I have long thought that the cause of Chechnyan independence has received short shrift in the West, not least because Putin has been able to play the"Terror" card. And, of course, the U.S. has its own bloody history of resisting secession and would even now surely find it more than a mite embarrassing to champion Chechnyan independence.
comments powered by Disqus
Jonathan Rick - 3/16/2005
1. Richard Pipes, “Give the Chechens a Land of Their Own,” New York Times, September 9, 2004:
Because Chechnya, unlike the Ukraine or Georgia, had never enjoyed the status of a nominally independent republic under the Communists, the Chechens were denied the right to secede from the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so they eventually resorted to terrorism for the limited objective of independence. . . .
Unfortunately, Russia’s leaders, and to some extent the populace, are loath to grant them independence -- in part because of a patrimonial mentality that inhibits them from surrendering any territory that was ever part of the Russian homeland, and in part because they fear that granting the Chechens sovereignty would lead to a greater unraveling of their federation. The Kremlin also does not want to lose face by capitulating to force. . . .
Russia, the largest country on earth, can surely afford to let go of a tiny colonial dependency, and ought to do so without delay.
2. Masha Gessen, “Chechnya,” Slate, September 4, 2004:
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook