Talk:Second Chechen War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

About conclusion 2

BOTH KAVKAZ CENTER AND RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS EXAGGERATE AND FALSIFY THE REPORTS ON BATTLES AND CLASHES. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH KAVKAZ'S VIEWS ON THE TALIBAN AND AL-SHABBAB AND THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE WEBSITE IS NOT RUN BY THE CHECHEN SEPARATIST IN ANY WAY, JUST PEOPLE SYMPATHETIC TO THEM. THE NUMBERS KAVKAZ USUALLY GETS IS FROM RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS ANYWAYS. AND RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS ARE SYMPATHETIC TO RUSSIA DUHHH. KAVKAZ CENTER IS A RELIABLE SOURCE ON THE CHECHEN WAR ONLY NOT THEIR OTHER MATERIAL. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOME OF THEIR ARTICLE ARE MORE MILITANT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD COMPLETELY NOT USE THEM AS A SOURCE. DO YOU THINK RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS TELL THE COMPLETE TRUTH JUST BECAUSE THEIR A GOVERNMENT/ARMY AND NOT REBELS? RUSSIA IS NOTORIOUS FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE FULL TRUTH ON THEIR CASUALTIES. THE UNITED NATIONS REPORTED THAT RUSSIA LOST AN ESTIMATED 12,000 TROOPS IN THE CAUCUS FROM 1999 TO 2006. AND WITH ALL THE JOURNALIST AND REPORTERS BEING KILLED FOR CRITICIZING RUSSIAN LEADERS AND THEIR POLICIES I WOULDN'T PUT IT PAST THEM TO EXAGGERATE OR LIE ABOUT CASUALTIES AND REBEL ATTACKS. WE ARE ALL HEAR TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE, LETS DO THAT AND STOP ARGUING. AND YES MERGE Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) WITH THE 2ND CHECHEN WAR, THE WAR IS STILL ONGOING, BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING STILL AND VIOLENCE ONLY INCREASES IN THE SUMMER. BOTH SIDES HAVE COMMITED ATROCITIES. NO INFORMATION IS PERFECT ON THIS CONFLICT BUT LETS DO THE BEST WE CAN Cmp7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you list the sources proving that the war hasn't ended? [1], [2] - these are the links (already present in the article) that show that according to some the war finished in 2006. According to this article the war finished in mid-2000s.

Yes, globalsecurity.org considers this war ongoing but they also consider ongoing such conflicts as Basque-Spanish and Moldovan-Transnistrian (the former never was a real war and in the latter case there were no major clashes since 1993). Btw, globalsecurity.org considers Dagestan incursions part of the 2CW, while here in Wikipedia it's called Dagestan War. Alæxis_¿question? 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are flawed. The first has a human rights worker saying "The war in Chechnya has almost ended". In other words, he's saying it's still not over. The second source is only the opinion of a Russian journalist working for RIA Novosti. Your third source says "By the mid-2000s, hostilities in Chechnya had died down." That's english for "it's stil not fully over".

This is an encyclopedia, we have to stay objective here. What are the requirements for a war to be declared over? This has to happen with a cease fire or the signing of a peace treaty. Another way for a war to end is if insurgency stops, or is so low that it's no longer an issue. Is the latter true for this conflict? No it's not. In the past 2 years, more federals were killed than coalition forces in Afghanistan. Nobody is saying the war in Afghanistan is over right?

If you want sources, there are dozens of news agencies reporting on the armed conflict. [3] [4]

There's obviously still an armed conflict going on, between militants with a great support from the local population seeking independence, and federals. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"great support from the local population seeking independence" - At present all but a tiny dying minority want secession.--Miyokan (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On what does a Russian like you base that? - PietervHuis (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be more interesting is what you base your assertion that most Chechens want secession.--Miyokan (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, is ten years of war not clear enough for you? Of course the population completely changed its mind for all the stuff Russia has done for them - PietervHuis (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words you don't have sources proving what you've said. Alæxis_¿question? 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maskhadov was fairly elected. There's your fact. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion and not a fact. Alæxis_¿question? 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ok then - PietervHuis (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maskhadov was backed by Moscow. And I believe I said "at present". Wow, I can see this article is in the hands of someone who knows what he's talking about.--Miyokan (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those were fair elections though. The only fair elections. The two of you are obviously biased citizens from Russia. How long did you serve in Chechnya sir? - PietervHuis (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proof for your assertion 'most Chechens today want secession ' is that Maskhadov was fairly elected, how does the fair election of a Moscow-backed candidate prove this?--Miyokan (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He was Moscow-backed after he won the war against Russia, with support from the Chechen population. Anyway this discussion is useless. This was about the status of the war. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Btw, Pieter, you've reverted the article 4 times today. This is the violation of the WP:3RR rule. Please refrain from doing this in future or you may end up blocked. Alæxis_¿question? 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, I might as well tell you that - PietervHuis (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The amount of casualties is not the answer to the question if the war is over or not. The answer is to find in questions like: is there a front? Still battles taking place? Are there commando structures from both rivals to find? I think the answer to all these questions is - no even though the Chechens do not admit this. If I have only something about 100 fighters, widespread in small groups of 2-10 men I can not insist to have a front or to be an army. I can name them “an army”, I can name my IEDs “battles”- but the content will still be some kind of outlaw with religious and separatist background. If I do not have any actual fighting, but only hit and run situations- I can not insist to wage a war. Btw-in Northern Ireland there are even more than ONE rebel “armies”- so I think there is some kind of World War taking place, right ;) ? In Chechnya it is even doubtful if the rebels still are in collusion with each other, as Umarov proclaimed the Caucasian emirate, while Zakaew and others dissociate from this idea.

In Afghanistan there IS a front, at the south of the country. There are areas completely controlled by the Taliban. There is fighting taking place, not only IEDs or hit and run assaults. What the Chechen people want is debatable, but you can not just say- the Russian sources tell us only lies, the Chechen -(like chechenpress or kc) or the pro-Chechen sources the only truth. I think the analogy to the Basque-Spanish conflict is a very good example too.CaesarAvgvstvs 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the rebels do have a front, the Caucasian Front. Also I'm not talking about just Chechens, but about all the rebels in the north caucasus. Your comparison with northern ireland is a bit absurd as theres no armed conflict anymore. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter how long will you try to persuade us you are as heavy as heavy artillery? :) Of course you can also name a not existing front "Caucasian front", or even "Islamic world front against christians" . As there is no front line - there is no front :) And yes! this is exactly what I say, even if I have five or six armies, liberation armies, the "true IRA" or many else- the content still do not change, doesn't matter if you kill one or two or ten policemen in some assaults or not.CaesarAvgvstvs 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to tell here. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok you managed to persuade me! :D But I ll try to explain. There is a difference between the term "front" or simply the word "front" To agree with the term "front" you need some terms to be fulfilled, if there are not fulfilled - you only named something to be "a front", of course you can also name all you like to be these terms. I can throw a stone against a police car and say I just started the war against germany. If I have a friend who threw another stone, I can say I have an army and battles :)... And this is exactly what the remaining Chechen rebels do. They pretend to have something they actually do not have, as front, government and so on. Very similar to the basque-rebels or the IRA.CaesarAvgvstvs 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar, a guerrilla war doesn't have a front the way you describe it. The Taliban doesn't have more of a front than chechens do. They retreat in the mountains, hide in bunkers, pretend they are civilians etc. Your comparison with "starting a war by throwing a rock" makes no sense, since the fact that the war never ended ever since it began in '99. There has to be a specific date or happening for a war to end. One party's decleration that a war is over isn't enough. The US can shout the war in Iraq is over too. Is it? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even a guerilla war, as there are too few rebels to be called "guerilla"- the difference is in the dimension of the "warfare" - and the activities of the Chechen rebels are not enough to pretend to be a war. In Afghanistan there are places, in the mountains or not, where the NATO can not allow going in w/o fighting- this IS A FRONT, though not comparable to a front in WW2 or something similar. In Chechnya there are no places like this, even not in the mountains. The rebels would not show any resistance to moving brigade, in the forests, in the mountains or elsewhere- they would hide or retreat or pretend to be civilians. occasional hit and run, and resistance of 1-2 rebels till death if already surrounded by some mvd forces- this is nothing about war. The actual war in Iraq is over- as it was not against the Islamic rebels but against Saddam. I think the only reason for the Iraq war to be named "ongoing" is the relatively high amount of casualties. 30-50 every month, sometimes even more than 100 a month... many more wounded. And even mope important is the fact, that assaults take place nearly every day there. Just compare the amount of the assaults in 2007 to the amount of the assaults in this year in Chechnya...you will see a large difference. We also see that the losses of the US became much lesser after the "Mahdi Army" proclaimed they would temporally stop their assaults to use this time for reorganization and regrouping.

However, I would prefer to change the war from "ongoing" to something different...In the article about the Iraq war as well.CaesarAvgvstvs 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar you're wrong. The rebels still control the mountains. Also what makes you think the rebels are low in count? Are they spartans or something that they archive so much succes?

And no the war in Iraq is not over. What's going on there is a CIVIL WAR. Bush used to deny this but internetional observers didn't and still don't. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some news articles that in the past constantly denounced statements by the kremlin that the war is over: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - PietervHuis (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of your links are irrelevant (those that are of 2002, 2003 etc - nobody wants to write here that the war ended by that time), according to this link 'the insurgency hasn't been defeated' (exactly what I've written in my last edit), the last link gives the POV of Yamadayev (which is important but not more important than that of, say, Kadyrov). Alæxis_¿question? 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The links are relevant because back then the Kremlin also claimed the war was over and it was disputed. What changed since then? Nothing, bodybags are still filled on a weekly basis. It's impossible to state that the insurgency will continue but at the same time that the war is over. That's a contradiction. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter you seem not to understand, that the war is something different from the occasional insurgency. Just have a look to the annual watch list in the article. If you separate the accidents rebel deaths/ federal deaths you will see, there are not so many to call this more than outlaws attacking sometimes some federals. “Bodybags on weekly basis”? :) You maybe like to- this isn't true- I think you prefer to count all the dead in Chechnya as killed by rebels, even if some police officer investigating the drug scene was killed by criminals. I ve count all the incidents in 2007- and I say ALL- including federals kill the rebels- something about 50 AT ALL. I think If you take a look to the same statistic regarding the police work in the USA you will find more cops dead. You said "the rebels are successful" LOL I say :) It is obviously easier for a small group of 1-2 person to sneak across the border to Ingushetia or Dagestan, hit and run there and say they have managed to spread the war across the Caucasus, than for a company of 50+ men...But they accordingly inflict very low dmg. See the difference between "outlaws with religious/separatistic background" and war now?CaesarAvgvstvs 22:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar the amount of federals that died in the caucasus in 2007 were more than 180. The amount of cops that die in the United States are an average 50 a year I think. The US is a nation with more than 300 million people. The caucasus region only has a few million people. On top of that the cops in the US aren't killed by ambushes, IED's and anti aircraft guns, but by junkies. The amount of coalition forces killed in afghanistan were about 120, and that was the highest it has ever been in Afghanistan. See what I mean?

ps. your english is really bad. If it's your fourth language like you previously told consider devoting yourself to another language wikipedia. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another nice article from the IISS who don't think the war is over either [14] - PietervHuis (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving the article how it is now but I'll add that the comparison to US police deaths is meaningless because the homicide rate in Russia is several times higher than the US, police deaths throughout Russia are several times higher than the US. CaesarAvgvstvs makes valid points, the amount of damage the few remaining Chechen rebels inflict today is miniscule and becoming increasingly sporadic. The number of terrorist attacks decreased from 250 in 2005 to 130 in 2006 and to only 48 terrorist attacks in 2007. There is peace in Grozny and it is slowly being rebuilt, and at present all but a tiny dying minority want secession. The bombastic bodybags are still filled on weekly basis comment was really quite amusing. CaesarAvgvstvs' English is fine.--Miyokan (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should keep "ongoing" since there's no reason for any of you to decide that the war is suddenly over without proper sources. The homocide rate in Russia is comparable to the US, comparing the amount of casualties by insurgency to "police deaths" is absurd especially since the population of the usa is 60 times higher than in the North Caucasus. I don't know what you mean with "terrorist attacks" but check out the guerrilla phase pages HanzoHattori had been compiling and you'll see the number is far higher than you think. The fact that residents are rebuilding Grozny is completely irrelevant. Coalition troops are rebuilding Kabul as well, yet the war continues. You have absolutely no proof that "a tiny dying minority want secession" and it sounds absurd. Bodybags aren't filled every week? I just checked the news right after I read your comment and hey, surprise, just THREE HOURS AGO another soldier was killed [15]. What are you basing it on that body bags aren't filled every week? This month there wasn't a week without federal casualties inflicted by militants Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008) - PietervHuis (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter this is the third or fourth time now you like me to leave just because you do not have enough arguments to counter with. Not really helpful. Regarding my English - maybe it is not that fine, but still enough to see all the logical and other mistakes you make in your maybe better English :) The amount died in 2007 is more than 180- sure, and now- how many were deaths inflicted by the rebels, and how many were deaths of criminal or accidental origin? You try to show some parallels with Afghanistan, but there are actually none. In Afghanistan NATO do not even try to take control over the warlords or the southern part. They launch sporadic assaults but stay in the cities or their bases all the rest of the time and let the warlords keep the Taliban quiet in their part of the country- I ve seen these "battles" on TV- the units of the afghan warlords were fighting in the mountains, and the NATO soldiers stood some miles away providing artillery support from a safe distance...I wonder how they managed to suffer losses at all...except of these few suicide bombers... As the "federals in Chechnya" also include the Chechen pro-russian units of Kadyrov and co. You should at least add all the deaths of the Afghan Army soldiers and Iraqi Army, awakening councils and all the other pro-US units in these two countries to be able to compare the situation there with the situation in Chechnya. I think the difference in the count will be immense. CaesarAvgvstvs 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All of those deaths were inflicted by rebels. The nato DOES try to take control over south-afghanistan. And the amount of casualties in Afghanistan I gave you includes ALL coalition troops and afghan soldiers. Stop playing a guess-game. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is obviously a lie- or at least your nescience- http://www.icasualties.org/oef/DeathsByYear.aspx the NATO losses alone are 232 killed in 2007 (I think if we are going to exclude all the non hostile deaths the amount will be somewhere around the figure you mentioned), where you like to find the number of the killed afghan army soldiers or the troops of the warlords included in this amount?...Especially as I wonder if such statistics was ever collected. Same regarding your statements about the situation in Chechnya, just some examples:

• February 23 - Five policemen were killed and two wounded by a blast during a mine disposal operation in the east Chechen village of Oyskhara.
• June 15 - Magomedali Aliyev, head of the of Untsukulsky District police department, was killed in Dagestan.
• June 21 - A gun battle between police forces and a Defense Ministry unit in Grozny left several people dead and wounded among the local policemen and soldiers. Later reports said five soldiers of the battalion Zapad were killed and three policemen wounded- in the incident involving up to 200 armed soldiers and police officers.
• July 18 In Chechnya, a drunken Russian soldier shot dead his commanding officer and wounded three other soldiers and then himself.[15
• July 21 - Gunmen in Karabulak, Ingushetia, killed Vakha Vedzizhev, a well-known figure in the republic and an adviser to Ingushetia's president on religious matters.
• September 18 Major Androkhman Meiriyev, chief investigator of western Ingushetia, was shot dead in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya.

These are just some few examples disproving your statement: In some of these accidents the involvement of rebels is absolutely impossible, in others - at least doubtful. Especially of these doubtful deaths (local police officers which might have been killed by a criminal with at least the same probability, or Islamic clerks might been killed because of clan-confrontation) there are many more to find in the watch list of 2007. Well at least you agree there is some kind of a front line in the south of Afghanistan, as even according to your own words NATO just tries to gain control over the area there. In Chechnya there is nothing similar...There are no villages in the mountains controlled by the rebels, there are no clashes with federal troops like in Afghanistan (btw. just have a look at the main page of the link I gave you about OEF- there, in the news summary on the wright side you will, so I hope see the difference) just few hit and runs and few IEDs... CaesarAvgvstvs 13:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, forgot to mention- for several other clashes, the only given source was the KC whose credibility is really nothing for an encyclopaedia.CaesarAvgvstvs 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... http://www.icasualties.org/oef/default.aspx it says 232 coalition deaths (not just NATO). About half of those are accidents so my number of 120 is pretty accurate. These numbers aren't just NATO deaths, but coalition deaths which include Afghan soldier and police deaths. Also Afghanistan is a nation with 32 million, compared to the few million in the caucasus the amount of casualties as a percentage is huge. Yet the caucasus is still not a war-zone?

I don't see any examples that "disprove" any of my statements. You listed 3 deaths not caused by rebels. So? Did I even include those? The number of federal deaths in the North Caucasus is even much higher than reported, as Hanzo previously explained. The Russians never report on those who died in the hospital and they often hide federal deaths which thus remain unreported. Your idea that they were killed by "criminals with no affilition to a resistance movement" is unfounded.

Villages controlled by rebels? I don't know how much you know about Afghanistan, but villages don't stay controlled by the taliban for long. Coalition troops are careful when they try to chase them away unlike the Russian who will bomb the entire village right away. Also THEY DON'T NEED to control a village for this to be called a war. They're all underground. That's what a guerilla war is like. Do FARC members have their own villages? No. They have their own camps just like the rebels in the caucasus. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pieter I admire your hardheadedness: just short time before you said "All of those deaths were inflicted by rebels" :) I proved it is not true. Further- the use of KC as a source is in my opinon not the best idea, I mean - you do not include the statements of them regarding Chechens killed US soldiers in Iraq, dont you? http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2008/01/21/9283.shtml Of course my idea of officers killed by "criminals with no affilition to a resistance movement" is unfounded, same as your idea about them "killed by rebels"- as you do not know what is the true.

You proved it's not true? I didn't say "all of those deaths were inflicted by rebels" referring to the guerrillia phase page. I was talking about the numbers I provided. Also no KC alone isn't a fact source, just like russian reports on rebel casualties aren't reliable. When a source of KC is used and there's no other source present it's noted on those pages.

That they are killed by rebels, and not by the imaginary criminals you're are trying to make up, becomes a fact when it's said so in news articles, and the later research doesn't state the contrary. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Now to Afghanistan - something you should really learn- first research, than write: a citation from yours "beloved" HRW

• One indication of the increasing strength and boldness of the Taliban is that in 2006 their forces engaged NATO in battalion-sized assaults with sustained logistical and engineering support.6 Another indication came from the increasing public presence of Taliban supporters, many of whom had switched allegiances or at least avoided openly espousing the Taliban cause after the government’s 2001 defeat by the US-led coalition.7

• The Taliban’s unexpected military and political resilience in southern Afghanistan in 2006 prompted NATO to try to reach a localized accommodation or truce with Taliban forces, following the model of the Pakistan government’s peace agreement with Pakistani Taliban groups. (More details of the Pakistani peace agreement with the Taliban appear below.) In mid-2006, British forces agreed to leave the town of Musa Qala, in Helmand province, if Taliban forces also agreed to withdraw.8 The much-criticized agreement ended in early December 2006 when Taliban forces and NATO troops again engaged in heavy clashes there....
• According to US and other military officials, cited below, the central leadership of the Taliban movement is now widely believed to be located in the Pakistani city of Quetta, a few hours drive south from Kandahar.

Ok as this describes the situation in 2006/2007 I think you will start to claim, the situation NOW is completely different, right? :)

You still insist this is all the same like in Chechnya? CaesarAvgvstvs 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh. Of course they are not completely mutual. Afghanistan is considered a war region though. Just like in Colombia and Iraq where there are civil wars. The Caucasus is also a war region because it has all the qualifications for it still. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not COMPLETELY mutual??? Not even in a small part! Please name an incident in Chechnya comparable to such "qualifications of war" I gave you regarding Afghanistan:

Troops dealing with obvious enemy (not enemy troops bribing or switching sides, but usual enemies meeting an agreement with the federal troops to "demilitarize a city 4.ex), enemy "engaging NATO in battalion-sized assaults with sustained logistical and engineering support" (btw- taken from HRW too) http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/afghanistan0407/2.htm#_Toc163022669 And so on! Pieter- simply admit your POV is wrong! And once more- KC is not a reliable source- so if they claim to have "heavy fighting with federals" and "victory and taking over control in a village" - you can not simply accept this as true. The KC can easily afford claims of dozens of killed federals every day- what are they daring to loose? Their "reputation" maybe??? Even if Russians say “the claim is a lie”- the KC will insist the federals are too frightened to admit such heavy losses, so THEY are lying. :D Btw, try to explain the THEORETIC difference between the situation in Chechnya and the idea of me and some "comrades" throwing some stones against police cars, and shooting with air guns from hidden places at some police officers on patrol, proclaiming - this is a war for the independence of Dusiburg! :) Please... CaesarAvgvstvs 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? The War in Afghanistan is an official war just like the second chechen war began as an official war. I compared casualty counts to prove that you can't say that 1)the war in afghanistan is ongoing and 2)the war in the caucasus is over. The fact that there are different insurgents with different goals is completely irrelevant.

Also for the final time, I NEVER SAID KC WAS RELIABLE. Stop accusing me of that.

Your last question is too silly to answer really. First of all you're not killing police and second of all "dusiburg" (ich nehme an Duisburg) has never been in a state of war. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the difference in the situation between Afghanistan and Chechnya, I say - even if the amount of the dead seems to be pretty equal at the first glance - the situation (and so the decision if to call it war or not) is not comparable- so in Afghanistan there IS a war, in Chechnya- there is NO war, not longer.

The casualties alone are not a measure for this.

Oh really? But it is very easy to get the impression you do, as the only source saying there is still heavy fighting in Chechnya is the KC I think, or "sources" relating to the Chechen rebels...

Just try to, please!... I asked for a theoretical difference...if it is that silly, is should be very easy to show this obvious difference to me :)

How do you know I do not kill any police officer? :) And what if I start to claim this?- maybe the German officials are just to scared to admit this? ( me in the figurative sense of course ;) ) Duisburg is not a warfare place? Hey -maybe it WAS not a warfare place or it is not a warfare place yet! Same as Chechnya was not a warfare place before mid 90s 4.ex.

As you see, these your arguments, thought to be definite are of the same credibility like these of the Russians in Chechnya...and my statements are not really to differ from such of the Chechens. Or would it be a great difference if I launch a portal like KC? CaesarAvgvstvs 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"There is no war, not longer". I'm sorry, this is just your personal opinion. This is an encyclopedia where facts are stated, not personal opinions. The situations are completely comparable in the fact that there are insurgents active in both regions.

No KC isn't the only one reporting on casualties. Newspapers do as well.

Also if you want to turn Duisburg into a warzone you need a significant number of rebels along side of you. It's not impossible. See the War in Dagestan. How did they turn Dagestan in the state of war? Precisely. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

aha, suddenly you seem to agree, that the number of fighters along side of the "warlord" should be significant, and that declarations alone, or even assaults alone are not enough to pretend to be a war... and why do you think your opinion, that this number in Chechnya is significant enough is right? You say it is my personal opinion - well, not more than your words are your pov :) Newspapers you say... well, lets have a look to the apparently more or less important "battles" described in the articles watch list 2007: the first one we see here:

• April 12 - Rebel sources claimed a victory in the several days of heavy fighting near the village of Bas-Gordali (Nozhai-Yurt district) and reported killing dozens of pro-Moscow Chechen soldiers and militiamen including three commanders.

source? KC - only. now there is nothing really worth to be called "battle" for a long time, than finally:

• September 7 -the South Battalion of Internal Troops was reinforcing forces involved in the cleansing operation in the village of Dargo, a bastion of the resistance to Russian rule for 300 years. According to the separatist website Chechenpress, the fighting claimed lives of about 25 troops and one guerilla, including 10-15 killed in the convoy.

The only source? Chechenpress. finally

• December 16 - Four Chechen fighters, including a woman, and one policeman were killed in a clash during a sweep operation in Grozny;[45] three other policemen were wounded (according to Kavkaz Center, eight to 12 Chechen police were killed.

as we see, the only source give this accident more importance than an police-operation it again the KC :)

So what do we have else? The taking down of a helicopter- lucky strike, and the Vedeno Ambush with 4 dead soldiers...thats all. So this is a measure for a conflict to be a war?

I only refer to this part of your answer, as the other parts are completely irrelevant (thats also why I asked you to describe the difference you thought is really to silly ;) )- as I might pretend to be an insurgent too...I think I would even be able to find some militant islamist among the turks here to join my "war". Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceaser I've told you a numerous times that I admit that Kavkaz Center isn't a reliable source. I do not include those reported by rebel sources only, when I state that insurgency is still taking place. Why don't you take a look at the casualty list from this month?

Also my statement that the war isn't over is not POV. I'm going by the facts, if you want to write about how this war is over you need proper sources for it. The onus of proof is on your side, not mine. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - done, except of killing one police officer here and there and some hit and runs the only "heavy fighting" is reported by the Chechenpress and KC. And now something different - insurgency... first insurgency is not necessary WAR, so we should than decide if the small amount of fighters the Chechens still have is enough to call it an insurgency... For me, an insurgency is a widespread resistance of the population of a country, or at least widespread acceptance of this movement among the population. Agree so far?

Now POV or not POV, what exactly do you mean as "source"- newspapers are not the authorities to decide this I think, so a statement of a newspaper is not more than the newspapers POV :) ...what would you propose to be a real source? Caesar Augustvs (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there's insurgency in the caucasus is undisputed. A half year ago the prime minister of Ukraine referred to it [16]

"According to United States Department of Defense Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, an insurgency is defined as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.

An insurgency differs from a resistance both in its political overtones and in the nature of the conflict: an insurgency connotes an internal struggle against a standing, established government, whereas a resistance connotates a struggle against invading or occupying foreign forces and their collaborators."

It meets the definition. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pieter, if your only source is mrs. Timoschenko you could really admit you have no sources. To name "source" the leader of the government, which recently approved school books the "ancient Ukrs" and "begin of the Ukrain nationality 140k b.c" for education is really not the best idea.

Now let us see, what the CIA says: "Russia has severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement, although sporadic violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus". This is the only notice about Chechnya on the complete cia factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html Caesar Augustvs (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

uhhhh does the CIA deny that there's insurgency in the caucasus? No they don't.

There are thousands of sources that state there is insurgency. [17] - PietervHuis (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They do not deny, they do not even mention the term "insurgency" just "rebel movement" - as this is a much better solution, the rebels are too many to be called isolated or non organized criminals, but actually to few to call it "insurgency" - agree now? And about your thousands of sources, you know as well as I do- this means nothing, as you have to separate all the sources referring to the time before the proclaimed official end of the campaign, all the sources referring only to the well known lairs from chechenpress and KC and so on... (not the 2000 proclaimed end of the mass fighting)... Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They do not confirm nor deny insurgency so that source isn't relevant. It's not too few to be called insurgency. And no, the sources are from after 2000 and not from rebel websites. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...sources like this...taken from your "list" http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004/08/excerpt-1919-summer-of-insurgency.html

or this http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07EEDE1039F936A2575BC0A96F958260

and so on... :) dear Pieter, you really think to exclude all sources except the impartial, writing about the situation 2000+ simpliy limiting the search with terms "Caucasus insurgency"? Not to few you said...why? Tell me how many fighters do you think are enough to become an insurgency?Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand half you're saying, but I thought the limit for insurgency to be called a war is 300 insurgents. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok and why exactly this figure? I mean according to a very anti-federal source, "the memorial" there are something about "По экспертным оценкам, сегодня в горах скрывается около 400-500 боевиков. Сейчас они изменили тактику: ведут партизанскую войну и сразу же уходят после нападений." http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/caucas1/index.htm -(I know, it is in Russian, but if you do not believe me, you can ask Alaexis to control the source) 400-500 rebels at all..this means, that according to your statement the federals just need to kill or detain something about 100-150 rebels more, and from this time the insurgency turns into a simple problem with outlaws? Pretty funny than :) I count something about 64 killed rebels in the watch list 2007 in this article (even if I doubt there were not more and have not included the detained rebels)- Does this mean in 1-2 years the insurgence will be finished? :) Caesar Augustvs (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere on this page something about a minimum of 300. But I'can't find any official guidelines on this.

Also the amount of rebels claimed by the Kremlin are absolutely irrelevant. They don't provide proof on the amount of rebels left, they just say so to make it appear to the public that the war is over. In a source I gave you earlier Yamadayev for example claimed there were up to 2000 rebels left in the Chechen mountains alone. Combined with rebels in all the regions I would personally guess the amount of rebels today as in thousands, which makes sense because a few hundred rebels cant carry out that much killings (unless THIS IS SPARTAAA). - PietervHuis (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ps. Don't expect you can simply withdraw killed rebels from the amount of rebels, since graduates keep join rebel groups as the jamestown foundation previously published ;) - PietervHuis (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again the burden of proof is on your side. If you want to say the war ended you have to say when exactly it ended and provide a source (that isn't from russia) :) - PietervHuis (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan Please don't remove how the war is ongoing again. Instead post your arguments here. That the war is ongoing has been there for years, you need a good reason to change it. Viewers also need to know what the status of the war is so it's important that a war page has not only the number of when the war began. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides take a look the Ongoing conflicts page. Even very small-scale conflits with a very low amount of casualties are listed. I'm pretty sure that you have to agree that there is still a Conflict going on in the caucasus right? - PietervHuis (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

notice that this war amazingly looks like the algerian war: it is officially over (for a long time, the algerian war had officially never began), the tactics are the same, the russian army seems to have finally win like the french army in Algeria but by using insane methods. The difference is that while everybody knew about the algerian war and made pressure on france to grant independence, no body seems to know anything about this "war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clems78 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dagestan incursions

were carried out by Basayev and Khattab (see the article). The source says exactly what I've written in the article.

Finally, you've reverted the article 3 times. Fourth revert would be a violation of WP:3RR. Alæxis_¿question? 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and Khattab isn't Chechen but Arab. Your source might say "chechen warlords" but more sources only talk about "one chechen warlord". [18][19] That's my problem. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Khattab was ethnic Arab and Saudi citizen (iirc) but since he fought for Chechnya he can be called Chechen warlord (and is called - see this bbc article). Alæxis_¿question? 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He fought in many wars, not just Chechnya. He was only in Chechnya for a few years when he fought in Dagestan. He was the leader of the "the International Islamic Battalion". You can't name him a Chechen warlord just because he fought in the first chechen war. Later on in the second chechen war papers often refered to him as a "chechen rebel" but they do so of many rebels who aren't even chechen. In the BBC article they call him a chechen rebel because he fought for chechnya at that time. In the dagestan war you might as well call him "dagestani rebel". It's too suggestive to say "several chechen warlords" invaded dagestan, because half of them weren't even chechen. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC article is an obituary. Even though he fought in many places they still called him a Chechen rebel. Alæxis_¿question? 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article you linked is from 2002. The War in Dagestan was in 1999. Back then the BBC didn't call him a Chechen Rebel yet but an arab warlord: [20]. This BBC article os obituary as well. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, no. Obituary is published immediately after the death of a person.

To be exact he's called 'Arab-born' warlord in your article. Alæxis_¿question? 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit I misunderstood Obituary. The thing is, this is a history article. If you describe the bosnian conflict with Khattab in it you can't really refer to him as a "chechen warlord" since back then he wasn't even a chechen warlord. At least if you refer to the warlords invading Dagestan you should note that Khattab is an Arab-born warlord. Otherwise you're blaming the incursion on chechens even though more than half of them weren't chechens.

Also your introduction says "several warlords". The word "several" means more than two. Whose the third warlord? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obituary? Pieter do actually you know what this term means? Your article do not even mention a single person...except you think your article is obituary to Bassajew :) Caesar Augustvs (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Apartment bombings

“ ...and the official investigation found Chechyan militants to be responsible.[3] According to official investigation, the bombing operation in Moscow was led by Achemez Gochiyayev who still remains at large and ordered by Chechen commander Amir Khattab who died from a poisoned letter delivered by an FSB agent. As asserted, the purpose of terroristic acts was to distract attention of Russian authorities from Daghestan, which has suffered at the moment battles between federal Army and armed groups of separatists from Chechnya, headed by Shamil Basayev and jordanian Khattab. [4] ”

You may not believe the official version. When you write that no evidence was made public you take out a detail out of the picture. An NPOV approach would be to write about all opinions awarding due weight to each. This should be done in the article about apartment bombings (and is done there). This is the intro of the article about another, much broader topic. Here it's ok to write that attacks were blamed on Chechens - the article doesn't imply who did it really but makes it clear for the reader that this was one of the triggers/causes of the war. Alæxis_¿question? 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I found some information about the bombings, including names, how they did this and so on http://www.antiterror.ru/in_russia/81993776 Alaexis if Pieter will not trust me- please translate the according passages. Caesar Augustvs (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alaexis that quote does not have any evidence. The fact that no proof has been made public is a FACT and thus extremely relevant. on the Iraq war page it also states that accusations of Saddam and Al-Qaeda links were never proven. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop editing the article for a moment and let me make a compromise version? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"not been published in the western media" is not equal to "not made public". And this is exactly what happened. The results of the research were made public. If you find the english version of this bbc article you will see it by yourself http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_2988000/2988559.stm further there seems to exist some kind of official report about the investigation, including results and so on...just to late to search it on their site now. http://www.fsb.ru/smi/smifsb/periodik/borvorgox.htmlCaesar Augustvs (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Results may have been made public, but not the research itself, and that's important. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it is not nice as I often have to present sources in Russian language, but as most popular (popularity not equal to competence) newspapers and other mass media in English follow the anti-Kremlin theory I have no other choice...cause searching for the few more impartial sources is simply too stressful. This theory was born from the Kovalew commission, initiated from Segey Kovalew, a well known anti-Kremlin activist, decorated with the "Order of Knight of Honor" per decree of Dudaew himself. One of the fiercest opponents of the war in Chechnya sind 1995. I think the impartiality of this guy is at least doubtful. Further, ALL of the other significant members of his group like Trepashkin, Juschenkow, Felschtinski, Litvinenko and others were connected with Berezowsky- known enough to be in doubt about his credibility regarding his position and statements to Kremlin and especially Putin. http://www.izvestia.ru/investigation/article3102993/

• About the research of the fsb - i do not know the right term...The "results" means- not only "we found him guilty of...", but "we found him guilty of... because of..."

Like a final dossierCaesar Augustvs (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can translate the russian pages. That the mass media in english are always "anti-kremlin" is not true. Journalists in the west have media freedom and can research whatever they want. Also if you have proof linking chechens to the bombings be sure to provide it. Don't bother though, the research hasn't been made public (and probably never will). - PietervHuis (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that Pietervhuis deleted a part of my text that War in Dagestan was allegedly also directed from Moscow. There are quite a few reliable sources about that. It was claimed that Basaev was a GRU agent, and there was an agreement beteen him and certain people from Yeltsyn administration to make the Dagestan War.Biophys (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I deleted it because I thought you made a mistake as I've never heard of that theory. I can't find anything on it either and it has nothing about it on the War in Dagestan page. The Jamestown foundation does point out a man claiming that Basayev was a g.r.u. officer in Abkhazia [21] The theory that the fsb was involved with the apartment bombings is presented by a lot of respected journalists (murdered or still alive) and even the president of america if McCain becomes president :p I don't think it's the same with the incursion though? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In August 7, separatist guerrilla leader Shamil Basayev began an incursion into Dagestan leading to the start of the Dagestan War which was regarded by Anna Politkovskaya as a provocation initiated from Moscow to start war in Chechnya, because Russian forces provided safe passage for Islamic fighters back to Chechnya. It was reported that Aleksander Voloshin of the Yeltsin administration paid money to Shamil Basayev to stage this military operation. (Basayev reportedly worked for Russian GRU at this time and earlier).

So, this begins from "Godfather of Kremlin" by Paul Khlebnikov. But he was given an FSB desa that a person who colluded with Basev was Berezovsky (actuall that were other people according to other sources).Biophys (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's some nice info, Í'll edit it into the war in dagestan page. I don't mind if you change back what I previously deleted. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys...the more you work on this article, the more yellow press-nature you give to this article. The Idea of Bassayew - a GRU agent is as stupid as it only can be. I know in many eyes Russia is a pretty savage country, where a bloody murderer who took hostages in a hospital, arranged the hostage taking of Beslan and so on can be a federal agent at the same time, but wikipedia is said to be an encyclopaedia, and not a collection of yellow-press information! The links about this question are mostly, ANYTHING, but impartial. I mean "American committee for peace in Chechnya" -does this need any comments? Felschtinsky - I ve already told - a man directly linked to Beresowksy, Anna Politkovskaja...well I think even all of the authors are/seems to be fierce opponents of the Kremlins way in Chechnya. Further the first and the last source are actually the same one, as "Analysis" is only a description of Politkovskaja views. The source "Prima-News" does not seem to be impartial too "Aslan Maskhadov had just declared a unilateral ceasefire and stated he represented Western values and not those of radical Islam. Yet the one-month ceasefire had been respected by all rebel groups. Maskhadov had shown his strength. But not one leader suggested holding talks with the leader of the courageous and heroic." ...courageous and heroic :)...very impartial. But however, this is nothing to be surprised about, as mr. Glucksmann is a long time supporter of the idea of Chechen independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Glucksmann

Now about the source from the Hoover Institution member; if you read the article carefully, you will see, he actually only refer to some newspaper himself. And one time he spoke about "information obtained from the French intelligence-... according to pro-democratic (and these were mostly paid by Berezowsky & co.) media." Btw. he also mentioned Aushevs interview- well Aushev is not a person I would suspect to lie...but the fact, that this interview was given just a short time after he was dismissed by Putin- well, at least a bit conspicuous

Look- you do not put the theory of CIA assassinated JFK at the top of the artilce as well, don't you? Why do you than insist to include such dubious information -like accusation of the federals blow up the apartments and so on, in the articles introduction??? Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it caused the start of the war. "Why do you insist than to include such dubious information -like accusation of the chechens blow up the apartments and so on, in the articles introduction???"

And actually, on the page for JFK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jfk it does talk about the conspiracy in the introduction. That's how wikipedia works like it or not. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS a difference between mentioning a "conspiracy" of whom ever- or to mention "critics say it was the FSB" After the protection I will change it accordinglyCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No there is not a difference at all. You're not allowed to remove it without reason. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources above has anything to do with "yellow press'. I can provide a lot more sources. There are no questions that Basyev was under GRU command during Abkhazia war and later. For example, this scholarly source tells: "The Russian military, under Grachev’s command, at the very least allowed the Confederation of the Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus to send several volunteer battalions to back the Abkhaz, which proved key to the Abkhaz victory in 1993; most probably, these battalions also received logistical support and training from the GRU. Information has persistently surfaced that the Caucasian battalions’ most talented commander, Shamil Basaev, who was named Deputy Minister of Defense of Abkhazia, was trained at a GRU base near Volgograd in 1992. The GRU also reportedly deployed its own Spetznaz unit, under Surikov’s command, tasked, between August and October 1992, with eliminating Georgian field commanders." It also tells about Second Checehn war and Dagestan war (Pietervhuis, please read!) (see The Security Organs of the Russian Federation. A Brief History 1991-2004 by Jonathan Littell, Psan Publishing House 2006.) If you can read Russian, also read this [22], with numerous supporting links (this Russian site might be disputed, but it only provides links to other more reliable sources). If you want to dispute that Basayev was under GRU command, please provide an equal number of reliable sources that claim the opposite.

Biophys (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You want a source as reliable as this site you gave us? http://compromat.ru/main/bush/skelet.htm :) Well, I think if we are going to believe this source, we have to add some more information to the family Bush 4.ex...as this family helped Hitler to became the Fürer! :)

There is also a difference between "was trained by the GRU for Abkhazia" and "was paid from the GRU for invading Daghestan" - agree? Or should we possibly say 9.11 was ordered by the CIA just because they helped Osama in Afghanistan against the Sovjets?Caesar Augustvs(talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is already info about it (see Prescott Bush) so you dont have to - PietervHuis (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here I found some interesting sources against the Compromat theory [23] [24] if this is not enough- his own (Basajews) words denying ever been trained by the GRU [25] Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also fine with changing the reference to "a series of unexplained explosions in russian apartment blocks which were blamed on the chechens". Thats how the bbc described it as well in their documentary from 2 years ago.

On a side note, the "Conclusion" header should rename to "Status", and I'm thinking about replacing the third paragraph to this header. Somebody put up a tag that the introduction was too long, which is true if you compare it to other war pages. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposial about changing the reference to the bbc description. Shall we continue to discuss the situation around Basajew here or in the Dagestan War discussion?Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy theory

'Let's summarize "Pro" and "Contra" views".

Pro

Several notable proffessionals claiming the involvement of the FSB: 1 - FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 2 - Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter, 3 - member of Russian Duma Sergei Yushenkov, 4 notable historian Felshtinsky, 5 - political scientist Pribylovsky. 6 In addition, we have U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain telling that " There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks" [26]. Some of these people have written books on the sibject and they are notable experts.

Contra

We have an official investigation (mostly by the FSB itself); main suspect at large; orhers dead or convicted by a closed trial. We also have bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory" .

Conclusion. This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with this your conclusion, as ALL of the Russians you mentioned on the "pro" side were linked and sponsored with/by mr.Berezowsky whose credibility regarding Kremlin is very low. The US Senator you mentioned is well known to be one of the harshest critics of Russia in the USA, and even though he is a senator, this does not say he knows more than we do. I might remember you about the words of another US Senator - mrs.Clinton, said - "if she knew the truth about Iraq, she wouldn't have voted with yes on the vote about the war". So why should senators know more about Russia, if they were not even aware of the situation in a country, in which their state was spying for many many years nearly without hurdles? So this is nothing but a "conspiracy theory" simply a bit more popular than others. That’s why we agreed with Pieter to change it this way. Caesar Augustvs (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what you or me might think about Berezovsky, Clinton, or an US senator. It only matters that all sources satisfy WP:Source. It also matters that all people who made such claim are notable (see WP links to their articles), and there are at least six of them. We do not judge if the claims are right or wrong; we only note that such notable claims or views exist per NPOV.Biophys (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You said: "we agreed with Pieter to change it this way". No, you did not. You and Pieter conducted an RR warring that was reported to WP:3RR, so I had to come up with a compromise solution. As soon as protection expired, you came back and started it all over again. Biophys (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar next time you want to change someone elses writing, and it seems as if he doesn't like, please discuss it some more, on this discussion page, or preferebly on his talk page. The block expired and was instantly reinstalled, like this, things obviously don't work. I don't agree with you that it's just a conspiracy theory. When I think of a conspiracy theory I think of college kids and retired porn stars making videos about how the US orchestrated 9/11. This however is far different as the critics are respected politicians and journalists. The fact that all researchers were murdered adds to that. I proposed a move not just to you but also the Biophys. It seems like he feels that there should be a reference to this controversy and I'm fine with that.

Biophys, maybe we should leave the claims for the apartment bombings, but exclude the claims that the dagestan incursion were led by Russia. All sources mostly talk about the apartment bombings, there is also the theory that dagestan invasion was led by russia, but it's far less debated and backed by critics. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should simply follow WP rules. Was Dagestan incrusion notable as a reason of the Second Chechen war? Yes, it was. So, the claims about complicity with Basayev are notable. Are these claims suppotrted by multiple reliable sources? I think they do. If not, let's discuss this and check if this is really supported by references.Biophys (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not tell that Dagestan invasion was led by Russia. It was not "led" but it was "controlled" and allowed to happen. There was allegedly an agreement between Basayev and Kremlin's administration. Two side that have negotiated many times before. Basayev even received a couple of millions from Berezovsky (although that was much earlier!). If you want, we can discuss this in article Dagestan War. That is a classical intelligence operation when its "subject" (Basayev) does not really really understand what he is doing.Biophys (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes, but these allegations are a lot less wide-spread, that's why I think it shouldn't have a place on the introduction. Somewhere lower in the article is fine. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for three days in response to an edit war. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version; please use the three days to establish a consensus on what to include and what not to include. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War articles

Well, I fucked up:

• the title is awkward
• it's actually spelled "guerilla".

What can be done:

• rename
  • "(Timeline of?) Caucasian insurgency"?
• these are mostly "people died" events, maybe it should be more than this (but who would do this?)

--HanzoHattori (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

support timeline of Caucasian insurgency. Feel free to take example from 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia, my idea! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey welcome back Hanzo, we could name it Insurgency of the Second Chechen War, or better Insurgency in the North Caucacus. Caucasian Insurgency is also fine, but I prefer to use the word "Caucasus" instead of Caucasian, as Caucasian is also a word for white people. My vote goes to insurgency in the north caucaus (timeline of insurgency in the north caucasus is also fine) or Timeline of the War in the North Caucasus, because Caucasus insurgency is a too broad term as it can also refer to the insurgency in Abkhazia. You can also use the last one only from the time that the insurgency shifted out of Chechnya and keep the other years limited to Chechnya's Insurgency - PietervHuis (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

one thing: the name that includes Caucasus should be only from 2005/2006.. The previous years should keep Chechnya as the location--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Caucasians are people from Caucasus :) It wasn't really kept to Chechnya before 2005. Already in 2000 an ambush in Ingushetia killed 18 soldiers, for example, Gelayev would raid Dagestan or Ingushetia once a while in 2002 and 2003, Dagestanis would explode a policeman or two weekly since like 2001, and in 2004 Basayev basically captured Ingushetia for a night. --HanzoHattori (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all white people from the Caucasus originally? This first white people were from Georgia I think. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I never heard anything about this. I know Stalin was from Georgia, but he's Russian now ;) --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)--HanzoHattori (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks :) He was a USSR citizen and ethnic Georgian. Alæxis_¿question? 07:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in the news, I'm sure you can find some articles about it. Ask yourself this, why do they call white people "Caucasian" in the states? - PietervHuis (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they're silly? --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Late comment

Caesar Augustvs sez:

I ve count all the incidents in 2007- and I say ALL- including federals kill the rebels- something about 50 AT ALL. I think If you take a look to the same statistic regarding the police work in the USA you will find more cops dead.

Actually,

Chechen police killed more than 70 militants and detained several hundreds in 2007, Chechen Interior Minister Ruslan Alkhanov announced. (...) As a result of the operations conducted, 325 militants where arrested, including one leader, 72 militants were killed, including eleven militant leaders, and 130 were persuaded to turn themselves in to the authorities," Alkhanov told the Interior Ministry's senor officials. (...) "Unfortunately, police operations did not go without losses, and 82 police officers were killed in the line of duty," the official said.

• These are the most official numbers, including 154 killed in the rebel-police violence (or about one every second day, and more policemen actually). I don't care now if true, the important thing is "official". (The entire 2001 Macedonia conflict, under "Wars involving the Balkans", killed 130 combatants, or 200 people including civilians.)

• Thesem numbers don't include various soldiers (including Internal Troops and GRU) and FSB employees killed in Chechnya - and the rebels killed by them. How many civilians died?

• They don't include anyone in Ingushetia, Dagestan, and KBR. (The Russian line is Chechnya is actually "peaceful" now, and most of "troubles" are elsewhere.)

• Usually in a modern conflict three-five time mores people are receive wounds then die. I don't have data on this one, so I'll use standard, and let's say... three.

• So, thousands of people were killed, injured or arrested last year in the political violence on a territory where maybe 5 million people live. But how many thousands? This is a mystery! (I don't know if this happened in Colorado too, but I think not. To put this into some real perspective: the entire Irish War of Independence of 1919-1921 killed some 1,400 people, including civilians.)

Also, Kadyrov said last year there were 50-70 rebels left in Chechnya - of them, at least 72 apparently died, 325 were detained, and 130 gave up. Congratulations! over 700% eliminated by police alone. Of course. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent source that says theres an ongoing war [27] - PietervHuis (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Casus belli

The casus belli of this war (apartment bombings and Dagestan war) was disputed by many notable people. I think we must tell about this in introduction. Who and why deleted this?Biophys (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because Russians like Miyokan keep adding useless details like how its a conspiracy and how one journalist of the new york times has dismissed it. - PietervHuis (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Either we just write that the bombings were blamed on Chechens (Pieter's variant) or we mention that some claimed they were FSB's work and that this is viewed by some, again, as a conspiracy theory (Miyokan's version). Alæxis_¿question? 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Or something inbetween. I'm not a proponent of mentioning the FSB involvement theory on the introduction, however I do think there should be some mentioning of Russia never having released proof that the bombings were linked to Chechens.

The US received a huge amount of criticism worldwide for accusing Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction and for having links with Al-Qaeda. The first turned out to be untrue, and the second was never proven. When I go to the Iraq War page I read: Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.'

I think we should note the same thing for Russia. They've never ever released proof to the public, linking Chechens to the apartment bombings. So I propose to put this in the introduction: "the Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, although no evidence linking Chechens with the bombings has been released to the public." This simply states a fact and doesn't exclude the possibility that either Chechens or the FSB were responsible for the bombings - PietervHuis (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page is huge

Should someone archive it? I don't know how that goes, but isn't the discussion page quite a bit too big now? It takes a while to load for me. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks - PietervHuis (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Times summary

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2008/02/26/001.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

changes

I'm thinking about updating the page soon. I might make a new page about the "land war" section because the text takes up a huge amount of space, although the battle there is smaller than the others. I also think of expanding the Guerrilla section, with maybe detailed reports of every year instead of just a link to war reports, because its the biggest part of the war. There should also be some more good looking pictures from both sides, I'm currently collecting some possible ones. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I changed the intro because he just copied it from another page. Anyway what's wrong with the intro as it stands now? If you're going to mention names and succesful operations you'd have to do it from both sides, not just one side, and not propogate the "war is over" thing. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan we've been over this already if I'm correct. Many of this was shifted to the STATUS section of the article.

Your version says "The success in establishing a loyal Chechen milita and the actions of Russian Special Forces meant that in 2002 Putin announced that the war was officially over"

First of all the chechen militia are considered russian soldiers, the kadyrovtsy werent that big yet in 2002 only the yamadeyevtsy. Second of all there doesnt have to be a mention of Putin's "official" announcement that the war is over. His announcement was laughable, since months after a helicopter was downed killing almost 130 soldiers.

It also says insurgency died down, thats not true, though it decreased in Chechnya, it increased in other regions. The "amnesty" by kadyrov was said to be a propaganda stunt according to the rebels, we cant know whats true. Besides many youngsters also join the rebels.

There also doesn't have to be a mention of the deaths of maskhadov and Basayev, because then it only includes the succeses of the russian federation, the rebels also had many succeses, assassinated akhmad kadyrov, dzabrail yamadayev, and many high ranking officials even today. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Russian military forces are still there if I understand this correctly.Biophys (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I don't agree with the way you change the introduction. If you're going to give examples of terrorist attacks, I'd have to start listing examples of attacks on civillians by Russia in order to keep a fair and balanced article, and that would make the introduction too long. Save the details for below please. Also the same sentence/source is used about how russia disabled the resistance 3 times, in the introduction, the status section as well as the infobox now. I'll remove it from the infobox, it looks silly and its never used for that on other war pages. Cheers. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly how the introduction was when HanzoHattori edited the article, your own bias is showing. Something about the current status of the conflict and how the Chechen rebels have been severely disbled has to be placed in the infobox, I tried to shorten it.--Miyokan (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because it only gives one side of the story. Then I'd also have to add how for example the rebels severely disabled Ingushetia's government and police forces as explained here (I don't think you'd prefer such an infobox?).

Take for example the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox, that's what it's used for, it doesn't note "the coalition severely disabled the taliban movement" even though this happened occasionally. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What other articles' infoboxes contain isn't very relevant here. The fact that rebel movement has been largely disabled in Chechnya is properly referenced and should be in the infobox showing the results of Seconf Chechen War.

Also, the spread of the hostilities is mentioned in intro and status section as well. This is not a reason to remove this from the infobox. Alæxis_¿question? 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant for me to point out that my version isn't wrong. The fact that the rebel movement has been disabled is as well sourced as how rebels have largely disabled Russian rule in Ingushetia. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can but agree. That's why we mention 'Spread of the hostilities' in the infobox. Alæxis_¿question? 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

spread of hostilities only mentions the change of rebel tactics. The message as it stands now is far too big, and the list needs to be chronologic. Besides "violence in the north caucasus" is already mentioned as the spread of hostilities and insurgency altogether. I'll add new key elements and list 'm properly and hope we'll be fine with it although I still think the mentioning of the disablements is unnecessary. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation in War in Afghanistan is no where near as good as in Chechnya, the insurgency there is about a hundreds times stronger than in Chechnya and Iraqi's die by the hundreds/thousands each month with daily car bombings and attacks on the streets.--Miyokan (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, in 2008, 35 coalition forces died in Afghanistan. In the caucasus this is about 61 Russian troops. Although I don't know if the russian figure includes police officer deaths (the Afghanistan figure doesn't), Afghanistan is about eight times bigger population-wise than the region in the Caucasus we're talking about.

And yes Iraq has a lot more civilian casualties thanks to the terrorists. But not army/police casualties. In 2008 274 Iraqi security forces were killed. Iraq too is about eight times bigger in terms of population. 274 divided by eight is about 34 casualties so relatively speaking the caucasian rebels are more successful than rebels in Iraq (unless you dub blowing up civilians successful ;)) - PietervHuis (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well of course success is also judged in terms of civilian casualties. The difference between Iraq and Chechnya is that in Grozny there is by and large peace, daily life goes by largely without incident.--Miyokan (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call civilian deaths "succesful" for anyone, and Afghanistan doesn't have as high civilian casualties as Iraq luckily. Grozny is only part of Chechnya, and the rest of the Caucasus. Northern Iraq is also peaceful without incidents. In Grozny residents still fear detention though and being disappeared forever. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course success is judged by civilian casualties - the less civilian casualties there are the more successful, yes? There is peace not just Grozny but everywhere where civilians are, in Chechnya the attacks largely target law enforcement, not civilians, unlike in Iraq, where there is civil war between Iraqi's. Also worth noting, the number of terrorist attacks decreased from 250 in 2005 to about 130 in 2006 and only 25 terrorist attacks were registered in 2007,[28] this information should probably be inserted somewhere.--Miyokan (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No there's not peace at all in Chechnya and the surrounding areas. Those numbers are wrong by the way, authorities confirmed at least 136 security forces were killed in 2007, in Chechnya alone.[29] - PietervHuis (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Those numbers aren't wrong - read "terrorist" attacks. Only 136 killed in 2007? That is hardly anything (with due respect).--Miyokan (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all attacks from insurgents dubbed terrorist attacks in Russia? I can't recall any terrorist attacks in 2007. 136 (and probably a lot more) is lot for a republic of just one million people. Multiply it by thirty for example, and you of have a lot more federal casualties than in Iraq. This number is probably lower as its often been proven authorities try to conceal federal casualties, and doesn't include the casualties in Ingushetia/Dagestan. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is 25 terrorist attacks as the source says, don't assume anything. Back to the amount of casualties, counting only soldiers, only 54 killed last year? That is less than 2 high school classrooms. That's an average of only 4 soldiers per month. That is puny any way you look at it.--Miyokan (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which terrorist attacks then? The source is the Kremlin. Also 136, not 54, and that's just Chechnya, not the neighbouring republics and doesn't include the deaths of other officials. At least 200 more died in accidents and friendly fire. I'm surprised Russians are easy about those numbers. Here there were three days of morning and reports when 2 dutch soldiers died in Afghanistan. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the terrorist attacks that occured in Russia and neither do you, just because you haven't heard about it in the media and because they weren't as large scale as the Moscow theatre hostage risis and Beslan school siege doesn't mean they didn't happen, you don't know every crime that occurs in Russia. It is 54 soldiers, not 136 soldiers, yes if you count soldiers + interior it is 136. Furthermore, it is unclear how many of those soldiers+interior officers were killed by insurgents, and how many weren't, like crime. Regardless of whether you want it to be over or not, the conflict in Chechnya is hanging by a thread.--Miyokan (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You may not exclude the deaths of police officers who are members of the Kadyrovtsy. So yes that's 136. All of those were killed the source says. 136 is the lowest possible number. Ingushetia and Dagestan combined were equally violent so you can double it and you'll have 272. You can also add 200 deaths because of accidents and friendly fire in the Russian army, which are always counted in western reports, and I'll avoid adding the suicides which too are counted in western reports, because the suicide rate in the Russian army is ridiculously high. Relatively speaking the losses are much higher than in Iraq and Afghanistan. In conclusion, these are huge numbers for an area of just a few million people. If you want it or not, the conflict is probably going to last forever. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You can delude yourself by "adding" all these figures that have nothing to do with casualties inflicted by Chechen insurgents all you want. Whether you like it or not, with less than 2 high school classrooms worth of deaths in a year, the conflict is hanging by a thread.--Miyokan (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with it? They died during the conflict, just like Basayev died by accident for example (if thats what happened). If you check out the list I'm trying to compile Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008) the numbers might be rising even. Fact is that it's more violent than Afghanistan, so you have no reason to think this war is close to being over. You can keep your opinion the way you want it though. Right now we're treating this page as a forum which is not allowed, so lets leave it at that. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think such minor edits are not worth a prolong RR warring. Real problem with Introduction is different. It does not tell that casus belli of the war was disputed. This must be stated per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaidar Gadzhiyev assassination

Better would be an article about the man (even if 90% or so about his death). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, NO, it's an article about the first suicide bombing.

But at least a short article about the man? And/or the girl? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicides

Why is the number of suicides in the Russian Army relevant to the topic of this article? In any case the source doesn't say anything about its connexion with Chechnya. Alæxis_¿question? 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicides are relevant in the US army too for example, and in many bodycounts suicides are also added to the overall loss of life during a war. If there's no proven connection with the war then you can add "although no connection with the war has been found" or something. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all the suicides that happen in the US army aren't included in the Iraq war body count. Similarly the total number of suicides in Russians isn't relevant to this article. Let's write about it in the article about Russian Army. Alæxis_¿question? 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are I think. Well at least for Afghanistan, because our death count [30] is half composed out of accidents and suicides. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Alaexis. This phrase is out of place. This should be mentioned in articles about Russian Army.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if a soldier commits suicide in Seattle or Murmansk it has very little to do with Iraq or Chechen war. So I'll make the change. Alæxis_¿question? 18:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The US is helping Russia in fighting Chechen terrorists

