Putin aide warns of Russian collapse

MOSCOW - Infighting among top Russian political leaders, rattled by popular uprisings in three ex-Soviet republics, may cause a rift that puts Russia at risk of breaking up, President Vladimir Putin's chief of staff warned in an interview published Monday.

Analysts said the rare public comments by Dmitry Medvedev, a powerful member of Putin's inner circle, appeared to be an attempt to bolster the authority of Putin's administration.

In the interview published in the magazine Expert, Medvedev said infighting among politicians may cause Russia to collapse, leading to "horrible consequences" and making the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union seem like a "kindergarten party."

"If we do not manage to consolidate elites, Russia may disappear as a unified state," Medvedev was quoted as saying. "And then everybody will be in trouble, including our immediate and distant neighbors."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/3117874

Fuck Vladimir Putin and his KGB trained goon squad.

Brest to Kamchatka, all with populations that have merged with each other, competing claims to territory, and one or two ethnicities overlaid on the entire mess?

It's predictable that if the Chechens get their independence, the first order of business will be ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens.

I'm sorry if you don't agree. If the United States deserved the right to Independence than surely the Chechens do. A thousand microstates is better than Imperial expansion.

But having extreme levels of fragmentation and hundreds of failed microstates is a mistake. Once they've decided to determine their own fate, people usually decide they're competent to determine somebody else's fate. When I form an opinion based on a disregard of likely implications, I like to remind myself of my blinkers; in this case, I'm trying to temper my advocacy of self-determination with full awareness of the likely implications.

Most people believe fragmentary information, their own inferences, or have a very short term view of things. If Chechen was independent, that would immediately result, some think, in a wonderful multicultural free society. I think it would result in a mild civil war or a totalitarian state, with massive ethnic cleansing. Even if my opinion is completely pointless, I can't be in favor of immediate independence for Chechnya and, if those things happen, say, "Oh, gee! How horrible. Glad *I* didn't make that decision."

For that reason, I'm in favor of very slow change. Chechens want independence? Fine: give them relative autonomy and see what they do with it.

Do you understand the origins of Russian dominance in the Caucus region? Do you understand the reasons why the nations of the Caucus region were prevented from leaving "Russia" after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

I would think not. =)

Oh and I guess you are in favor of forcing the annexation of Luxembourg to Belgium since it is 1/3rd of the size of Chechnya. Autonomy is useless in Putin's Russia. It is a centralized state becoming more and more so every day.

As for ethnic cleansing of Russians in Chechnya... All I can say is that is the fault of the Imperial Russian and Soviet policies of Russification and not the fault of the Chechens. If the Russians don't want to die they should probably move back to Russia proper aye? The Chechens see them as unwanted colonists. IMO they shouldn't be there to begin with. The inevitability of ethnic cleansing is a silly argument anyway. The same problems existed in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia... I guess I must have missed the ethnic cleansing there... =)

Read up a little on the situation of the Russian population in Latvia, it might open your eyes a bit.

Perhaps you would also like to refresh your memory of the ethnic cleansing that followed the NATO-sponsored secession of Kosovo, and the ongoing crisis in Macedonia. Maybe you should also revisit the history of mid-90s Rwanda and ask some of the survivors what they thought about the idea of ethnically-driven regional self-determination.

If the Russians don't want to die they should probably move back to Russia proper aye?

Damn straight. Foreigners Go Home - the slogan of progressive parties the world over.

The Chechens see them as unwanted colonists.

Cite some polls. I think what the Chechens want is a little bit of order so that they can start rebuilding the damn place and go about living their lives without medieval clan warfare, wahhabism, kidnappings and the odd car-bombing.

Supporting ethnic cleansing and forced population relocation while calling yourself a progressive? I guess I've seen stranger things - there was, after all, the "Sozialistische" component in "NSDAP."

