11 killed in latest fighting in Chechnya

[bemildred]

VLADIKAVKAZ
Chechen rebels
ambushed a Russian military
convoy Wednesday, killing two
troops, while skirmishes
throughout the region claimed the
lives of another nine servicemen
and police, an official said.

Despite Kremlin insistence that
the war in Chechnya is over, the
lives of Russian troops and
Chechen policemen are lost in
daily clashes with rebels.

Russian artillery shelled the
Vedeno and Nozhai-Yurt districts,
as military positions were
attacked by separatists 19 times
in the past 24 hours, an official
in the Kremlin-backed Chechen
administration said on condition
of anonymity.

Three policemen loyal to the
Kremlin were killed in the
capital Grozny, and another was
abducted in Shali. Three Russian
troops were killed when their
vehicle was fired upon by a grenade launcher.

Russia daily Journal

[Aidoneus]

1. they've been active lately

the spring thaw tends to do that. A bit less than a week ago they also took down another helicopter and an armoured carrier in adddition to the frequent gun battles. Surely that's proof that the combat phase of the war is just about finished as is claimed.. Same problem with coverage of Iraq, I wish news outlets would be more descriptive in their headlines, covering all of the many incidents with the same headline gets difficult to keep track of.

Looking through the links I usually check I see there's one piece of good news. I'll have to look into this guy to see if he has a chance against Putin or whether he'll end up in a pine box like the last Liberal Russia party head for his crime of sanity. Thought about making a thread of its own later but I'll paste it here for now--

Liberal Russia's New Leader Supports Talks with Rebel Chechens

To separate the antagonistic parties of the Chechen conflict "is by now impossible without international involvement", Ivan Rybkin, the former secretary of the Russian Security Council, {and the newly elected leader of the Liberal Russia party} has told Ekho Moskvy radio in an interview. "Yes, {it may be resolved} probably with the participation of the international peacekeeping forces," he said. He has also said that "the Chechen problem can't be resolved by force".

"The absolute majority of Chechnya's population has been supporting armed resistance," Rybkin said. He is confident that considering this talks is the only way to resolve the conflict. "The armed resistance should sit around a table talking, not being dug out of the cellars. They {rebels} should be summoned and the problem should be resolved."

According to him holding the election to the Chechen parliament on same day as the Chechnya's presidential election will only "make these forces more active".
--more--
http://www.chechnya.nl/news.php?id=4637&lang=eng

[bemildred]

2. Much too sensible.

I hope he has good bodyguards.

I saw the chopper downing and the APC. There was a
"bring the boys home" OpEd today too (Russian Journal IIRC).

I don't think I will ever understand why pouring all this
money and armed force into the problem is better than just buying
the damn oil. As in VietNam and Israel and many others, if they
took all the money and labor that went into the conlfict and its
costs and did something useful with it, anything, they would all
have been better off.

[Aidoneus]

3. I don't think it's just oil

but rather the "game" of power. I think Russia meant to make an example of them so that everyone bordering them and the other big powers nod sagely in unison mumbling something about "I know who I'M not going to fuck with any time soon".. That, and it has been used (as such things often are by governments) as a way of manipulating the people, making sure they're angry and afraid of the Chechens (who have more or less replaced the Jew in typically anti-semetic sectors just as the generic Muslim has gripped the racist rage of a great deal of the US populace, for much the same reasons of state control), so they're easier to rule.

But otherwise, I agree.. though I do understand part of the "why", it all still appears strange to me. We'd all be better off maybe, but a whole dedicated class of state mythologists would have to go out and get real jobs..

[bemildred]

4. I have (somewhat cynically) reached the conclusion that

lawless places have their uses to the powers that be.

There is indeed a lot more than oil involved. The explanations
I've read specify oil and the strategic location. It is a
transhipment point for drugs, weapons, and most any other
contraband moving between Asia and Europe. And there is the
make-an-example argument, which fits the facts here, the Russians
didn't fuck around when they went back in a couple years ago.
But then they are worried about various neighbors of Chechnya
feeling independent too, and covetous of Georgia.

Of course, politically it is always useful to have a diabolical
external enemy when you don't have a clue about how to govern, its
the one-size-fits-all excuse. Unfortunately, sometimes they do turn
out to be diabolical, or under the stimulus of repression they
get diabolical. Blowback, I think they call it. Most of these
pernicious, vicious little conflicts turn out to be blowback when
you look closer.

My point is just that if you ignore all the blowhard rhetoric
(Greater Serbia, The Russian Empire, Greater Israel, it's always
the same ignorant cant) it is a lot cheaper and more effective to
cooperate than to blow shit up fighting over who gets to be the
boss of it.