The USA is helping Russia fight terrorists. I`ve watched news reports that say US agents have arrested or captured Chechen Terrorists outside Chechnya and not to mention that al-Qaeda might/is linked to Chechen terrorists. What the US is helping Chechen terrorists what the hell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A few countries helped Russia or terrorists in various ways. It doesn't mean that we should write about all of them in the infobox. Alæxis_¿question? 06:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"IP", the US has stayed neutral in this conflict, and if not they've condemned the military campaign by Russia. Bill Clinton said so, same as McCain, and the US has granted asylum for separatist politicians in exile. You should look a bit further than just at their religious background. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think the US is helping Russia in the Chechen war I even read it on the News. The US condoled Russia after the Belsan Hostage Crisis and the Moscow theater hostage crisis the is also holding captured Chechen terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and is also passing on info about chechen terrorists to the Russians. Sure the US was once neutreal but when Bush took over the US even joined in. What U think the US would support Chechnya no they would rather support Russia (and they are). The US and Russia is even working together in fighting terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.107.236 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The United States is currently nuetral in the conflict. Granted, I'm sure like any other reasonable nation we'd like to see the conflict ended, but we're ambivalent to both sides. At least as far as governmental opinion goes. Also, the Beslan Hostage Crisis was critizized by a large amount of Western sources for the Russian negligence and their role in the deaths of many hostages. 334 hostages died, while arguably the majority were from the hostage takers, a lot were undoubtedly killed by Russian negligence. A Russian BTR-80 fired its 14.5mm gun at the windows, and they fired RPO-A_Shmel (Bumblebee) FAE rockets into the buildings, for Christ sake. I don't really feel the need to cite this, but if it's required simply check the Beslan school hostage crisis article for a large amount of Western and Eastern sources on all of my claims. But in closing, we were consoling the victims of the crisis and those mourning; not the Russian government or its soldiers who participated, nor the Terrorists who died. Just because we regret the deaths of innocents doesn't mean we've taken an official side.

Also please don't try and connect al-Qaeda with the Chechen rebels, without sourcing it in something. They're two distanced insurgent movements that happen to share a religious background. The doesn't mean much. 75.149.203.222 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and war crimes

I've added a neutrality tag to this section. It starts out by saying "Russian officials and Chechen rebels have regularly and repeatedly accused the opposing side of committing various war crimes including kidnapping, murder, hostage taking, looting, rape, and assorted other breaches of the laws of war", but the entire section focuses on accusations against the Russian military alone. Where is the Russian's point of view? Where is mention of the terrible crimes committed by the Chechens? LokiiT (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

under the terrorism section - PietervHuis (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is quite brief and shallow in comparison, and does not show the Russian point of view, only statistical facts. LokiiT (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The sections shouldn't describe the point of view or allegations from any side of the conflict, just the statistical facts of reports from human rights groups and such. There's a page dedicated to the war crimes of this war, and someone proposed (ages ago) splitting them in two articles, each detailing the war crimes of one side in the conflict, but unfortunately everyone has been too lazy and this hasn't happened yet =( But in general I agree with you that the terrorism section is too short.- PietervHuis (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the sections shouldn't describe the point of view or allegations from either side of the conflict? WP:NPOV says that all relevant and verifiable point of views should be covered. And besides, are we to believe that there have been no Russian human rights organizations who have reported on the conflict? LokiiT (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are Russian human rights organizations included with the reports, such as memorial. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But there is no mention of them in that section like I said. You didn't answer my question on why you think the sections shouldn't describe certain point of views. LokiiT (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean. I meant that it shouldn't be filled with propaganda from either side of the conflict. The sections should contain a summary, the details go in the pages dedicated to the subject. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about propaganda? And I agree that the section should only contain summaries if they have their own separate articles. But that isn't the case. The section contains a very brief summary of great atrocities by Chechens, seemingly passing them off as unimportant, yet it contains in great detail Russian crimes, many of them repeated two or three times by various organizations in even more detail. That isn't balanced. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yes that's why I agreed that the terrorism section is too short. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A question

A source just cited by Lokii tells: "Tony Wood - a journalist and author who's written extensively about Chechnya - estimated in 2007 there were about 8,000 pro-Moscow security forces, down from about 60,000 Russian soldiers in the republic in 2005." This sounds really strange because regular Russian army and "pro-Moscow security forces" (those subordinated to Kadyrov, Yamadaev, etc.) are completely different things. How many regular Russian army forces stay in Chechnya right now? This cited source implicitly assume that zero. Is that right?Biophys (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is a copyright violation. Lokii copied and pasted the following text from the source: there were about 8,000 pro-Moscow security forces in the republic, down from about 60,000 Russian soldiers in 2005.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe they did withdraw quite an amount, but certainly not all. In contrary, in the surrounding regions military presence has increased. I don't have the sources right now, but I'm sure I've read it on the Jamestown Foundation. Maybe I'll retrieve it later. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should find how many Russian army forces still stay in Chechnya.Biophys (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See this article. Yamadayev's forces apparently belong to 42th divison of Russian army (291-го полка 42-й гвардейской мотострелковой дивизии [31]).Biophys (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here they estimated Vostok's strength at 5 thousand:

“ Батальон Восток напрямую подчинен федеральным силам. Специалисты считают создание подобного спецподразделения лучшим опытом в плане организации лояльных чеченских частей, которые при этом не подчинены Рамзану Кадырову. Батальон Восток состоит в основном из амнистированных чеченских боевиков. Командует спецназовцами бывший полевой командир, а ныне Герой России Сулим Ямадаев. Семья Ямадаевых – это один из влиятельнейших чеченских кланов, который не подчиняется клану Кадыровых. В первую чеченскую войну Ямадаевы воевали на стороне сепаратистов, но в 98-м ушли в оппозицию к Масхадову, а затем перешли на сторону федералов. Официально Восток входит в состав 42-й дивизии Миноброны России, но фактически находится в ведении Генеральноого штаба. Это создает определенный противовес полку специального назначении имени Ахмада Кадырова и чеченской милиции, которые подчиняются только Рамзану Кадырову. Военные считают батальон Восток одним из самых эффективных на территории Чечни. В нем воюют чеченцы, которые имеют большой боевой опыт, хорошо знают страну и людей. С батальоном Восток связан недавний громкий скандал. Прошлым летом бойцы Ямадаева провели спецоперацию в чеченской станице Бороздиновская, в результате которой несколько человек были убиты, еще 10 похищены. Тогда сельчане в знак протеста перешли чеченскую границу и обосновали в Дагестане палаточный лагерь. Они требовали вернуть односельчан и провести открытое расследование. Власти долгое время опровергали, что к зачистке был причастен Восток, пока сам Ямадаев не признал этот факт. По неподтвержденным данным житель Бороздиновской убил отца одного из бойцов Востока и те решили найти и отомстить обидчику.

По некоторым данным в батальоне Восток служат около 5 тысяч бойцов.

”

Alæxis_¿question? 05:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vostok is a GRU spetsnaz unit, composed of mostly former rebels. The past couple of days theyve been shooting it out with kadyrovtsy. I'm pretty sure 5,000 is an overestimation, most speak of about a thousand members[32] which is usual for the batallions in chechnya. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, "Vostok" (5 thousand fighters) belongs to Russian Army unlike Kadyrov's and many other forces. But my question was: how many Russian army personnel stay in Chechnya, in addition to these 5 thousand? 50 thousand? 100 thousand? I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's 46th brigade of MVD (7 thousand) and 42nd brigade of the Ministry of Defence (15 thousand). Furthermore there's Itum-Kala border guards unit numbering 3 thousand. Sources - http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=696515 and http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/caucas1/msg/2006/04/m54227.htm Alæxis_¿question? 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are more? But even these numbers do not fit the "8,000 pro-Moscow security forces in the republic" (and nothing about the Army) as was recently included.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some info on why there will be no troop withdrawl [33]

This added sentence: "The rebels maintain thousands of fighters are stationed in the mountains including adjacent regions."

Isn't that kind of redundant? It already says "Independent analysts say there are no more than 2,000 armed separatist combatants still fighting, while Russia says only a few hundred remain," right above. I also couldn't find anything in the article that said "thousands of fighters" which could mean anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 etc. LokiiT (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umarov said so in his video message which is sourced lower down. Most estimations don't include jamaats from outside Chechnya (and there haven't been many estimations). - PietervHuis (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That sentence should be properly attributed to him then. LokiiT (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, in the last paragraph. I added it to the paragraph you created because otherwise it gives only the point of view from one side. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between real estimates and "boasting" by warlords. It should only be mentioned once, and not displayed as a fact but a claim. LokiiT (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as federal claims that only hundreds remain. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those claims are attributed no? LokiiT (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more article about it. So there are no extra Army forces there and there were 24 thousand MVD troops more than a year ago. So now there must be between 7 and 24 thousand of them there. I'll try to find more information about it. Alæxis_¿question? 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also a lot of OMON officers present [34]