1/2 of it is Russians being upset about not having their former privileged place in Baltic society. The other half is truly aggressive action by the part of the Latvian/Lithuanian/Estonian people. They were ruled by Moscow for a long time during which they were subject to the unofficial continuation of the russification programs. If I was a Latvian I'd be chasing the Russians back to Russia too.

Maybe you should go ask the people of East Timor and other oppressed people who are finding a much better life after Independence.

Supporting ethnic cleansing? I don't fucking think so man. I'm merely understand how the people under the force of russification feel. It must feel very similar to being a Native of America.

... I'd be chasing the Russians back to Russia too.

At least you're honest about your stance on ethnic cleansing. I guess if you were a Chechen, you'd be strapping explosives around your waist and killing kids at rock festivals, eh?

As far as the Russians' situation in Latvia goes, I think quite a few of them are upset that after having lived in the damn country for two generations, contributing to society and the economy as much as their native Latvian peers (after they came back from their patriotic SS duty), they were treated as non-citizens. The privilege they lost was the one of citizenship.

between making the invading forces actually leave and the connotation that comes with the term ethnic cleansing. Sorry there are still first generation colonists living in the the former soviet republics. None of these people should be allowed to stay. I'll give you that anyone born native should been considered Latvian or Estonian and not Russian. IMO the act of colonialism is a horrible crime against humanity.

What's your view on Koenigsberg? Danzig?

And all the moral and historical arguments become moot. The point when the "drive them into the sea" / "repulse the invasion" becomes silly. Of course it is a gradient between the two sides and not black and white... European existence in the new world is the most obvious example of this.

I feel that Kaliningrad is probably past that at least partially. In the short run the majority in Kaliningrad are ethnic Russians wanting to be Russian. You would agree? So in the short run the colonial effort was successful. It will clearly never be able to be say integrated into Germany/Poland. It is something new for all time now. So I guess when it became 50%+ of the population the colonialism was successful. In the long run however I think Kaliningrad will be part of the EU or EU Successor. Whether it joins before Moscow or if they join at the same time though is a question. =)

As for Gdansk that is probably even a more complicated one. Maybe the idea of a free city wasn't such a bad one. I think that is the best way to handle Jerusalem for example. I can't really comment though as my critical understanding of Gdansk pretty much ends with WWII and the polish 'invasion.' And I'm a pierogi, klopsy, golobki, kielbasa eating Pole so my opinion on Gdansk might be biased anyhow.

Either way it surely shows that the Invasion/Colonialism combination has left a REALLY fucked up history in Europe.

I've never really given much thought to either before this though. Since you referred to them with German names I'd be interested in your take. =)

Then you would have certainly approved of the secession of the "Confederate States of America" in 1861, as a movement for "Self Determination" by the southern states of the United State who seceded to maintain the so-called "peculiar institution" of bond slavery. Sharkey :o

And we should have still gone to war and then executed every slave holder and turned over their lands to the slaves. =)

Is that Russia should allow Chechnya to secede, then invade the newly independent state, execute the fundamentalist leaders and gradually turn over political control of the republic to moderate local leaders?

Straight out of Putin's playbook, circa '99.

There are no slaves in Chechnya only people looking for freedom. Further Putin is a fundamentalist himself just a different kind. He is an authoritarian who focuses on control and oppression.

Further the american south voluntarily joined the Union to begin with. Chechnya was invaded by Nicholas I.

out of the box.

OK, I'm curious - trying to learn something here. Let's stick to the US, and social policies involving redistribution of wealth, environmental policies, and defense.

Doesn't have a confederation (at the very least) of LOTS of people spread the burden somewhat? It's a pool after all, the more the better? And in regard to environmental policy, assuming we ever have a president who believes there is such a thing as an environment, wouldn't speaking with one voice provide a stronger benefit to the planet?

If we split up, for example, and Minnesota started polluting horribly, would Illinois then go beat the shit out of it? Or what?

***

As far as the Caucasian problem: not only are there Muslims there, there is oil too. This makes the region extremely desirable, the Russians aren't going to let go easily if ever. Why CAN'T the people there assimilate to the extent of being Russian citizens - not to give up their religion, of course, or their sense of heritage?

What do you guys think?

I'm no where in this thread arguing that micro-states are a good thing. I'm just saying that if a nation wants to sacrifice that benefit for whatever reason they should probably have the right to do so. I just believe that most major separatist causes have real merit at their core. Look at the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. Both for good reason. Look at East Timor. Look at the former soviet states. Look at the collapse of official colonialism from the US to Zimbabwe. The problem arises when one group in a multi-nation state seizes undemocratic control.

If we split up, for example, and Minnesota started polluting horribly, would Illinois then go beat the shit out of it? Or what?


I am much less worried about the chance of the US heading towards a split today than I was just a few weeks ago. And should a 50/50 split happen it wouldn't even be that big of a deal in reality. Except for making one half of the country rich and educated and the other poor and ignorant. =) We would still be very close allies when looking globally. Regional and Planet-wide cooperation tempers differences between democratic nations. A group of people leaving doesn't do any harm. The harm comes when the overlord uses military force to prevent them from doing so.

As far as the Caucasian problem: not only are there Muslims there, there is oil too. This makes the region extremely desirable, the Russians aren't going to let go easily if ever.

You know I thought about that. Two things came to my mind. First that there is a problem with that argument. They let the Azeris leave right? And there is MUUUUUCH more oil/gas controlled by Baku than controlled by the Chechens. Why would Azerbaijan be allowed to leave but not Chechnya if it was really about oil? I do think you have a point that it is part of the greater picture though.

Why CAN'T the people there assimilate to the extent of being Russian citizens - not to give up their religion, of course, or their sense of heritage?

Because Russia isn't the United States. It is as much an ethnic state as the Chechen state would become. It just controls other peoples as if they were subjects. Even under the Soviet Union when it was SUPPOSED to be an international federated republic it was still for the most part an ethnically Russian government though we are just as guilty of this in the US. If you look at the politburo makeups you'll find that Russians were always over represented. That argument would be more effective in preventing Ukraine or Belarus from bolting from Moscow control than the Chechens.

IMO

suffer and ethnic and religious differences could well flare into violence, with deadly consequences. This would most certainly affect Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, East Asia, and of course, the Western Hemisphere. Which means US.

We are all too tightly interconnected to hope for chaos in Russia.

This is devoutly NOT to be hoped for.

One has only to read something of the history of Russia to understand why a breakdown in Russia is deeply to be feared. The diversity of that enormous nation is both its strength and a potentially deadly weakness. Ethnic and religious prejudices run deep in Russia and its satellite nations. Unified within one nation they can be controlled. Otherwise, horrendous violence could well be unleashed.

It doesn't help that advanced and deadly weapons would then fall into play.

There are better ways to secure the self-determination of a few, than by the complete destruction of Russia.

One has only to read something of the history of Russia to understand why a breakdown in Russia is deeply to be feared. The diversity of that enormous nation is both its strength and a potentially deadly weakness. Ethnic and religious prejudices run deep in Russia and its satellite nations. Unified within one nation they can be controlled. Otherwise, horrendous violence could well be unleashed.

Are you referring to Lenin's coup? Cause nothing in Russia's history shows me that losing an oblast or two will really bother them much. If it wasn't for the fact that they want to use the caucus mountains as a natural defendable boarder and use the north Caucasian peoples as a living sheild (much like Eastern Europe was their buffer in the soviet era from western europe (they learned from Tutonic Knights/Napolean/Hitler =) they wouldn't give a fuck about letting the people of Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, etc have their Independence. I might be missing something though why do you fear for the breakup of the Russian federation more than say the breakup of the soviet union? It would be very much the same. Moscow would withdraw further but it wouldn't be NEARLY as big of a deal as the breakup of the USSR was. And if Ukraine gave up their nukes to Russia I see no reason how Chechnya or any of the Caucasian republics could end up with nukes. I can promise you there are no nukes stored in any volatile boarder region. =)

war between groups of people, Muslims and Christians for example.

That's real possibility.

The Muslims have been slaughtered enmass for years. I think freedom for the Chechens could only ease the problems for it sure can't make things any worse in Grozny.

problems like infrastructure, communications, travel, the distribution of resources - all the stuff that big nations do.

Of course, the Russians haven't been doing it too WELL.

Many libertarians believe in small local government. My POV is, large gov'ts, even if they are loosely knit, enable efficiency in the matters I mentioned above, while helping smooth out differences between people and (ideally) protect minority rights.

On the other hand, if they are hopelessly messed up, is it worth it? Apparently some people in Russia are saying no, it's failing.

Interesting situation to say the least.

There is no infrastructure in Chechnya. Putin has leveled the entire nation.

Hit the Sterling stacks - search terms: Yeltsin, Chechnya, Grachev, Grozny New Year's Eve.

Unless it isn't Grozny in your picture, but it's kinda hard to tell without a link.

time I checked, it was an enormous nation, spanning two continents, which consisted of more than one city and more than one region.

The lives of MILLIONS are at stake here, not simply those involved in regional conflicts, however brutal those may be.

Please - I understand what you are saying about this conflict. But that does not necessarily mean that the entire nation of Russia should come down.

Let me make an analogy, which obviously isn't entirely apt, about our civil war. That was horrendous. Destruction and death were widespread.

Should the nation have been destroyed because of the destruction of Atlanta?

impose their empire on minority groups. Any breakup of the Russian Federation will still have a Russian Moscow at its core. It will just allow for freedom for oppressed minority groups.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The calls for the dismantling of Russia show a complete lack of understanding of the enormity of the disaster such an event would provoke.

to handle it intelligently? Wasn't the Soviet Union her focus?

OK, don't throw tomatoes, she's what we've got:)

And as other posters have mentioned we have had such opportunities and have blown them so far, since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I would really hate to see us blow this, insofar as we have any control whatsoever.

Not the second that started as Putin came to power based on a terrorist attack that more than likely was caused by Putin himself to use as an excuse to finish the war that Yeltsin made him stop in 95.

Putin was still working for Sobchak in St. Petersburg when the first war was waged. He had nothing to do with it.

If we are to place blame where it belongs, Yeltsin, a pawn of US imperialism, is responsible for the mess in Chechnya. And that includes the destruction of Grozny, which happened during the first war of '94-96.

say Paul Wolfowitz is to the US military?

That Beria's execution was more important to today's Russia than perestroika, glasnost, etc? That the collapse of the soviet union allowed the MVD-KGB group to shed the soviet bureaucracy and ideology. And that Putin has been an important part of this game?

Care to elaborate? Take a look at Tatarstan; not much slaughter going on there, last I checked.

Russian Jets dropping FAEs on Grozny without warning? yes Slaughtered enmass.

..to blown apartment buildings in Moscow and the bombing of trains.
Russia wouldn't do anything if they didn't try to secede. Just accept themselves as Muslim Russians..whats in the harm in that ?

One 'in' too many in the last sentence.

The harm in that is that first Russia is not a liberal democracy that allows for equality for all people. In Russia a Chechen isn't equal to a Russian. Ever been to Moscow? Go see how Caucasian people are treated there. They are second class citizens who are only allowed when their labor is needed. When there is high unemployment for example they round up the Caucasians and kick them out of the city.

As for the apartment building bombings I assume you are referring to the blasts that started the second Chechen war. I suggest you should look closely at them. I'd give it even odds that Putin was behind the blasts not Chechen rebels.

If George Washington can fight for his freedom and the Independence of our colonies than why cant the Chechens and Dagestanis do the same?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Considering that the majority of Grozny's population was Russian, it was a cruel and clever trick on the part of the secessionists to stage some of the most savage urban combat since WWII there. Chechens and Russians that'd lived there for generations got slaughtered.

It was a huge fuck up on the Russian military's part, not some kind of ethnic cleansing operation.

Are you taking into account the nature of soviet politics where it could often be important what your 'passport' listed for ethnicity? When does the Russian population of Grozny become larger than Caucasian population?

Total aside here. This is one of the most intelligent threads that I've followed here in a while. I have actually been considering getting rid of my account because so few threads of late have seemed to be policy arguments (the reason why I signed up), rather than mean-spirited rants without any substance from which to learn something. Thanks yall.

I think you have your facts backwards. In most cases, its Muslims who do the slaughtering (this is a fact, and there is no dispute) For some reason they are incapable of living in a secular world..to (a lot of) them, its only about relegion and about the right to continue to live in the Dark Ages.

Why is that wherever there is a muslim concentration in any part of the world..they wan't to break away and form their own independent country ? eg India (Kashmir), China (Uighurs), Russia (Chechnya), Israel (Palestine)... Turkey seems to be the only moderate one.

Why can't they assimilate with other cultures/relegions within the same border ? I won't be surprised if after 20 or 30 years Michigan wants to break away.

It is secular-extremist in nature. Though it is becoming better as it tries to integrate itself into the EU.

Why should the Chechens be forced to assimilate into Moscow's culture? They have lived in the region since LONG before settling what became Moscow was even a hint in some Viking's eye.

Why should the Uighur be forced into Chinese society? Are the Buddhists of Tibet just as problematic for wanting their freedom back?

As for the Palestinians THEY ARE THE MAJORITY IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE. So if anyone should be assimilating it should be the Jews not the Arabs. Though I support two states because the Jewish people are a distinct nation who deserves to be able to hold onto their values and culture.

As for Kashmir I'll have to claim ignorance as I've done little study on the Indian sub continent. But IIRC Kashmir isn't so much a separatist effort as it is an effort of Pakistan to gain control of Kashmir.

I was unaware there were so many Imperialists on this board. It is an American board though so I should have expected it. =)

The demagogues of 1990's Yugoslavia made the communist strongman Tito look good. I agree with you that the Chechen war has been brutal with grave atrocities and Chechen separatism could have been handled far differently. However, wishing the Pandora's Box of Balkanisation on Russia is short sighted at absolute best.

that will show up on the fundamentalist eBay.

were in charge of the U.S. government, many of them used to be concerned about the stability of that part of the world because of the 20,000 potentially loose nukes.

Now that we have a UN ambassador with a hand grenade as a desk ornament, no one worries much about stability anymore. In fact, the entire plan seems to be to create chaos out of which a neocon-led dictatorship will emerge.

That certainly does seem to be their modus operandi. They're hoping to create chaos all over the world. How else can one explain the Abu Ghraib prison scandal? They did it to inflame the muslim world.

They're hoping to torch the world, set it ablaze and pick up the pieces when the dust settles. They assume they will still be on top as they look around at the smoldering ashes of the rest of the world.

Little do they know they might bring themselves down along with the rest of it.

If a break up actually happens, it will inevitably be followed by one or more civil strifes. Various "new" countries will be competing for resources.

During this time, IMO, China will see a ripe opportunity to bring some of these fractured republics into their sphere of influence.

As America continues to lie to itself, as it being the only world power, China is on the rise and I fully expect them to start flexing their muscles. Whether it's expanding into a fractured Russia, taking over Taiwan or making financial moves globally, it will happen.

China isn't a sleeping giant, it's a growing giant. Big in size but poor in development, but that is rapidly changing.

If present day Russia fails, look for a robber baron China to pick up the slack and grow.

It's tough enough for us to keep track of them as it is.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

states.