spending, he notes, has to sustain more than 2 million Defense Ministry employees, plus another 2 million employees of the various security agencies and the Interior Ministry.

Yeah, I know not everyone of them actually has a gun. But there are also some odd paramilitaries, like the Ossetian militia or the Cossack groups. --HanzoHattori 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

O'K, they are Russian siloviki (actually there are even more of them). But how many of them took part in operations in Chechnya? There are rotations of MVD and military forces, so a lot of people came through Chechnya, but 4 millions sounds too much.Biophys 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See my previous comments, it's not just Chechnya now. Maybe even more happens elsewhere, involving ethnic Chechens or not. --HanzoHattori 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You could count MVD, Kadyrov and other similar forces, but only those who were physically present in Chechnya. See 2003 invasion of Iraq - this is not the entire US army. If there are any sources claiming that "such and such numbers of military/MVD/security forces on the Russian Federation side took place in the operations, one can use these numbers. One can cite 4 millions as a measure of Russia's military stenght, but they are not actual combatants in this specific conflict.Biophys 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But there was no Iraqi or Iraqi-involved attack in the United States. Even "Islamic State of Iraq" claims it's only Iraq (as the name says). Now check out the official Russian list of "terrorist organizations": they themselves chose "Supreme Military Majlisul Shura of the Caucasus Mujahedin United Forces" and "Ichkeria and Dagestan People's Congress"[25] (the rest on the list are a foreign organizations). --HanzoHattori 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Ulster conflict? Would you also claim that it was happening in the whole UK because there were certain acts of terrorism in London? I'm sorry but I can't agree with it - imho military actions are different from terrorist ones and we shouldn't mix them here. Alæxis_¿question? 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, becuase it was by the Irish, not by the Englishmen (Scotsmen, Wales). Take a look at this for example:[26] - Dagestanis and not terrorism (after the initial skirmish which killed 2 OMON, they were "reported to be tightly encircled in an area called the Black Forest near the village of Shamilkala, and then pounded with heavy artillery, mortars and bombs. Yet somehow they still managed to escape. The Russians lost one soldier dead and ten wounded.". Just today, a large group of policemen was blown up in Dagestan (12+ killed/wounded) - my safe guess it was not done by the Chechens. --HanzoHattori 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations reqested

The subject lack pictures. --HanzoHattori 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

How about merging into "Second Chechen War terrorism" and "Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War" into "Category:War crimes and terrorist incidents of the Second Chechen War"?

"Category:War crimes and terrorist incidents of the First Chechen War" would be then created too. --HanzoHattori 10:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category out of two items? What's the reason behind it? Alæxis_¿question? 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

War on terror

What's wrong with this category? Alæxis_¿question? 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So-called "war on terror" (aka "global war on terror", "war against terrorism", etc) is American-led (actually NATO in Afghanistan). Russia's only involvement was some support early in Afghanistan, and this was a continued support for the United Islamic Front troops, which actually started well before 2001 (later turned into working against the US efforts - see the issue of the US bases in post-Soviet Central Asia). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

7== Al-Qaeda ==

To the idiot who deleted my reference to Al-Qaeda in the info window: is all the evidence I gave you of Al-Qaeda's involvement in Chechnya not enough? I am restoring my edit. Do not "lolwat" me again, moron. See the links first. --User:142.33.185.2. 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The idiot is you. There was nothing EVER claimed by "al-Qaeda in Chechnya" (and I don't mean even any attack, I mean even as simple thing as a public statement). No one EVER claimed to be a member of "al-Qaeda in Chechnya", too - not a single person (to make a group, two members are needed). Go away, you moron. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya

Her death is likely to be connected in some way to the Chechen conflict, however it shouldn't be mentioned in the "Government censorship of the media coverage" section as it'd imply that she was killed for this very reason and by "government". This is of course far from being proven... Alæxis_¿question? 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Buynaksk raid, 22 December 1997

“On December 22, 1997, Central Front of Liberation of Caucasus and Dagestan fighters and the Chechnya-based Arab warlord Ibn al-Khattab raided the base of the 136th Motor Rifle Brigade of the Russian Army in Buynaksk, Dagestan, inflicting severe losses on the men and equipment of the unit.”

According to Russian newspaper Kommersant (June 23, 2004), there were just three killed (1 serviceman and 2 civilians) and 13 wounded. Hardly it could be described as “severe losses in men”.

В ночь на 22 декабря 1997 года 100 боевиков ворвались в Буйнакск (Дагестан), вывели из строя электроподстанции и атаковали расположение танкового батальона мотострелковой бригады 58-й армии. На обратном пути в Чечню боевики напали на военный городок 136-й мотострелковой бригады. Один военный и двое мирных жителей убиты, 13 человек ранены. (Коммерсантъ. Крупнейшие диверсионные акции за пределами Чечни. № 111 (2950), 23 июня 2004)

Loose translation:

At night of December 22, 1997, 100 militants assaulted the city of Buynaksk (Dagestan), put power-plants out of action and attacked the base of tank battalion from Motor Rifle Brigade, 58th Army. On the way back to Chechnya, militants attacked military compound of 136th Motor Rifle Brigade. One serviceman and two civilians were killed, 13 men were wounded. (Kommersant. Largest sabotages outside of Chechnya. June 23, 2004) 195.248.189.182 (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivanov was not a prime minister of RF in 2006!!!!!! FRADKOv was prime minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.138.222 (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

About conclusion

While it's not-badly writted, I don't agree the war kind-of "ended in 2006". On what exact date what exactly happened? I can recall a date relating to the specific event (usually a capitulation, or a ceasefire) for every war I now think of (including guerilla wars, even things like Malayan Emergency or Angolan Civil War). The first Russian declarations (in the very "Mission Accomplished"-style) date back to early 2000. I don't know, was it admitedly symbolical death of Shamil Basayev or something? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. As long as insurgency continues I don't think you can say the war is over. What if Ramzan is assasinated all of a sudden? You can't say the war is over when that happens. The rebel movement took heavy losses indeed, but I think with the treatment of muslims in the caucasus today (by russians) more kids will join the rebel movement. How would we call a war though, thats no longer about the independence of chechnya, but the entire 'caucasus', a war where almost all fighting takes place outside chechnya? Second Cacausian war? :P Anyway, on if the war is still ongoing, globalsecurity has placed 3 big question marks for it: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/chechnya2.htm - PietervHuis 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Imho 2006 is chosen rather arbitrarily (although you must have noted the refs provided in the conclusion section that are of 2006). I'd prefer 'mid-2000s' instead (see here, page 43). It'd be hard to expect some formal end of this war imho (it's even not clear now with whom it could be signed - Zakayev or Umarov). Alæxis_¿question? 10:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd put down how 'the war has ended' as Russian propaganda. As long as insurgency is still a topic and nobody signed a peace treaty, the war is still ongoing. - PietervHuis 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the sources that have been brought in support of this claim. They have nothing to do with Russian government. Alæxis_¿question? 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No they are not from the goverment, but they're surely influinced by the Russian goverments statements that the war is over. I don't think there's anyone who denies that the guerilla phase is over and guerilla warfare is part of the war. Yes there are sources that claim the war is over, but at the same time there are sources that say the war is still not over, like globalsecurity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html Who decides when the war is over? Neither Zakayev or Umarov have capitulated and both denied the war is over. I propose to change the timeline to 1999-ongoing or 1999-??? with a link to the conclusion paragraph, where the current state of war can be explained. - PietervHuis 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs)

You can't know for sure who influenced whom. According to such logic those that claim the war isn't over are influenced by separatists.

Right now we have several sources according to which the war has largely ended and one source (globalsecurity.org) according to which it's ongoing. I've looked at the other current conflicts listed there and found Basque insurgency and Transdniester conflict. The former has never really been a war and in the latter case there have been no armed clashes since 1992. So this site apparently employs rather broad definition of war/conflict.

The conclusion makes it clear that the insurgency is still on (that's a fact) and that separatist leadership considers the war not over (that's their POV that should be present in the article). Considering alll this I'd support the current variant (1999-2006) or something more vague (1999-mid 2000's) in the infobox. Alæxis_¿question? 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So if you agree that the insurgency is still on, how could you describe these events? It makes no sense to declare a war over when there's still insurgency. How does the current insurgency differ from PKK insurgency or FARC insurgency, conflicts that are all seen as ongoing? It makes no sense to declare a war over "somewhere in the mid 2000's, while in the meantime a dozen raids happened. - PietervHuis 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The conflict is ongoing but it has transformed rather dramatically since early 2000s so it cannot be described as Chechen War any more. The article about Kurds in Turkey is called Turkey-PKK conflict, not Turkish-Kurdish War. Alæxis_¿question? 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but that would mean that a new page should be made, called the Russia-Caucasia conflict or something similar. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A similar idea has appeared below so I'll post my response there also. Alæxis_¿question? 12:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's important that according to the Russian government the war never began. That's right, not only no state of war, but even no state of emergency was ever declared, making the use of army completely illegal according to the Russian constitution. Instead, Chechenya was declared "the zone of the antiterrorist operation". And again, ECHR recently analysed what this means according to the Russian law, and it turned out the forces may "check out the citiziens' passports", etc - nothing about razing cities and bombing villages. I think it should be written about how unconstitional whole thing was, even according to the Russian version entirely ("antiterrorist operation and their own internal matter"). --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ECHR is taking the whole thing about "antiterrorist operations" seriously, and so we have judgements like this:

Law: Article 8 – No search warrant was produced to the applicant during the search of her house and no details were given of what was being sought after. Furthermore, it appeared that no such warrant had been drawn up at all. The Government were unable to submit any details about the reasons for the search or give any details about the items seized at the house, allegedly because they had been destroyed. The Government's reference to the Suppression of Terrorism Act could not replace an individual authorisation of a search, delimiting its object and scope, and drawn up in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. The provisions of that Act were not to be construed so as to create an exemption to any kind of limitations of personal rights for an indefinite period of time and without clear boundaries to the security forces' actions. The application of those provisions in the applicant's case was even more doubtful, given the Government's failure to indicate what kind of counter-terrorist operation had taken place in June 2002, which agency had conducted it, its purpose, etc. Moreover, for over two years after the event, various state authorities denied that such an operation had taken place at all. The Court was again struck by the lack of accountability or any acceptance of direct responsibility by the officials involved in the events. In sum, the search and seizure implemented without any authorisation or safeguards, were not “in accordance with the law”. Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

I don't know if someone filed the complaint about legality of ALL of this from beginning, but I think someone should. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, and so what? Everybody here and elsewhere knows it was a war even though it was never officially called this way. Btw I think one can hardly speak of the legality or illegality of the war. Human rights are violated in the course of any war; victors usually have little respect for the laws the defeated country had - so any war would have to be called illegal then... Alæxis_¿question? 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Human rights are violated in the course of any war". That's a really bad excuse to ignore human rights violations. The human rights violations in chechnya are far different than in any other recent war in the west. It even has a Genocide Watch. Yea, that's right, Genocide. - PietervHuis 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And who wants to ignore human rights violations here? Alæxis_¿question? 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent journalists who all die suspicious deaths? - PietervHuis 13:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, legally it was never a war. And it was not a state of emergency too. There was never even an official curfew (a small thing right?), absolutely nothing. It was officially just a fully peacetime "antiterrorist operation", according to which Interior Ministry troops should only ask civilians for their identity papers and not much else (and not, like in this specific case I cited, enter houses without any warrant, "confiscate"/destroy things, and detain people at random). These rules were not really vague, were pretty specific, and they set them themselves (and then broke like if never existed). So, instead of a bunch of identity papers checked, their actions resulted in "the world's most devastated city", "the most mined area in the world", tons of dead civilians (I guess their passports were checked in some extreme way), and for a good measure a local ecological catastrophe too - by the same rules of conduct.

You know, the whole thing of combat use of the Russian Army soldiers was unconstitutional, because there was no state of war nor emergency declared - just deploying troops and nothing else was simply illegal. A serious crime according to the Russian Federation's own rules. Yep, you heard me right - not even "bombing civilian targets" as such, just using aircraft and tanks to fight anyone anywhere "in Russia". In theory, because this was never respected and noone cared. And I know perfectly well such small words like "law" and "constitution" doesn't mean much there, but that's why I'm content there's EHCR to look into this and deliver impartial judgements. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear to everyone here it is in the rebels' best interest to have people believe that war is continuing indefinitely. To have everyone believe that line of thought, however, would be pro-rebel POV. The rebels will never admit defeat because as long as they can say they're fighting the Russians it helps with recruiting and propaganda. So we can rule out some formal conclusion to this conflict because it will never happen.

So we have the rebels' point of view; that the war is on-going. We also have the Russian government's view; that it "officially" concluded in April 2002. I didn’t write April 2002 because that would be pro-Russian POV. Instead of taking either side, I just read what independent observers believe, including representatives of the UN and the Council of Europe. They agree it has ended; they don’t need the rebels to admit it. Do the rebels have any chance of recapturing Grozny? Put simply, no. The article makes it clear that the rebels think it is an on-going conflict.

A few words about the attacks (the majority of which don’t even take place in Chechnya anymore); they are likely to continue for years if not forever. If you want to talk about how Islamists want to wrestle the hegemony over the Caucuses from Russia, make this into a separate article such as Russia-Caucasia conflict.

As for human rights abuses, yes, the Chechen wars are famous for them. The abuses are also famous for being covered up. These abuses have been discussed ad nauseam in the media and in this article; I don’t know how much more we can say about the abuses to drill it into everyone’s skull that this was a horrible conflict.

As for the war never actually being a constitutionally-declared conflict, so what? Do you propose we write "According to the Chechens it is on-going war. According to the Russians, it never actually started. To everyone else, it ended in 2006." It’s a little silly to take such a technicality too seriously, don't you think? (Especially considering the Kremlin has never shied away from calling it an outright war.) --Mad Max (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it ALWAYS "shied away from calling it an outright war". The official name, which the media was pressured to use, was "counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya", later replaced by the "counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus" (I think after the "end of operation" in Chechnya in 2002). Complete with the "headquarters for the operation", "Joint Forces for the operation", etc. And you know what the "operation" officially means - checking identity papers. Absolutely nothing happens here. Look elsewehere. (Also of course, magical word: "counter-terrorism".)

There were also other, more unofficial names, like "You either have a classical war, or you have what we have here: a war against banditry, to wipe out bandits" (C) by Gennady Troshev.[27] But officially it always COMPLETE peacetime (not even a state of emergency). And how long the "operation" should continue? "Until the very last bandit is liquidated" - this time Igor Sergeyev (from the very same link, some awesome quotes there). Are all "bandits" "liquidated" yet? --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit you're right; the Russian officials used all kinds of colorful and humorous euphemisms for the war in the early stages. Apparently that was no longer necessary by 2002, when "the war was over," Putin says. Don't take Igor Sergeyev's words too literally either; all the bandits will never be liquidated since there will always be anti-Russian sentiments in the Caucasus to spawn fresh ones. You and I both know that, so let's stop with this silly word game.

Chechnya is under complete Russian political control now. That's what Russians really came for and that's what they got. Russians started preparing for the second war as soon as they lost the first one, everyone knows that. So if Putin and Ivanov say the war is over, then the "couple hundred bandits" that continue to run around in the woods are irrelevant and the Russians do not take them seriously. Not that any of that matters, Wikipedia does not exist to tow the official line. If we were, we'd say the war ended in April 2002. We haven't, we also haven't given to pro-rebel POV. We’ve said the war ended in 2006 in line with significant independent views such as the UN and Council of Europe with good references. There is no good reason to change the war's dates. But I don't want to sit here and toil with you over this. If you really feel I've got it all wrong and this whole issue is deserving of an RfC, then take that step so we can resolve this issue.

If you want to write about how the war was constitutionally illegal due to a technicality, feel free to. To avoid falling into the original research trap, make sure you find some refutable sources that agree with your views. If you have that part covered, then go ahead and knock yourself out. --Mad Max (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference sake, I counted the deaths of Russian Soldiers, policemen and officials on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_phase_of_the_Second_Chechen_War page. I know we can't precisely know what's going on, this is just to give us an idea of the current situation in the caucasus. Don't quote me on the numbers either, there are conflicting reports and I didn't count like it's an official report.

Year. Federal Deaths.

2000 529 (from april on)

2001 269

2002 496

2003 375

2004 334

2005 263

2006 123

2007 184

So what's to conclude? Rebel activity is still going on. 2006 was indeed the most silent year, probably because of the earlier deaths of maskhadov, abdul-halim and basayev. In 2007 however the number of deaths started growing again. Should we make a new page, called caucasian insurgency, especially now that the emirate has become the new objective? Or can we still talk about a war, since the dissapearances and human rights abuses are still going on, same as rebel activity? Happy new year btw ;) - PietervHuis 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As the one to motsly compile this stuff, the real numbers are much bigger. It's mostly official (Russian) announcements, which I believe as far too low, I only write this when several people were declared killed on one day, it ussually doesn't include deaths from wounds (only on spot), and most of the older stuff already vanished from the Internet (ITAR-TASS and Interfax news items, for example, tends to vanish after a day or few I think, and so do things hosted on Yahoo News etc). So I think the real number is several times bigger, and so for example Jane's said around 3,000 Russian forces were killed in 2002 or 2003 (don't remember now). But one thing is sure - there was no large scale raid since Sept. 2005, it's now a very low-intensity war with small-scale skirmishes (on the rebel side they rarely count more than a single-digit number and they seldom ambush more than one vehicle at a time, usually a police car or van). And also few years ago it usually had a pretty big bodycount to hit the press, for example 9 or 12 killed, while now mere 2-3 is often enough (as of counting, again). Another interesting thing is the official monthly or year tallies from the Russian side are always smaller than their daily announcements summed (and often what different officials say is widely conflicting too - especially when they say on the condition of anonimyty). I guess everyone should also check [28] for a real frontline-style report of what's still going on in the Chechen mountains (and as a rule is officially unreported at all, for example this would be too if not a very rare instance of a Western journalist being embedded). --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll cite a fragment of this (March 2007): Last month, Mr Putin named a former rebel, Ramzan Kadyrov, as the Chechen republic's new president. The appointment was accompanied by a flurry of declarations from the Kremlin that the war was over and the last of the rebels had surrendered. But after witnessing the battle for Tazan Kala, The Daily Telegraph can reveal compelling evidence that a secret war is underway, and could last for years. Sitting in his heavily fortified base in Chechnya's second city of Gudermes on the eve of the battle, the tracksuit-clad commander of the Eastern Battalion claimed there were well over 1,000 separatist rebels and foreign Islamic militants entrenched in the mountains. "The war is not over," said Colonel Sulim Yamadayev, Chechnya's second most powerful loyalist warlord after Ramzan Kadyrov. "The war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years." --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, surely. This is Yamadaev's POV and not a surprising one as he's at odds with Kadyrov. Alæxis_¿question? 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's not only words. Yamadayev not only says "There's still a war going war" but also basically "I'll show you war" and then sends a Western journo and a Russian photographer to witness an attack on a mountain halmet. Which was then completely ignored by both Kadyrov's people and the federals - "nothing happened here, look elsewhere, only 50 of them remain and we will deal with them in two months from now, no wait, until the end of 2007". That's also what Kommersant wrote, that the war in the mountains is now waged mostly by the GRU forces (Russian and Chechen), and it's largely a secret war. At the same time the crisis in the tiny Ingushetia is being handled by now mostly Russian MVD forces and the FSB, and a few months they were officially instructed not to mention any "incidents" anymore ("nothing happens here too", but of course it's rather hard to hide when a bunch of policemen are blown up or a soldier shot on a street with a plenty of witnesses). As of Ingushetia, there was lately a quite symbolical (but not isolated) incident when the rather clownish FSB-General-Turned-President was saying everything is absolutely under control at a press conference in Moscow, and at the same time his own administration announced two troops were shot dead in their car in Nazran. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this some more and when checking this link [29] again I read how Yamadayev describes the situation as a war. When you click to see the other images you see descriptions, and there its stated by Yamadayev how there are "well over a thousand rebels left". I don't know how else you can describe the situation in which more than a thousand rebels declare war with its goverment. The Israel-Lebanon war for example also had so much hezbollah fighters, and that's called a war. In the same contrast, the Dagestan War also had about the same amount of rebels, and that too is called a war. The difference between Farc and PKK insurgency is that they were never the army of any goverment. Here's the definition of War in a dictionary: "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air". If this situation isn't still called war, then what is it called? - PietervHuis 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

We already have an article about the Guerilla_phase_of_the_Second_Chechen_War. The name is not quite accurate imo (i. e. a great deal of incidents now happen outside of Chechnya) but that's not really important. Insisting that it's just a part of SCW would be taking one side's position. So I propose to write that the war itself ended by 2006 (per neutral references) or in mid-2000s (there's also ref for that) but the insurgency continues and give a link to appropriate articles. This is of course rather far from the official Russian position. Alæxis_¿question? 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

a rather wise and NPOV move to put it over in 2006. Of course, there are low-level insurgencies going on in some areas, and they seem merged--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with how the war was still called a chechen war. Why are rebels not allowed to operate outside chechnya? Russians have also operated outside chechnya, it doesn't really matter. However, now that the war might become about an emirate instead I agree that it could be renamed. We should wait what comes out of that though. - PietervHuis 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs)

Well, OK. I'll show you what is fundamentally wrong with your version. In your version, there are two of deputy military commandants of Chechnya (Kakiyev, S. Yamadayev), but there's none of military commandants of Chechnya (Abrashin, Babichev, Fomenko, Krivonos - there were also a number of other deputy commanders, including Sulim's brother Dzhabrail). That's for example. Do you get it now? If still not, another example: you have Baisarov, a small-time militia commander (one of many, take a look at Ramzan's cabinet and parliament to find more) who led a force maybe 200 fighters before he died abandoned by everyone, but there are none of Commanders of the Joint Group of Forces in the North Caucasus (Baranov, Boldyrev, Kazantsev, Troshev). Khattab's importance was symbolic as the Russia's numbr two boogeyman already since before the war, but the guys after him were more and more obscure. Too obscure. In short, you're doing it wrong. (If you keep this, I'll keep reverting for a sake of accurate article.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is not really impartial

After reading this article carefully, I think everyone would admit that it is comparatively pro-chechen. The description of fighting is mostly nothing more than statements with the meaning like - russian troops came, killed many civilians, lost many own troops, than the chechen fighters retreated. One could receive an impression, that actually the russian troops had to loose the fight. It is not apparent, how the chechen rebels managed to receive their losses of est. 20-40k (as said in the article later)than. Especially the using of KC as a source is very suspect. Most of the other, used sources are pro-western, but it is not mentioned in the article, that the west widely sympathized with the Chechen rebels (appr. till the Beslan Hostage-taking ). No critical thinking about the rebel side is shown in this article. I hope there will be some statements about my critique, than I will try to bring more objectiveness in the description of the conflict. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.9.148.219 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) t Actually nowhere in the article is said that "the chechen rebels managed to receive their losses of est. 20-40k". Btw, Russian figures are complete fantasy - for example, they claimed they killed 7,000 Chechen fighters in 14 days of 24 January to 8 February 2000 - while losing only 138 soldiers killed, or more then 60:1 (realistic enough? it was the height of Col. Putin's presidential campaign). And over the next 9 days to 17 February 2000, they seemingly ressurected 1,000 of the previously killed Chechens (that's nice) while killing 0 more and losing 168 soldiers killed. And so on. No, these from KC are no better (same link). Interestingly and so much more reastically, in about three months period of May to August 2000 they said they killed 500 and lost 301 (this time less than 2:1, but hey, the presidential campaign ended). --HanzoHattori (talk)

For a quick comparision to a non-fantasy figures, the U.S. military claims the Iraqi and Coalition casualties are over 11,000 killed (mostly Iraqi police), while over 19,000 Iraqi insurgents were killed since 2003 - and the Russians said their geroys killed 14,000 Chechen fighters in less than just one year (and in the about 29 times smaller territory) while losing only 2,585. If you want you can buy it, but I sure don't. Also, Casualties of the Second Chechen War. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, don't you think your irony isn't very appropriate here? Alæxis_¿question? 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, it is not this article that mentions the 20-40k dead Chechen fighters- but this one, also written by you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Second_Chechen_War As this article describes the one above as the main article to the casualties, I think there is no problem to use the numbers you gave us there in this one.

It's "perhaps" and "since 1994". I'd put any professional (Jane's et al) estimates on this if I knew any. People usually try to estimate dead civilians (human rights groups) and/or Russian troops instead. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if "perhaps" - you already said, we do not have more than perhaps, further- do you think Russia’s army killed more Chechen rebels in the first, actually lost war? CaesarAvgvstvs

That's "possibly". Hard to understand? Btw, I agree with Memorial and I think their "conservative" numbers for the dead civilians are too high too. And don't you really understand what "since 1994" means too? Geez. --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

possibly is very easy to understand, but as it is also possibly, that there are no stars in the space, but only blinking cullets sticked to a huge dark box wherein we are living- be more careful with using of "possibly" figures.

Finally you do not have de facto independent sources - just newspapers, and as I can remember, there were the same newspapers, which showed the daughter of the Kuweitian Ambassador disguised as a nurse from Iraq, telling us how the Iraqi soldiers killed newborn babies...remember?

Furthermore -I hadn't have said, the numbers Russia’s officials told are true, but I said- the fighting, which has taken place been different than described here. If it would have taken place as you described – Chechnya would be independent now. I also say- you should be more careful with use of Chechen statements and a bit more critical with the rebel side.

I think I am careful, critical, etc. Iraqis commited horrible crimes in Kuwait anyway. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I take official figures from both sides for their own losses as a minimal ones (and just ignore their respective estimates of enemy losses). I don't see other way as nothing of this can be confirmed by independent sources. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know what would be a better solution? Just to keep the minimal ones, and not to mention the exaggerations. I think you will agree- you can hide something about 1000 dead service men from the public, but you can't do it with 50000. CaesarAvgvstvs

But there are no lists. Only abstract numbers. Well, there are lists, but compiled by the Soldiers' Mothers - and are much higher than official. --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so just one question than, does the talibans in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq ever published own figures of how many US/Coalition-soldiers they killed? CaesarAvgvstvs

There's no word "talibans". Yes, they do. Except U.S. keeps a constantly-updated list by name and it would be a huge scandal if they supressed information. Actually, there are websites dedicated only to losses (like icasualties.org/). It's all off-topic anyway. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You refer only briefly the chaos in Chechnya during the short de facto independence time (Shariat tribunals- with women suspected of cheating her husband shot at the street, with men stoned to death cause of "offending of Islam" and with at the same time financing their war with drugs and so on)

There were no stonings, and the public shootings (near the post-Soviet monument of so-called "3 stooges") were of killers and kidnappers and in small numbers. I don't know anything about any drugs but the climate is certainly not like in Afghanistan nor Colombia. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They were stonings! As I have seen it in those time on TV by myself. Regarding the drugs, I hadn’t said Chechnya became the origin country of drugs, like Afghanistan, but they mutated to one of the most important trans-shipment centres of drugs coming from Afghanistan and Tadschikistan. CaesarAvgvstvs

Eyesroll. Stonings. In Chechnya. Here,[30] read on. Actually, even Basayev condamned the execution of woman (one, and for domestic murder, by the relatives of the victim, not "cheating her husband"). --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the fact, you haven't seen it on the BBC or other western mass media is not equal to "there was nothing". But however - stoning or cutting the throat- there is no big difference. Fact is- do you really think every Shariat executions was filmed or listed publically? CaesarAvgvstvs

There is a difference. It's like you said: "there were witch burnings (like in Nigeria)! ... oh, I meant the shootings of a murderers, and there is no big difference." Come on, it's silly. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And btw, the Afghan-Tajikistan route was controlled by the Russian "peackeepers".[31] You mean, they blamed this on Chechens, too? --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

this means the border with Afghanistan, but my statement was about the borders towards Europe. How should russians control the routs there if they were pulled out the Chechnya? CaesarAvgvstvs

Normally. Read the link - high ranking FSB (border guard) officers used their military transport for traffic. To quote BBC: "smuggling large quantities of drugs straight into Russia on military flights from Tajikistan."[32] They also cracked down on the competitors, which was their main official mission since the civil war ended. Like if you never heard of the word "Russian mafia". Chechnya isn't exactly on the EU borders. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, you do not describe the aims of the Chechen rebels- the fought not only for an independent Chechnya, but for an UMMA – including further Russian regions like Dagestan and Ingushetia.

That's kind of complicated, and this changed only very recently (after the death of Basayev). I don't have really time to discuss this now. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing complicated- Bassayev was one of the most important leaders in Chechnya, Mashadov actually was nothing more than a figure-head to give the western supporters a more pleasant face to talk with. He had not had any actual power or influence to control the wahabit warlords (like Chattab), their main intention was to create the Umma. CaesarAvgvstvs

In short, Basayev was keeping this to the purely Chechen nationalist struggle.[33] After a fiasco of his Dagestani adventure, that is. --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just answer to this question please - was the intention of the most influential warlords (as Mashadow was not one of them) the creation of an Umma, or at least a "great Ichkeria" - including parts of Dagestan and Ingushetia or was it not? CaesarAvgvstvs

This is my most important intention to this article. I would ask you do change the description of battles and the whole Chechen side to more realistic and impartial.

Btw. you compared the statements of the USA regarding the coalition vs insurgents casualties. If you compare the actual US casualties, you will find a number of something about 3900 (not all killed in combat) so 3900 vs 19000 and 2600 vs 14000 – no big difference if you ask me. Actually the only difference is that your report includes the paramilitary losses (Iraqi police and military) and the Russian does not.

Actually, MVD (Interior Ministry) also publish their own casualty figures. Even Chechen MVD does - over 1,000 killed as of most recently, and this not counting Russian police and Interior Troops and also the FSB (in all over 4,000 as of 2003). In Iraq most of losses are Iraqi police (more then new Iraqi army and Coalition armies combined), in Chechenya most are MVD forces and this mostly Russians. (Or so they say.) No one really counted irregular pro-Moscow militias before they were all turned into Chechen MVD, though. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me the sources of the MVD where you got your information?

I have some doubts, that the Chechen MVD is mostly of russians...as they actually wouldn't be able to find so many russian men living in there I think. As you see here, the russians only make something about 3% of population in Chechnya... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Demographics_and_Religion CaesarAvgvstvs

Most of MVD casualties are Russians (Chechen were officially only little over 1,000 killed[34], search for Alkhanov). Russian police (on the trips from everywhere in Russia, many OMON) is also ~1,000. Most of the rest must be Internal Troops, with some FSB too. (Or maybe (just maybe) their figures just don't make any sense at all.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a link to the dead Chechen MVD members, could you please show me where you took the information of most killed there are russians? CaesarAvgvstvs

The remaining thousands? I thought it's pretty obvious - who else, Belarussians? Anothe problem with the official casualties is they usually count only Chechnya, sometimes also Dagestan in 1999. Internal Troops are like Army but not Army. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources you refer to, mentioned some doubts about the number was called at the beginning, just if you are going to read their article to the end (take a look at the number 64 4.ex.) "Human rights groups cast doubt on the credibility of the figures, saying that Russian officials are not known for giving accurate accounts of civilian or military losses in Chechnya."

Russia said 1,000 killed (in 2000) and more than 2,000 disappeared (more recently). Amnesty International says up to 25,000 killed and 5,000 disappeared. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S: you completely forget to notice a simple problem with fighting against rebels: they do not wear uniforms (most of them), so when the Russians captured a village, formerly defend by the Chechen rebels, they obviously found mostly dead “civilians” as the Chechens use to take weapons of killed members when retreating. So for the western organizations and journalists the Russians seemed to have killed mostly civilians... CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.9.148.219 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they mostly wear uniforms (usually Russian or American). You can for example check Roddy Scott's last pictures. It's not Iraq when even in a pitched battles they wear only tracksuits and head scarves. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm just some short answers for now, as it is pretty late here:

You have not answered to the main intention- the description of the battles, which should actually belong to the KC in this form. Regarding the uniforms, do not mix up a regular uniform with simple camouflage clothes you can buy in any military shop, especially as I remember the rebels wearing old, worn sweaters made of wool and other civilian clothes, just because it was too cold and there were no uniform winter dresses to find. By the way, if you remember- rebels through all the time used to show themselves as civilians cause of danger to be caught or killed at first sight otherwise -why do you think especially the Chechen rebels were different in this case? CaesarAvgvstvs

Because they fought conventional war from the trenches. Btw, these are Russian regulars. --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This photos are from the first war I think. But however, it doesn't matter- I hadnt have said, the russians always weared uniforms- if there is -20 Celsius outside- you do not really care about good looking, just about keeping yourself warm :) So finally you say- the Chechens lost more fighters in the first war?CaesarAvgvstvs

The photos are from 2000 in Grozny, they looked like they looted some civilians for clothing like the unprepared Germans were doing in Russia. I don't know how many they lost in the first war. Even if they lost one million, they won anyway (like did the communists in Vietnam War). Any more silly questions? --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well and finally: you still gave no answer to your descriptions of the fighting: really, it is not obvious how Russia made to recapture Chechnya so quickly than- as following to your article they hadn't have any important success in fighting there...except of killing many "civilians" of course.CaesarAvgvstvs

Civilians (mostly completely random, including many ethnic Russians), not "civilians". Many of the 5,000 disappeared through the dirty war might be genue active separatist sympathisers, though. Nacht und Nebel-style campaign. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Hanzo, you managed to make this discussion very unclear, so I'll shorten it a bit. Btw. keep cool- there is no need to become offending. I'm not an Englishmen and not even american, so have some patience with my English, as I have patience with your extremely partial article :)

Now my most important question, which you do not like to answer to: do you really belive the fighting took place there so as it is described in your article?

Now the other questions (please answer in one block, w/o splitting it again)

1: Do you defend the Sharia Courts, which used to kill people on the street (doesn't matter if the killed were guilty or not) 2: do you think Chechnya was quite and calm during the short independence time? 3: do you think Chechen leaders aimed nothing but the Chechen territory to be independent? 4: So you think, the situation in Chechnya was similar to such in Vietnam, just the Vietcong was Russia, and the elite fighters, which lost the war though, were the Chechen rebels? :) 5: Do you think Chechnya should be independent or had Russia the rights to recapture it? 6: do you have any really independent sources- as we now of wide support for the Chechen rebels in the USA and Britain?

Btw as I found it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/news/newsid_2773000/2773997.stm the official Russian DoD never confirmed but declined the figures mentioned by the newspapers. (thanks had russian language at school) CaesarAvgvstvs

1. No.
2. No. But noone helped after Russia blew this place to hell and back and left (compare with Kosovo, Bosnia, international aid to Palestine, etc). It still would be much worse, though.
3. Depends what leaders.
4. A silly question.
5. Yes, no. Everyone has a POV.
6. What.

The link is broken. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Russian offensive was anything but "quick", as it was more about six months before they secured whole territory - Americans captured ~30 times greater Iraq in less then one month (Baghdad, the city of 7 million, defended in theory by tens of thousands troops but with little motivation to die for Saddam, fell in few days). Early Operation Barbarossa was "quick" (imagine this - hundreds of km on entire front through the millions of Soviet soldiers in few days), or the the land war in the Gulf War, or the Afhan government offensive on Kabul in 2001 (after bombing campaigns). Russian attack was actually very, very slow. How many kilometers is from border to Grozny, through the impossible to defend plains? It's like two hours of cab drive from Nazran (and this through checkpoints and all), right? They took them weeks to just get there, with the overhelming forces. If you call this "quick" you have no idea. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was very quick, as different to Iraq, there is no 2/3 of of the country are flatlands/ desert with no possibility to hideout, so controlling the cities meant controlling of the Country- in Irak there are also no mountains covered with impassable forests- the only comparable mountains are at the Northern part, which is completely controlled by the Kurds. And finally- in difference to Iraq- the Chechen fought till death instead of throwing all the weapons away by the first sight of the enemy... CaesarAvgvstvs

Only southern Chechnya is mountainous. And actually the area north of Terek (traditionally pro-Russian Nadterechny District) was practically undefended (but the villages were bombed anyway, hey, who cares). Second largest city of Gudermes was also taken without fight when the Yamadayevs defected. It was stil sloooooow anyway. Also they didn't "fight to death" like if it was ordered by Stalin or Hitler (which usually ended in a mass surrender anyway), they kept retreating and escaping encirclements. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. 1: so you should actually also admit, that establishing the Sharia Courts is no a bit better than in Afghanistan- with the only diffrence- Chechens hadnt have enough time to put them in effect completely.
2. 2: Certainly...but it is the way the western always did- remember the attacks on Yugoslawia?
3. 3: :) of course - the most influential leaders.
4. 4: of course again - you are the perfect judge for what is silly and what not.
5. 5: thats it - you admit your position is pro-chechen, than the next question, do YOU think your article is absolutely impartial?
6. 6: only the south is mountainous? Take a look at this map plz...I think no comments are necessary.

http://chechnya.genstab.ru/map/chechnya1.jpg

So you should admit- the landscape is much easier to defend, much harder to conquer than such in Iraq- and about your statement, "they did not fought to death"- do you really think, the Iraqi insurgents or Saddams troops were equal to the Chechen rebels regarding their combat value? :) CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And so what? Don't you have a POV, like everyone? Are you a robot? My POV is pro-American in the Pacific War, which means I can't write from NPOV. Yeah. Buzz off. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You just can’t stop being offending, cant you? :)

Look- I’ll try to answer your question in the way you should understand. As you are pro-Chechen you seems not to be able to write an impartial article as you HAVE to use more suggestions and speculations as you have facts- so you will obviously show a tendency to believe in statements of the Chechens more than to such of the Russians. But this all is concretly only about you. Finally- as you are defending the independent POV of everyone - you would certainly appreciate the separation of South Osetia from Georgia, and Crimea from the Ukraine- As they all prefer to be a part of Russia-right?

And if the southern states would decide to leave the union once more- you would also agree with their decision? Now I would like to ask you for the last time- do you believe the fighting took place as you described it here- if no, will you change it by yourself? If yes- I have to change it by myself than :) (Of course I will present you not worse sources than these of you - newspapers and other products of the mass media.) CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to change? As for your debate, both wars have been absolutely useless. If Russia would have been democratic since the colapse of the soviet union then dudayev could have legally administrated Chechnya without much problems. Same goes for the second chechen war, where russia have always refused to speak with the democratically elected maskhadov, blaming the entire ichkeria goverment for "mysterious apartment bombings". Both wars haven't been against just "a handful of rebels", they've been against the entire chechen population. - PietervHuis 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I already said- this was not a war against another country - as Chechnya was and is a part of Russia- so why should the government talk to the rebels? Just because they want it? Thats why I asked, if the western allies are that concearned about the POV- so why they do not support same movements in the Crimea or South Ossetia? This is a large problem - double standarts- if the rebels are anti russian/ pro western - they have all the rigths to do what they want- if the rebels are pro-Russian/ anti-western - they are bandids, a threat for the UN-law protected unity of the state. But my main intense is to change the discriptions of the course of war - one could get an impression, the russians never won a fight, and if - than only by killing many hundereds of civilans by flattning a village...of course only after the rebels were already retreated. Especially there are detailed and even doubtful descriptions of russian losses just like the following extract:

1. On December 1, 1999, after weeks of heavy fighting, Russian forces under Major General Vladimir Shamanov took control of Alkhan-Yurt, a village just south of Grozny. The Chechen and foreign fighters inflicted heavy losses on the Russian forces, killing more than 70 Russian soldiers before retreating. During the two weeks that followed, Russian forces went on a rampage, looting and burning the village and executing at least 14 civilians. On the same day, Chechen separatistic forces began carrying out a series of counterattacks against federal troops in several villages as well as in the outskirts of Gudermes. Chechen fighters in Argun, a small town five kilometers east of Grozny, put up some of the strongest resistance to federal troops since the start of Moscow's military offensive. The rebels in the town of Urus-Martan also offered fierce resistance, employing guerrilla tactics Russia had been anxious to avoid; by December 9, 1999, Russian forces were still bombarding Urus-Martan, although Chechen commanders said their fighters had already pulled out.

There is no source and no evidence for this words- same you will find on nearly every description of the fighting- the Russians "dislodged" the rebels (whatever exactly happened there) - but the rebels killed 70+ Russian soldiers in a counterattack. See what I mean? It is not mentioned how many rebels were killed in the "dislodging" (in spite of certainly available sources from the official media) but it is mentioned, that russians had lost many soldiers...even if the only Source for such statement was the KC.

Same situation you will find here:

1. In March a large group of more than 1,000 Chechen fighters led by field commander Ruslan Gelayev, pursued since their withdrawal from Grozny, entered the village of Komsomolskoye in the Chechen foothills; they held off a full-scale Russian attack on the town for over two weeks, but suffered hundreds of casualties in the process; the Russians also admitted more than 350 dead and wounded. On March 29, 2000, a total of about 52 Russian soldiers were killed and more than 15 wounded as a result of the rebel ambush on the OMON convoy from Perm.

there are no sources given, just said, that the Russians admitted more than 350 dead and wounded (even not exactly how many of each sort...).

These are just two short examples- but the whole article is full of similar doubtfull statements. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote="As I already said- this was not a war against another country - as Chechnya was and is a part of Russia- so why should the government talk to the rebels? Just because they want it?"

If you're talking about the second chechen war, Maskahdov was legally elected and thus represented the chechen population. To attack chechnya and suddenly consider him a terrorist you refuse to talk with is absurd. You keep mentioning how Chechnya is a part of Russia and therefore the chechen population have nothing to say over their own territory (since russia acts undemocratic). The chechens have their own ethnicity, language, culture and history. They were annexed illegally by the russians when the russians invaded the caucasus and were discriminated against for centuries (even including genocide when they were deported by stalin). Why are the chechens not allowed to have their own freedom? My people, the dutch, fought against the spaniards for 80 years because we didnt want to be part of the spanish empire (see dutch revolt). Those that participated are still considered hero's today. Why aren't chechens allowed to strife for the same freedom?

Quote="This is a large problem - double standarts- if the rebels are anti russian/ pro western - they have all the rigths to do what they want-"

You seem to speak to me like I have something against Russians. I don't, my biggest idol is a Russian actually (by coincidence). I try to be as objective as possible when I draw conclusions.

As for the unsourced battle descriptions, feel free to place source tags for them. I didn't write them and I can't say how accurate they are. - PietervHuis 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to follow your logic, we should give all the western part of the USA back to the Indians, don’t we? And if we go even further- we should try to find some Celts or their offspring to give them back the land, that was conquered by the franks and other Germanic tribes. Should we? I, for one think not- rules are not perpetual- you can't say - we now have such a rule, so we have to change all the things were done before accordingly. But ONE thing we HAVE to do (if we claim all of us are fighters for the democracy all around the world ;) ), is to use this rule as one for everybody, not following the schemata - They are our rivals, so they and all who support them have to follow this rule...but they, they are our Vassals ahm...friends of course ;) , let them do what ever they want inside the country as long as they allow us to manage their foreign affairs as WE want to. Regarding your arguments like - Chechens have their own ethnicity, language, culture and history:

• Even if the Inuit from Alaska were going to elect an own president...or even emperor- whatever, do you really think the White House will start to talk with him, or possibly even accept the new Inuit Empire of Alaska? :)

By the way- there is another nation, that has all the same the Chechens have, and this even for a longer time- the Kurds...why do you think nobody from the western democracies is going to fight for their rights to have an own state?

• Ah, till I forget- all this arguments are not only for you, but also for the creator of the article, who has admitted to be pro-Chechen...

• About the describing of the battles - I will definitely do this, but first, of course I would like to see the reaction of the creator of the article...finally he invested much time in this "work", I wouldn't like to start an editing conflict - so I prefer him to see his mistakes in this article himself. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to compare chechens to native Americans? I don't think you have any idea about the history of native americans. Almost all of them lived in the countries beneath the United States. In many countries they've merged with whatever immigrants there were and they already have their own country. There's even a country where the majority are pure Native Americans (Bolivia). If you want to speak about natives within the United states, the United States has actually given them a lot of land. And no we don't have to "give anything back" to people who aren't even advocating for it (celts germanic tribes whoever). These people don't campaign for their own state and if they do it's just a few thousand of them (huge minority).
About your inuit emperor or whatever fantasy you're talking about, yes I think the U.S. would talk to him, just like how they talk to the Dalai-Lama even though China forbids it.
As for the west not fighting for the rights of kurds, where did you get that from? The European Union strictly orders Turkey to give the Kurds more autonomy if they want to join the EU, and the Nato has protected the Kurds from Saddam before and helped create Iraqi Kurdistan.
Also HanzoHatorri isn't "the" creator of this article, he just contributed a lot to it. He admits he's pro chechen on the discussion page, that doesn't mean he can't write objective encyclopedia articles about chechnya. - PietervHuis 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hah, that’s funny, so your rules are only for those who demonstrate for them ready for fight? Well, of course I was talking about the Natives of the North America, and yes- they have land...the famous reservations - I m sure you would be glad to live in any of them instead of the place you live at the moment, right?

And about starting a campaign for an own country – they had http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement 4.ex even though these reservations mostly do not give even a small chance for politic movements... Don't you think they would start a campaign if you give them a piece of land with even military in their own hands? Don’t make me laugh! There was a reason why they all were rounded up in these reservations.

• And furthermore- of course the US talk to the Dalai Lama, as the Chinese are rivals and Tibet is not US Land unlike Alaska is- so I ask you again - do you think the USA would accept such an "election" and following separation of their own, very valuable land into an independent country? :)

• About the Kurds- yes of course: the USA supported them, but just as long as they were/are necessary for the US purposes - they needed the Kurds to help the USA conquering Iraq even faster, and they still need them to keep the northern part of Iraq calm - but nothing more, the US intelligence give all the Information the Turkey needs about the movements of the Kurds in Iraq and also gave them the right to attack the Kurdish part of Iraq with planes and artillery –important help for bombings of actually own allies.

So this is even more an evidence of double standards. Regarding the EU – this is simple – inside the EU there is actually nobody who likes Turkey to become member of the EU, but you can’t just say – sorry, but our people do not want you to become part of the EU…So they use this way.

• Btw. why do you think the USA do not support the POV of Southern Ossetia, or Transnistria as at least there is given the same situation as in Chechnya or Kosovo.

• Well Hanzo is maybe not the author, but seemd to have made the most of it, so as he is the one who represent the first writers- I regard him as the creator.

CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Most "Indians" are happy with their position in the United States. There are a huge amount of Indian reservations. So many that combined they share an area two thirds the size of Germany. Yet there's only 2.5 million indians living in the USA. You don't think that's fair enough? They do.
• Who says that's their only reason to talk with the Dalai-Lama? You're describing all western goverments as extremely selfish. I don't know why you're so bitter. And yes I think the US would respect democracy unlike Russia.
• Evidence? Once again you're just very pessimistic to think the west only cares about kurdish rights for their own gains, where you previously even denied that that they defended kurdish rights.
• Nobody likes Turkey? Well maybe in your homeland that's true (?), but in all other countries Turkey's entrance to the EU is still debated with many proponents. But I guess you know exactly what motivates all leaders in Europe and all europeans are indeed phobic towards the Turks for their... big noses or something...
• South-Ossetia and Transnistria have de-facto independence, just like Chechnya under Maskhadov had for three years until Russia attacked them again. The west acknowledges their goverments and does not support the country overthrowing these goverments by force. - PietervHuis 00:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Pieter when I read your last posting I’ve got the impression that we are talking of different subjects... In your world the west acknowledges their governments - in my, these republics are unacknowledged and nobody from the west is willing even to think about acknowledging them. Seems you do not really know the subject we are discussing here. :) Just a single example: the US told something about a month ago - "Kosovo will become independent, there is no other way" but at the same time “the USA are against any movements, which undercut the union of the state (Ukraine/Moldova/Georgia)” - pretty hypocritical if you ask me, regarding especially the situation in Moldova and Georgia, where the government tried to conquer the rebelled regions in a same cruel war as in Kosovo with the only difference- these governments were pro-US, the Serbian was pro-Russian. You should simply admit, there is no honour to find in global politics, behind all this talking about friendship and equality, there is the same rivalry as during the cold war, only with some new participants.

Now about the Indians: Certainly most of them, who live w/o following their own historical roots, can live same good as the rest of the US population- exactly like Chechens, who live outside the Chechnya or even inside, but following the federal laws - so as you see, there is actually no difference. Btw the Chechens are also only something about 1 mio. If I am to pessimistic, so you are to trustful. About the Turkey I will answer later. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The west do acknowledge these goverments. Depending on its situation they decide if autonomy or complete independence is the best solution. Kosovo and South Ossetia and Chechnya are 3 completely different situations. You really think a 10 year war that leaves more than 200 thousand people death was inevitable in Chechnya? It was the right thing to do? You must be pretty naive to think that. And no in the past 10 years chechens did not live "as good" as the Russian population.
• Anyway this discussion is dragging out for a long time now. It seems like nobody can convince you these wars were useless, and you can't convince us the opposite. Just place some source tags if you want. - PietervHuis 12:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the main problem with you guys: you do not really know the situation, except of tv shows or newspapers, but use the statements there as if they were axiomatically true but oppose statements of the same value just if they reveal a different point of view than you prefer. Well it is your decision, but why do you claim to be impartial than?

• Why are these three situations different- just because you like them to be? In all these conflicts there was a war for independence of a minority against the main country with many crimes against the humanity both sides, the Georgians tried to erase even the smallest sign of Ossetian independence 4.ex. And I tell you just for the final time - THE WEST DO NOT acknowledges these governments: are you to lazy to look for the appropriate article here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Political_status

• The other problem is- it is not as if I couldn't persuade you with facts, it is just - you do not want to accept this facts same as you do not want to accept the apparent parallels in the political behaviour of Russia and the Western world regarding such problems.

It is absolutely not obvious why this war in Chechnya was wrong (because of killing so many people) but the war Georgia fought against the South Ossetia with comparable losses was good :) Or same problem in former Yugoslawia- why was the war good there? Same as you do not answer, why it was good as the inhabitants of Kosovo decided to leave the union with Serbia, but it is bad when South Ossetia or Transnistria or Crimea decide/decided to leave their unions with at the moment pro-western countries in favour of a union with Russia?

• Finally- once more you provided your missing knowledge of the Situation in Russia - the Chechens who lived outside Chechnyas were always known for their prosperity - even one of the most infulential criminal organisatzins all over the Russian territory was the Chechen one. Certainly the folks in Chechny lived not the same good life, but it was not a bit worser than such of the ethnic russians there. You should know, even at Soviet times the Kaukasian regions were usually the wealthiest of the whole USSR. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.204.240 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Transcaucasian republics and Baltics were the wealthiest. But if you take only RSFSR then Caucasus would indeed be more better off than an average oblast...

Btw, Wikipedia isn't a forum so if you have any specific proposals please write about them and if not please use some other means of communication :) Alæxis_¿question? 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already told what exactly I would like to change;

• revise all the description of the fighting - remove statements which are based on speculations only (KC is certainly not better than speculation) so the reader won't get the impression the Russians did nothing but killed civilians.

What part of the article is based on speculations or KC? I haven't found it among the references... Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• More objectiveness in "judging"- overwork the description of the Russian and Chechen objectives during the war.

Again, what part of the article do you mean? Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Add the description of the Chechen tactics (so that the reader learns, that different to the first Chechen war, the rebels never recaptured a village or city with conventional tactics, but sneaked inside of repacified localities in crowds of returning fugitives and started the attack from the inside than.

I think this is important, as it gives explain the harsh behaviour of the Russian Soldiers with the fugitives.

Could you find sources proving all this? Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.204.240 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• of course I will give the sources for my statements: here is an example, just have a look to this, I think more professional article, than a simple newspaper http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/stress.htm

There you find the description of the rebels provoking strikes against own population, posing as red-cross workers or journalist to enter Russian positions, war crimes against Russian prisoners and so on...even if the most of the article is about the first war- I do not think, the strategy was that different in the second one.

• Here you find another nice work about the true aims of the Chechen leaders during the short de-facto independence

http://www.meforum.org/article/744 (beginning app. from point 17)

• As you see, just as I said- the preparations for creating the Umma begun already at 1996/1997, and not after the beginning of the second war. I will also try to find good sources for the battles, even if it is a bit difficult to find them in English...in the worse case I'll show some in German or Russian- I think we have somebody here who is able to read them.

CaesarAvgvstvs

I don't see anything special in that article that isn't already listed. - PietervHuis 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar You're full of questions and assumptions. I'm not someone who thinks everything "the west" does is right. You keep dragging in other conflicts which have nothing to do with this conflict. If you want to discuss those conflicts, it should be somewhere else.

If you sympathise with the "harsh behaviour" of Russian Soldiers then you seem to sympathise with near genocide. The Holocaust Memorial Museum has issued a Genocide Watch for Chechnya since 2001. If you want to experience the harsh conditions chechens are still in do a youtube search for "crying sun".

As Alaexis already pointed out, this is not a forum. If you want to keep discussing how morally right or wrong this war was, you should do so outside wikipedia. If you want to change things in this article then try to add something and be sure to include proper sources. If you feel some pharagraphs don't use sources or proper sources, place source tags for them. - PietervHuis 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is nothing about assumptions or questions: The "dragging" in other conflicts is just for comparing the “judges” with the “accused”- as rules have to be measured on somebody who is said to obey them.

Same as if the Russians had success or no success in a military operation has to be measured on somebody who is said to have success...

• Harsh behaviour is nothing to sympathise with, but you cant just say - "it is bad, so there is no need to understand it"

I think a defender of this article will try fo find explanations for war crimes done by the Chechens- something like - they were defending their OWN land against invaders, have suffered losses of relatives and so on... Why should this work only for the Chechen side?

That's bullshit. The article is critical about war crimes from both sides. - PietervHuis 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Btw. it IS very important for a global understanding of the situation in Chechnya why the West supported the separatists in Chechnya and Kosovo, but strictly opposes same movements in Transnistria, Crimea or Georgia, as the moral right for such ideas is called as one of the most important reasons for Russia to be the evil part in this conflict.
• What are the source tags, and how do I place them?

CaesarAvgvstvs

There are some on the page already. Search for "citation needed". - PietervHuis 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think when our German friend says "fugitives" he means refugees. Also, Alæxis, you are wrong on "the wealthiest" - According to UN, the North Caucasus remains one of the poorest regions in the Russian Federation. Nearly 80% of the population in the North Caucasus region is estimat­ed to live on an income below the national poverty level. Health indicators suggest deeper problems of poverty and inadequate social services. Maternal and infant mortality rates in Chechnya and Ingushetia, for example, are 2-4 times higher than the national average. The incidence of tuberculosis in Chechnya is ten times higher, and has increased near­ly fivefold since 2001. "The wealthiest" are of course the enclaves of prosperity around Moscow and St. Pete. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I've written. RSFSR doesn't exist any more so I meant Soviet times. Now evidently Russia is wealthier than other post-Soviet countries except for Baltics and Caucasus is indeed not its richest part... Alæxis_¿question? 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

During the Chechen revolution of 1991 unemployment was in range of 40%, with the oil industry already failing hard. You must have some wieird concept of wealth. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information Hanzo- I was talking about the situation before the war has begun. It is obviously, that after such a conflict the region can not stay one of the wealthiest in the RF :) I think if California would start a war with the rest of the USA, it would quickly turn to the poorest state.

CaesarAvgvstvs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.204.240 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 

Caesar, your sources are rather interesting. Feel free to add info from them... I'll myself read them thoroughly later when I have time. Alæxis_¿question? 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to find some good sources for battle descriptions in Google, but never found more than short statistics or newspaper articles, so I had to pain my knowledge of Russian, but found some interesting sources about the fighting: Here is a very good side describing the fighting http://www.chechnya.ru/view_all.php?part=hist&offset=10 There are many pages so it takes time, but most the descriptions are from eyewitnesses or immediate participants.

Here you will find a list of the military divisions the Chechens had at the beginning of the war: http://www.chechnya.genstab.ru/chech_99.htm

Here another description of a single fight http://artofwar.ru/k/kazakow_a_m/text_0080.shtml

I still try to find some similar sites in English, but seems it was not that interesting to translate such statements, than stories told by the rebels. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Today started some correction work on this article, added source tags where they were missing, deleted some "sources" which actually were nothing but newspaper article quoting rebell leaders.
• Changed the mention of Russian losses in the two wars to losses in the second war, as this article is about the second war only and Chechen losses were shown only for the second one too.
• Corrected the number of dead during a strike according to the given source.
• will add the description of some battles soon.
• sorry for some mistakes in the change descriptions- I’ve written them during my work time...so have mercy plz ;) CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworking of the article

As it seems the work on this article started again: there are several statements w/o any source - plz add some, otherwise I will erase or correct the statements in a way, that the reader will see these are just suggestions... CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the listing of the commanders of the both sides is a bit unfavourable, as on the Chechen side these all are field commanders (even Mashadow was actually one) while on the Russian side, Putin is shown as the only Russian commander, inspite he never gave a field command, and I do not even think, he ever ordered more than "move the armed forces in/move them out"... I think we should rather add some names of the Generals like Shamanov and Troshev... Caesar Augustvs —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't ready yet. - PietervHuis 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs)

CA, you're wrong. Maskhadov's here because he was commander-in-chief. Field commanders (these well-known) are listed at the very end of the article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is still a bit unfavourable- now we have a crowd of Chechen field commanders on the rebel side, though the new "commanders" do not have the importance Bassajew or Chattab had. Same thing regarding the detail articles about these commanders: 4.ex when Bassayew was called the "Commander of the Chechen Armed Forces" it was one thing, as he really was a commander and had some armed forces, but "Military Amir of the Caucasian Mujahideen" is pretty meaningless I think- as there are not more than 300-600 rebels at all remaining, widespread all over Chechnya/Ingushetia/Dagestan a half of them are amirs or sheiks now- you can't regard them as commanders of armed forces of Ichkeria or something in this way- as there are actually no armed forces of Ichkeria but only some groups of rebels not even working together organized. Concluding: even if on the paper they replaced commanders like Bassaew or Chattab, they were not able to replace them in their importance or ability to wage a war.

I would either delete them from the "commander’s box" completely, or add another box with a different description for the low level commanders.

@Hanzo I hadn't said Maskhadov is to be erased- I said Putin as the only commander on the Russian side was wrong...however it is changed now, so the actual generals were added too. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Putin was (and is) the commander-in-chief. He directed it, not only launching it and refusing to stop, and shaping the overall policy, and even theatrically giving various orders on state television(!). Brezhnev-like zombie/robot-Yeltsin was nominal commander only, so he's not there. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

omg Hanzo, that’s TRUE, don't you read what I write? Or is my English that miserable? :) When I wrote this, on the Russian side there was only Putin listed as the commander (and several Chechen loyalists) in spite these were actually not the commanders which had to made the daily decisions directing the combat operations. I'd prefer you to comment my suggestions about the actual, less important commanders, which are listed aside Bassajew and Chattab

• Hanzo, this is not a good solution: you can`t just compare Putin and Bassajew as they had completely different key positions.

Putin was the initiator from the Russian side, but he was not a field commander like Bassajew was, at the same time, not to mention the Russian generals performing the daily operations- is simply wrong. I'd propose to make two boxes, the one - of Key leaders (there should be only the leaders like Putin and Maskhadow (and his succesors)) the other box for the field commanders, there you can place all the rest. Caesar Augustvs

My comment was removed somehow. Hanzo please refrain from removing all the generals and commanders. If you look at vietnam war or war in afghanistan generals and commanders are also listed. It's a lot better looking too. - PietervHuis 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I don't see why you removed the caucasian front and replaced it with caucasian islamists. Maybe since the emirate has been declared it has indeed been replaced, but a lot of fighters have previously been fighting under the caucasian front. The Caucasian Emirate as a combatant should indeed be listed, but together with the Caucasian Front, but we don't know the flag yet of the caucasian emirate. - PietervHuis 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• @Hanzo do not revert to unsourced versions! The statment "I Know" is not equivalent to an reliable source. If a given source is controverse in it's statments- it is not a source CaesarAvgvstvs

People. Basayev, even when never president ("just" a vice-president and military commander) was a crucial person in the centre of everything from a very beginning until his death in mid-2006. It would be weird to ommit him. Troshev were just one of front commanders for a short while. It would be weird to mention him. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Troshev shouldn't be there. I'll remove him, but we should definately add the important russian generals. - PietervHuis 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant Shamanov, Troshev was actually on a higher post. In a war treated as war (your examples: Vietnam Civil, Soviet-Afghan), there are military commanders. Russia never declared war or conflict, so they have the post of Commander of the Joint Group of Forces in the North Caucasus (Vladimir Moltenskoy, Sergey Makarov, Valery Baranov, Yakov Nedobitko). But they also have Commander of the North Caucasus Military District (Viktor Kazantsev, Gennady Troshev, Vladimir Boldyrev, Alexander Baranov). And this all ONLY from Army - and the war was handled, in various time periods, by the MoD, the MVD, and the FSB (really, really many people on "top" posts). And what do you want, put them all into infobox? And even field commanders like Shamanov or Kakiyev? Take a look on the list I compiled - and it's actually only partial, would be much, much longer. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be Russian commanders added too. You decide which ones are the most important, but the entire chechen war surely wasnt just a conflict between the kadyrovs and basayev. I don't want to put every single general in the infoxbox. Remember this is a relatively small war so a rebel leader or a russian general can be important pretty fast indeed, but we should srsly include the most important commanders. We can decide which ones are the most important by how big a role they played in the war. - PietervHuis 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There were just too many. Look ONLY Army in 1999: Generals behind the Chechen war: Igor Sergeyev, Defence Minister; Anatoly Kvashnin, Chief of General Staff; Valery Manilov, Deputy Chief of Staff; Viktor Kazantsev, commander of Russian forces in the Caucasus; Vladimir Shamanov, Commander of the Western Caucasus forces; Gennady Troshev, Commander of eastern Caucasus forces. Do you understand now? (There are also posts like "military commandant of Chechnya too. And so on and on.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And the most important of those generals should be added to the infobox. - PietervHuis 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So who are "The most important generals"? You chose Omarov, who was just a deputy interior minister in Dagestan. There were DOZENS of interior ministers and their deputies in Caucasus in all these years. Are you going to put all of them into the infobox? This is Sparta etc. Btw, Adam Demilkhanov running Oil Regiment was "more important" than Baisarov. Lots of people were. Baisarov has his article only because I did it after they killed him. Demilkhanov has not because, you guessed it, I didn't. Hey, he's is actually the deputy prime minister of Chechnya/Ramzanstan now. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing maybe. The inter-Kadyrov "President" Alkhanov was basically a pathetic stooge without any real power, who couldn't keep armed kadyrovtsy even from his palace when Russian dignitaries were visting him. His "voluntary" resignation was only a final formality when Academician Kadyrov reached his 30 years to get officially crowned as the king of Ramzanland. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that might be so, but than you have also to delete from the listing Akhmed Yevloyev, Muhannad and co, as they never had that important role as Bassajew or Chattab had have. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I DID THIS. Open your eyes and shut up. Also learn how to edit Wikipedia, because you can't even add your source properly. Jesus. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy man. I think he was just speaking in general. He's new here so that's why he doesn't sign posts properly. Ceaser, you should sign your posts with four times "~" - PietervHuis 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yevloyev replaced basayev, he's pretty important. Muhannad now has the position of the International Islamic Battalion. These two are important because they are the leaders of what is currently left of the rebel movement. - PietervHuis 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's... you know, I did this list for a reason. Really. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The former list was just the presidents, basayev and khattab. There weren't even flags. I expanded it, it's far from perfect still but it's just a beginning. - PietervHuis 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo, are you on drugs? :) Keep cool, even if made some technical mistakes- I m still more impartial than you, and less offending - so it is by you to shut up. :) CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ceaser, here's some info about baisarov [[35]]. You might consider how he was pretty important and the importance of gorets. - PietervHuis 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't THAT important. Stop this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

not important compared to who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To Kadyrovs. Gorets was a band of like 100 people. Ramzan's Kadyrovtsy were in thousands. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok- it seems he was pretty important, but how do you decided he was a field commander for the Russians? During his "field commander" time he was on the side of separatists- I took a look on the description of Gorets in the Russian sources like here http://www.lenta.ru/lib/14163164/#4 - there is always said it was a unit rather for counterterrorism (investigating and detaining of hidden rebels in Grozny 4.ex) than for fighting. Caesar Augustvs —Preceding comment was added at 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He fought for Akhmad Kadyrov on the side of the federals. I'm not sure if he switched sides right away. - PietervHuis 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Baisarov was running a personal security outfit A. Kadyrov and then OSNAZ unit/death squad for the FSB. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori again you deleted all the commanders. The infobox is about COMMANDERS not PRESIDENTS. On the Russian side you only included the presidents and on the rebel side you only include the presidents plus basayev and khattab. If you want to discuss who should/shouldn't be on that list then let's do it together, not by completely deleting other peoples work.

I don't agree how "omarov is just an "Interior Minister". He was responsible for ALL counter-insurgency in Dagestan. The kadyrovtsy didn't even operate in Dagestan. - PietervHuis 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, but Dagestan is actually not Chechnya... However it is obvious, that the box contains too many names now. Why do you two resist my idea of two separate boxes? One for the leaders (Putin, Maskhadow, Bassajew and so on- means for those who had some political influence too) and the second for the low level commanders- means "order takers" . CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and insurgency in Dagestan is part of this war. I don't think the box contains too many names (too little if you ask me). Compare it to other war pages on wikipedia, their lists are often bigger. It's not weird how the list on this war is big because a lot of generals have been assasinated so their followers have to be added as well. I've never seen two seperate boxes used on war pages before. - PietervHuis 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a DEPUTY interior minister, actually. There were many like him (interior ministers, deputy interior ministers, acting interior ministers - of Russia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, KBR, etc) in all these years. Several in Dagestan only, for that matter (Adilgerei Magomedtagirov, Magomed Gazimagomedov, etc). --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And of those who was the most prominent and had the most responsibility? On the page about omarov it's stated that he co-ordinated all the counter-insurgencies. Also on this page for example: [[36]] he's listed as "police general".

Also thanks for continuing the edit war without actually discussing any of it. I have no problems with removing some commanders from the list like omarov. What you're doing is remove ALL the commanders and fucking up the layout with it. - PietervHuis 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone of them (ministers and deputy ministers) is a police general. Only Ingushetia has colonels, becuase it's so small. Above him, was of course interior minister of Dagestan. Above was interior minister of Russia, and above was Putin. Somewhere around along the ladder was possibly the "commander of joint forces in North Caucasus" (I'm not sure what it means exactly). In any case, he wasn't ordering around even the federal MVD forces in the republic.

There are always two to "continue the edit war". --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. I removed Omarov. I don't think there's any need for this edit war. Unless you really believe that the commander box should only list presidents there's no need to delete all the commanders that were added. Surely we can find out which commanders are the most important and leave/add those. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Commanders"

Well, OK. I'll show you what is fundamentally wrong with your version one by one. In your version, there are two of deputy military commandants of Chechnya (Kakiyev, S. Yamadayev), but there's none of military commandants of Chechnya (Abrashin, Babichev, Fomenko, Krivonos - there were also a number of other deputy commanders, including Sulim's brother Dzhabrail). That's for example. Do you get it now?

If still not, another example: you have Baisarov, a small-time militia commander (one of many, take a look at Ramzan's cabinet and parliament to find more) who led a force maybe 200 fighters before he died abandoned by everyone, but there are none of Commanders of the Joint Group of Forces in the North Caucasus (Baranov, Boldyrev, Kazantsev, Troshev). Khattab's importance was symbolic as the Russia's numbr two boogeyman already since before the war, but the guys after him were more and more obscure. Too obscure. In short, you're doing it wrong. (If you keep this, I'll keep reverting for a sake of accurate article.)

Also, Basayev was a Chechen nationalist AND Islamist, and Umarov suddenly dropped Ichkeria altogether and declared himself an another king of Chechnya. (Oh wait, I forgot there's no Chechnya, there's vilayet of Nokhchicho, part of "not virtual" Caucasian Emirate with the borders somewhere near the outskirts of Moscow.) And that's why I gave them to flags to wave. Yay. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And also, yes, Putin is a commander. A commander-in-chief, even. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We should have commanders listed. Kadyrov isn't just a commander, he's a president. The kadyrovtsy aren't the only ones fighting the rebels, so are the yamadayevtsy (or whatever) and other militant groups. Sulim's brother is already on the list, he was assasinated and sulim then took over the vostok batallion.

Maybe Baisarov isn't important enough to be on the list, you seem to know a lot about the positions of commanders. Feel free to replace him and work out who should/shouldn't be on the list.

Khattab may have been more important than the other leaders of the Mujahideen. This is because he was the leader during the height of this war in which the most fighting took place. But this article isn't just about the most violent part of the war, it's about the entire war.

I'll propose a decent list of what persons should/shouldn't be listed.

-Presidents

-Important russian commanders

-Important chechen commanders

-Important rebel warlords

-Leader of the Mujehadeen

-Leader of the caucasian front

This list should include all the commanders that were important during the start of the war, somewhere else in the war or whats left of the war now. If they are assasinated they should have a KIA tag and their successor should be listed. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have commanders listed. And I link to this list. Take a look at my version again.

And as of kadyrovtsy-in-Dagestan, they were actually operating there. Like in Ingushetia, illegally. I remember when the Dag police killed one and found an FSB ID on him. Another time they drove in a large convoy to ransack and beat-up a police station which dared to arrest Ramzan's sis and her bodyguards. Dagi cops took a beating without firing a shot. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Baisarov for you - PietervHuis (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"A commander" in the box means "a commander-in-chief"; we can not include all commanders at the both sides. Whoever was (and is) the rebel's official commander-in-chef (such as Saydullaev) would qualify. On the Russian side, that would be probably the Commanders of the Joint Group of Forces in the North Caucasus. Putin and Kadyrov are debatable, but Baisarov, Yamadaev, and Kakiev certainly do not qualify.Biophys (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if done this way, you really should split it in different boxes. c

What silly idea is that? Can you link other war pages where its split in different boxes? I haven't seen it before - PietervHuis (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "different boxes" for this. But I made a list. Maybe vastly incomplete, but hey. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly? Just take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#1991.E2.80.932003:_U.N._inspectors_and_the_no-fly_zones As you see the box is splitted.

Ah, another Idea, what do you think about adding a description of the situation in the armed forces of the each side? CaesarAvgvstvs

"Kadyrov isn't just a commander, he's a president. The kadyrovtsy aren't the only ones fighting the rebels, so are the yamadayevtsy (or whatever) and other militant groups." Nah, Kadyrov is a vice-roy. Of Putin. Yamadayev or Kakiyev may hate him as much they want, but now they are his sub-ordinates, because Putin ordered them so. Because Lt-Col. Putin oversees all this and Academician Kadyrov is his man in Chechnya. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Yamadayev is Kadyrov's sub-ordinate. What makes you think so? Alæxis_¿question? 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt Yamadayev or Kakiyev are lower than Kadyrov, but I don't see how they can't be listed here either. Can't they be considered commander-in-chief too? Here's the definition: "A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function.".

@Biophys, does it say somewhere the commander boxes are actually only for commander-in-chief? - PietervHuis (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because he just sent them (partially) over to Georgia? And previously to Lebanon. It's not only they bow to him officially, he orders them around and actually around the world. They may shoot his portraits privately, maybe even really doing "conferences in Moscow"[37], doesn't change anything as long as he's Putin's favourite pet Chechen. Unless something changes - you know, Putin leaves office soon. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the name of Ramzan's older brother? He was an alcoholic "captain of police" who was involved in several drunken scandals in Russia (shooting at police from his window etc). They shot up his car and he later died. I wanted to add him. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side-note. There seem to be 4 batallians operating in Chechnya. North, East, South and West. Sever, Vostok, Yug and Zapad. Sever and Yug seem to be commanded by Kadyrov himself, as it's composed of Kadyrovites. Vostok is commanded by Yamadayev and his Yamadyevtsi. Zapad is commanded by Kakiyev. That's why I think they should be listed. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would not mind including as many commanders as anyone wants. But then you will end up with something like box of World War II and Allied leaders of World War II (note that only real leaders are included there, not Kakievs).Biophys (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well yes that's why I prefer something more moderate like with War in Afghanistan or Vietnam War. Also wasn't Kakiev involved with the battle of komsomolskoye (received a medal for it). Wasn't the battle of moksomolskoye one of the biggest succeses for the federal side of the war? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Vladimir Shamanov. He was indeed not very important as he didn't serve very long. I replaced him with German Ugryumov, who was pretty important I think, but died early in the war so I'm not sure if he should stay. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, don't you. Eh. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? The russian commanders said to be most influentual are pretty unknown to me. Feel free to name who you think are or were the most prominent (apart from Putin). Putin alone really isn't enough. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't understand what I'm saying, so I'll show you again, on this new example. "President Putin has decreed a partial reduction of troops in Chechnya, and directed the FSB to assume responsibility for military operations in the Chechen Republic from the Ministry of Defense, RIA-Novosti has reported. The decree elevates FSB director Nikolay Patrushev to the command of all forces in the region, while his deputy, counter-admiral (major general) German Ugryumov, is to be responsible for the 'liquidation of the leaders of terrorist groups.' Ugryumov is the chief of the FSB Directorate for Protection of the Constitution, which includes FSB Special task forces 'Alfa' and 'Vympel.'"[38] (You don't even have Patrushev, don't you.) Do you NOW, at least, see how complicated this is? Hopefully. But you don't need to make the sense of all this - just remember almost-colonel Putin is the boss. Always. There is no alternative but my version really. Maybe now you'll believe me. It's not like most of wars, where there are distinct people's on the top. For example, I have no idea who was the top-guy-under-Putin when the war started (in Chechnya/North Caucasus, because Patrushev was always Putin's shadow). And yeah, North Caucacaus in general was always treated differently. Somehow. But I said, it doesn't matter. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Who would you like to list as the most prominent Russian commanders then? You seem to have more knowledge of them. You really can't just list "Vladimir Putin" alone. Look at the War in Afghanistan page. That would be the same if the only commander listed there would be George W Bush, or William J. Fallon. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I included Nikolai Patrushev. Makes more sense indeed if we include spetsnaz commanders. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan actually has Babrak Karmal and Mohammad Najibullah (and a bunch of muj leaders, but they were all rivals who then fought a bitter civil war). Bush is a civilian leader (and controlled by parliament), he only once dressed as a pilot, and don't really appoints Iraqi leaders - and to bring the same article, can you imagine anyone introducing themsleves as "Bush's soldiers"? Probably not, but out there there are "Putin's soldiers" indeed. Because it's the way it is. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Putin has the biggest part as a commander in this war, but we really have to have more Russian commanders there than just Putin. Com'on, you must have to agree on that? This war is bigger than you think, with similar casualty numbers as the war in afghanistan (us-led). To just have "Putin" listed underneath commanders is extremely simple. Don't we all want to create a well-worked out and detailed page? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look: "Various commanders". Magical, isn't it? Actually Afghanistan 2001+ always had a pretty low body count. I now give numbers from memory, but a "huge" Taliban offensive of 2005 (the whole year, so-called return of Taliban) resulted in little over 1,000 killed, mostly Taliban fighters. Or was it 2006? In 2007 ("hot" still) there was, like, 500 killed civilians? Out of population of ~32 million. I believe Chechnya in the hottest phases (like 1995 or 1999-2000) and Iraq practically all the time since 2003 the time had monthly death toll bigger than the Afghan total (I mean the NATO war, it used to be much much worse - thousands would die a day, like in Herat in 1979). --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're list is awesome and I'm glad you've been working on it. I still vote for having the most prominent commanders in the infobox like with other wars. Afghanistan 2001 indeed had a pretty low body count, but if you include all the afghan soldiers killed along with it (by memory), and compare it with the 2nd chechen war you can conclude that the chechen war is/was quite major. Just a fun fact, two chechens were captured (i think) fighting with the Taliban not too long ago :) - PietervHuis (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Chechens" is what the locals call post-Soviets in general and Uzbeks in particular. Also, I take it back, last year was indeed very hot for the latest Afghan standards, with more than 6,500 killed (mostly Taliban) - a sharp rise from over 4,000 of the escalation of 2006 (which was itself a sharp rise from these of 2005 and the previous years). In any case, Wikipedia article says "Civilian dead: 7,300-14,000" in in more than 6 years now. I think it's pretty low, given the size of population. Soviet war killed about million in 9 years, and actually some 50,000 civs died in Kabul when the muj fought over the city. A real slaughterhouse nowadays is Iraq (and the god-forgetten places like Darfur and possibly some others with even less spotlight). --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But you have to improve the list of Russian commanders and politicians. Ruslan Aushev is hardly a "Russian politician". Commanders and politicians should be separated. They are not doing the same.Biophys (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Aushev is/was a Russian politician. He had a very positive influence on the situation in Ingushetia until Putin forced him to resign and then put a KGB general in his place. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course he had a very positive influence. But this war article creates an impression that he "fought" on the Russian side. No, he did not fought on anyone's side (as perhaps some other politicians?).Biophys (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you insist I'll fix it. Anyway, I still believe the infobox just don't need to be crowded. There is no reason for this, especially since the chain of command is simply murky. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that infobox should not be crowded, especially if information about "secondary commanders" was included in the article any way. P.S. Unlike Putin, Aushev (and possibly some other politicians) did not command any military forces involved in this conflict. So, I still think he does not belong to a list of military leaders.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You think the infobox as it stands now is still not accurate? I quite like it. Compared to similar warpages commanders arent just the presidents or head of the army, but also those who are actively commanding troops. The chain of command is indeed murky (the GRU pretty much decides everything). As this is an encyclopedia I consider it a challenge to still list the most active of them. I'm not alone here, but we do need to find a pattern. Can you think of any commanders more important than any of the ones listed now? Cheers - PietervHuis (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. For example, Valentin Korabelnikov (GRU) stands now directly under Putin, while really Sergeyev and Ivanov (and now Serdyukov) were his superiors (Defense Ministry). Under him are three local GRU commanders, who are given Chechen flags even when they were and are officers in the Russian Army, not the Chechen Republic MVD (local militia turned police were run first by Bislan Gantamirov, who has no article and was then sidelined by Kadyrovs). This was GRU, while the FSB is just not represented. And so on. I said it once and I'll say this again, trying to make sense out of this only clouds the picture and to to put it simple is misleading for a reader. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, we can just make this empty if it's such a problem. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to have at least some names. Do you at least agree on the list for rebels?

When I think of commanders I think of those who are (or have been) actively commanding troops. That's to give the idea to readers of which commanders have been killed or are still battling today. Yes they are all subordinates to government officials, but are defense ministers actively commanding the troops? Donald Rumsfeld, minister of defense for the united states isnt listed as commander on the Iraq war or War in Afghanistan page either. That's becaucase Rumsfeld isn't a troop commander, but a politician.

The police commanders you are describing are comandants, which is something else than commanders.

Valentin Korabelnikov heads all gru spetsnaz units in Russia. Aren't the spetsnaz units the biggest combatants in this war? He even initated in battle himself. I added the Sadulayevs and Kakiyevs because, together with the Kadyrovs, theyve headed, and are still heading, the four spetsnaz units operating today in Chechnya. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Combat Stress in Chechnya...

Pieter and Caesar, please stop reverting each other.

If the article describes the first war the info from it should be included there, obviously. Alæxis_¿question? 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this article is about the first war, but it is only because it is very difficult to find impartial detailed information in English, I could offer you a lot of pages in Russian, but I do not think this would be useful.

However this is an important issue, as it show an important part of the combat style of the Chechens If you read the descriptions of the battles carefully, you will see that some villages were attacked from the inside even though they were mopped up for four times 4.ex! Does Pieter think the rebels appeared inside from nothing? It is just laughable to think, that the Chechens had abolished a tactic so useful and successful in the first war...Why should they?CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you present Russian-language sources then? Maybe some info could be taken from there. Alæxis_¿question? 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar your message is extremely POV. Please read the rules.

This is your message: "On the other hand, there were some impartial explanations for the fierce behaviour of the Russian Forces in view of the civilians. The rebels often infiltrated already pacified places, hiding in crowds of returning fugitives- dressed up like civilians and started the attack from the inside than. Further, incidents took place, where the rebels dressed themselves like red-cross workers or journalists just to get through the Russian lines, children of 10-12 years were known to place explosives on armoured vehicles or threw grenades into Russian check points... It is obvious, that such experience made the soldiers very easy to suspect any civilian crossing their way, as the poor looking women they stop to control her documents could either show them as asked, or maybe draw a gun or grenade. "

First of all you can't use a source from the first war. "I think that the same applied to the second war" is not a good source for wikipedia.

Also you have no right to give arguments for soldiers to commit war crimes (thats POV) and the message is completely missplaced on that page. I really hope you never become a human rights activist.

If you want to put something down about the stress for russian soldiers, you should do it underneath "Impact on the Russian population"". There is already information about it actually. "Since the Chechen conflict began in 1994, cases of a young veterans returning embittered and traumatized to their home towns have been reported all across Russia. Psychiatrists, law-enforcement officials and journalists have started calling the condition of psychologically scarred soldiers "Chechen syndrome" (CS), drawing a parallel with the post-traumatic stress disorders suffered by Soviet soldiers who fought in Afghanistan." See? - PietervHuis (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pieter this is not only about the stress, but mainly about the Chechen tactics often provoked War crimes from the Russian soldiers.

You can’t just ignore such happenings. When you are talking about the Israeli air force bombing apartment buildings in Lebanon, killing civilians you will not forget to mention the Hezbollah using these apartments and the people living in there as human shields. Why do you prefer to act different in this case? I said - feel free to correct the style- but you can’t just erase facts that you do not like to exist.

Regarding your statement about me and my possible being a human rights activist - human rights and the position of them is based on facts AND emotions (the will to protect the rights of EVERY human) but we here have to act with facts only- so if you like them or not... such things happened, and we can not follow the ostrich method. However feel free to make the message less POV- as long as you do not change the main ideaCaesarAvgvstvs

Ceasar, why won't you write

On the other hand, there were some impartial explanations for the fierce behaviour of the German Forces in view of the civilians. The rebels often infiltrated already pacified places, hiding in crowds of returning fugitives- dressed up like civilians and started the attack from the inside than. Further, incidents took place, where the rebels dressed themselves like civilians just to get through the German lines, children of 10-12 years were known to place explosives on armoured vehicles or threw grenades into German check points... It is obvious, that such experience made the soldiers very easy to suspect any civilian crossing their way, as the poor looking women they stop to control her documents could either show them as asked, or maybe draw a gun or grenade.

in History of Poland (1939–1945), Polish resistance movement in World War II, or maybe Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles#Terror and pacification operations (this one even mentions fugitives)? Just remember to keep it in your awesome Uwe Boll-style English. --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the first crimes against civilians were commited before they even first crossed the border in 1994, when the drunk soldaty killed several Ingush villagers, few fellow soldiers, and even the Ingush minister of health.[39] --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing Hanzo- if you read the article about the WW2 carefully, you will see, that fierce methods against the population of the areas where the partizans were hiding (incl mass killings) are mentioned as one of the causes why the German army was able to retreat w/o suffering even more losses. Furthermore- Germans were invaders, Russians were on own land (if you like it Hanzo or not, but it is so- from the viewpoint of the UN of course)

And of course Hanzo this was not intended to explain ALL war crimes, but certainly a lot- or do you think this aspekt of war is actually not so important? CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar you're really annoying. Read the rules on wikipedia about Point of View and stop it. A source from a DIFFERENT war is not good enough. Besides if you want to get technical, do you think Russians never dressed up as civillians to kill chechen opponents? Maybe you should read about the assasinations of yandarbiyev and Ibn Al-Khattab. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Khattab was killed by a bribed Dagestani comrade of his. More on topic, from the same link about the very beginning of the first war:[40] "On 15 and 16 December Major-General Ivan Babichev, commander of one of the three Russian columns moving toward Grozniy, publicly announced that he was halting the advance and would refuse to use force against civilians. The military operation against Chechnya was unlawful and inhumane, and any orders to attack the population or residential areas would be "criminal," Babichev said. He made the statements to Russian and Western journalists and in a fraternizing encounter with a predominantly female Chechen peasant crowd astride his column's path. He also strongly implied that a nighttime attack by unidentified forces against his column had probably been orchestrated by Russian security services in order to provoke an attack on the Chechen[s]." --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You CANT use a source from another war. Its competly absurd and makes interily no sense. Its like me finding sources of WWI and the tactics used there and then using at a source in the WWII article becuase it happened it world war two also. BonesBrigade 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. User:Transcendence who recently reverted Hanzo obviously did not read this discussion.Biophys (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Please don't veer from the topic of the discussion. We are not discussing WW2 here. Caesar, please present Russian-language sources regarding 2CW you've got so that they can be examined. Alæxis_¿question? 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Btw I've added this info to the article about First Chechen War. Alæxis_¿question? 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alaexis have a look: http://news.pravda.ru/main/2003/06/09/50805.html http://www.novgaz.ru/data/2000/9/09.html http://www.7c.ru/photoreporter/3678.html http://www.utro.ru/articles/2003/06/25/208796.shtml http://www.cargobay.ru/news/moskovskijj_komsomolec/2005/2/5/id_66763.html http://www.arnuvo.net/WEB/HTML/44204.HTM http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=9781 This after just short research in google - as you see, there are same methods the Chechen used in the first war, and same that my first source describes. Pieter, feel free to add the description of "russians, dressed up like civilians killed Chattab and Yandarbiev" :)))

Btw. here some photos of the rebels http://old.old.mil.ru/index.php?menu_id=690 http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/96n/n96n-s01.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1565000/images/_1565757_chechenrebels300.jpg As you see enogh of them are dressed up like a civilan, or wearing just one uniform or uniform-look part (also a widespread dress among civilians)CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want them to sleep in their army uniform or something? Those pictures are from their camps. You're not very clever are you? Also you still haven't figured out how to sign your posts properly. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter, please refrain from personal attacks. Alæxis_¿question? 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

what personal attack? hes been asked a few times already to sign his posts properly. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, Pieter, these are not camps but breaks in the forests! And yes! They wear pretty the same all the day, or do you think they can afford to carry a wardrobe with em all over the mountains?? Further, do you think the killed rebels on the photos also were wearing their sleeping dress? And keep quiet! I do sign as I want to, you can even clash your head against a wall if you do not like it- comprende? :) CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They sleep in tentst there. Do you blame them when they take off their army coat now and then?Also you don't know anything about the identity of the killed "rebel" there. PietervHuis (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes Pieter, of course, as long as they were not bearing documents where is clearly signed "I am a rebel" - they are somebody else...civilians maybe? Same as on following photos: http://www.gzt.ru/img/20070314223611.jpg http://www.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/DAILY/2007/073/KMO_084503_00003_1_t207.jpg http://www.kp.ru/upimg/photo/54917.jpg http://www.vokruginfo.ru/pixs/1129196660-1.jpg http://ej.ru/img/content/old/4648/4.jpg mostly from Nalchik

But this is exactly what I was talking about- as long as you do not see him in Bassajew-look - the west prefer to think they are all harmless civilians- shooting by the bad Russians. Btw. they maybe sleep in tents there, and of course everyone have three or four changes of clothes with them- right? :)...Pieter -when was you walking in the mountains for the last time? This even w/o the necessity to carry weapons and ammunitionCaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the bloody pictures. Most of the "rebels" there actually wear an army pants. I can find dozens of pictures of russian soldiers in chechnya who don't wear army vests (and so can you). As for the dead civilians, who said they were rebels? Remember, everyone is suspect. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter, do you always look only at one picture? Look at the picture where the rebels are lying in a yard- there is actually only ONE wearing the army pants, the others wear sports wear pants - like adidas. Than the one before- he is only wearing some kind of ammunition belt, and no other part of military dress. Well and regarding the civilians- if you look even more carefull - you will see on some photos Kalashnikovs or parts of them nearby the corpses...but let me guess- the bad russians deliberately placed them there? However - these photos were only given for the purpose to convince you that the rebels use same tactics as described in my very first source about this topic here. If you agree- than you have no right to ignore this information and have to add it to the war crimes chapter. Do it the way you like, if you think my way was to POV.CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

something like that shouldnt even be underneath "war crimes". As for the picture, the dead rebel on the left still wears an army vest, the one in the middle is too unclear and the one on the right wears an army pants. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok you DO look only at one picture and simply ignore all, that you do not like to be seen :) Pieter- I offer you two very simple questions, answerable with yes or no: do you agree, that chechens infiltrated pacified places dressed up as civilians in the crowd of the fugitives? Do you agree, that such a behaviour will soon or later make every civilian suspect for the Russian soldiers? (maybe before answering you should consider to think about similar situations in Iraq, where US soldiers killed civilians which were thought to refuse to stop their car near a road block and so on...just as one example)CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here one more picture to help you decide if they wore uniforms in Nalchik 4.ex or not http://pix.lenta.ru/articles/2006/12/08/archive/picture.jpg CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In this war? No to both your questions. And even if the first thing would be true, thats still no reason for indisciminate bombing, sweep operations with torture and dissapearences that result in mass graves. I assure you that almost the entire chechen population supported independence, so to russians, civillians become rebels fast. I advise you to watch this short documentary [41] of the harsh situation the population is going through, and don't you dare to justify that. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter, than you play a bit ignorant role - I just showed you enough photos, and all over the world rebels keep doing this thing- but such diehards like you seems to be still insist - no! The Chechen rebels suddenly, after using this method very successful in the first war, became different! Laughable it is! The other thing- this all was not to justify, but to explain- and this is a thing you can not ignore. You can not mention the cruel behaviour towards the civilians by the one side, and not mention the actions of the other side provoking this cruelness. Your assuring is simply wrong, as it was even said in this, obviously pro-chechen article; the northern part of Chechnya is traditionally pro-Russian 4.ex. Btw. every civilian taking a gun turns to a non-civilian, or do you not agree even with this? I really would appreciate you and others like you to be taken to such a situation, where you would have seen your next comrades or maybe relatives often killed by an actually fearful and harmless looking civilian/women/child just after they turned their backs to him, and than you'd have to show me your polite behaviour to other of that sort. That’s what really upsets me, when such couch theorists, mostly never seen a weapon besides on TV dare to judge about people risking daily risking their lives. Let me assure you now- such "fighters for the human rights" became the first to kill everyone their suspect to be dangerous for their life. CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are those the same arguments your grandfather gave? - PietervHuis (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw dear Pieter - this movie of obviously chechen civilists (as no one in there is wearing even one part of a uniform part) you will certainly like even more. Regarding my arguements, maybe I m simply more realistic than youCaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah here we have even more civilians...one of them even more civilian than the others :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLS22WOcu3Y Even some childrenCaesarAvgvstvs

Ceaser's analogous to that situation here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Lai_Massacre#Context.3F

I mean WilliamSpencer and his "context" additions to the article (in short, to write how dastardly these little commies were so the poor American boys snapped - this "context" is not on the talk page, but somewhere in article history as it was what earned the article POV tag status for a while - mine were onbly comments on the issue). WS argued:

The point of adding context to this article, is that Vietnamese women and children were regularly used as combatants, and did not wear a uniform. The entire article fails to provide this highly relevant context. So what may appear to be an "innocent civilian," may actually be a combatant. My additions did not state the people were armed at the moment the madness began in the village. Also, providing a photo of a Vietnamese child combatant, which was also continually deleted, helps illustrate the usage of what people normally view as "civilians" in the role of combatant.

Well, it did no pasaran. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

CA, for some reason, pushes his bad-English commentary to the bunch of well-written citations about the abuses by both sides of the conflict, because there's (not surprisengly) nothing about "returning fugitives" there. It's annoying and it's stupid ("fugitives", even after I linked him the meaning of this word).

Ceaser, I posted a UN report about the use of children at military use of children long ago (I actually wrote the section on Chechnya there, besides practically re-writting most of the whole article). Please, go away. You don't help.

If you don't understand "please", then maybe "shoo, get out". You are disruptive. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as for you photos of bodies from Nalchik:

It seems improbable that the number of dead rebels -- only 20 by noon according to officials -- could jump to 61 in just two hours and then to more than 90 by the next morning (grani.ru, October 17). Izvestiya reported that while many of the dead looked like guerillas who hide in the mountains should look: with sunburned faces and muddy hands, other victims looked quite civilized, with white socks and clean clothes (Izvestiya, October 17). Many analysts have concluded that the "militants" in clean clothes were really innocent civilians.

Numerous stories are circulating about civilians killed in crossfire and then labeled as gunmen. Arsen Kanokov, president of Kabardino-Balkaria, told Novaya gazeta (October 31) that there were 20 civilians among the dead whom the authorities had classified as rebels. Fatima Tlisova from Associated Press reported about a list of 40 persons who were accidentally killed in the fighting, but this is also not the final count. Azret Mechukov, the chief forensic expert of Kabardino-Balkaria, told Moskovsky komsomolets that there were only 28 gunmen in the city's morgue by October 14 (Moskovsky komsomolets, October 15).

And so on Officially, only 14 civilians died among ~150 people who died in Nalchik - during a major shootout in the middle of a major city. None of the bodies were handed-over and all were cremated (as "terrorists").

This was the last what I said to you on this issue. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo I know you would like me to go away, and so I will...after the article becomes less partial $=. If you think my English is not good enough, - maybe- as it is only my fourth language - but in exchange I am impartial, and I see where your contributions seems to slide into Chechen propaganda. And yes- I am not helpful to enhance propaganda. Actually the context written by WS in the article about Vietnam is obviously true -that's maybe why the world of today do not associate Vietnam War mainly with War Crimes committed by the US. The only reason for this context was erased from the article is in my eyes cause of description of an individual case, where it was not possible to prove if exactly these circumstances mentioned in the context were given. But we here have a different situation, as the article here is about the complete war, so even one proven example is enough to say- yes, such things happened and have to be noticed.

Now regarding your statement about Nalchik - if you just read the corresponding article, you will find the information, that many of the rebels were local residents, so they were not hiding in the mountains before and had no chance to get this nice "mountain-outfit" your sources mentionedCaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you don't know crap about Vietnam.

Secondly, of course many (actual) rebels were local residents, i.e. of KBR. But as of the bodies, some/most of them belonged to innocent civilians who were killed in crossfire (like even the KBR president said). Here's about the mechanism of this:

"This is a commonplace in Chechnya. I have not been to Nalchik and I do not know this case, but it is quite possible that such things happen there too. Well, basically, they happen throughout entire Russia, only specifics are different — drugs or weapons are planted in order to jail one or get paid for closing a case," an officer of the Department for the Combating of Organised Crime and Terrorism of the Russian Internal Affairs Ministry told Caucasian Knot's correspondent. "Of course, civilians sometimes die in Chechnya and in other North Caucasus republics, too, where counter-terrorist activities are conducted, and weapons are planted on them by officers that are not the most conscientious. But one should understand that they do so not because they want to register another victory for themselves, but for fear that they can be jailed for good because of this accidental killing." According to the officer, one should not say that "someone is killed on purpose and then registered as a rebel. Only Kadyrovtsy do so. It is not a custom among us, federals."

And actually indeed some time later a group of Kadyrov's policemen (called "a gang") were prosecuted precisely for this, that is killing random people (few men and a woman they kidnapped and killed) and then planting guns and explosives on them for promotions. But of course, there was also the case of Vladimir Glebov, etc.

This is all, because I already said I'm not going to discuss stuff with you anymore. Enough of my nerves. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh Hanzo, this is the main problem with you- you seems to think you are the only one who knows something else than crap! You do NOT discuss - as discussing means also trying to understand your opponent, but you are so convinced of "I know all the true and if you do not believe me- you do not know even crap", that a discussion is simply impossible- that’s also why you became offensive during our "conversation" here.

And regarding mr.Glebov, I do not know exactly what he did, but as I know it from other cases - just imagine, you are under heavy fire, many of your comrades died as your convoy was attacked form an apartment block, than you see a place where the fire was coming from, burst towards this place and there you find one or two rebels, with their wives and children helping them carry ammunition and so on- who would condemn you if you were going to shot them all even if they threw their weapons away as soon as they saw you? (as Mr.Glebov was participating in the first Chechen war you will not deny such things like fighting women and children have taken place there)CaesarAvgvstvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Augustvs (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody really wants to discuss this with you anymore because this isn't a forum and you are still treating it as such. There's a page about war crimes and terrorism commited by chechens as well. They aren't filled with reasons why they were "provoked" in doing so either - PietervHuis (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)