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 - 3/17/2005
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:
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing