Talk:Second Chechen War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Chechen War article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Second Chechen War is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Contents 1 If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply 2 Who's the leader on the pro-independence Chechen side ? 3 Regarding "independent" and "resistance" 4 A determination for Putin's campaign ? 5 Basayev's militants independent ! 6 Independent analyses and reports 7 section How the existent war turned publicly non-existent 8 Edited 9 Ummm........... 10 Yet another possible copyright violation 11 BBC viewpoints 12 Non copyvio rewrite 13 Removed copyvio material 14 Influence on Russian politics 15 this article is actually really crap 16 Yeltsin never lost the 2000 election 17 Excellent Improvement Wikepedians 18 Relationship to 'List of terrorist incidents' 19 English 20 The NPOV of this Article is Bullshit 21 Re: Accuracy of this article 22 Chechen Propaganda? 23 Neutrality 24 Mass Graves 25 WWII relocation 26 Chechen invasion of Dagestan 27 Jaamat Sharia 28 Casualties: 29 Kavkhaz Center 30 Unified Timeline 31 Need a template 32 Okay 33 Battles box 34 Infobox 35 The Chechen War is still ongoing

[edit] If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply

If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply to Moscow appartment house bombings, please visit the page September_11,_2001_attacks and try to change the word 'terrorism' to something you feel more "approptiate" or "neutral" there first. --Gene s 05:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously it was terrorism but the question of who was responsible has not been adequately addressed. It seemed very convenient for Putin to happen coming up to a presidential election. mango2005

Wow.. you're an idiot.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

If anything, the Moscow bombing decreased Putin's popularity, and he didn't even have the ambulances on hand. Mango - you win the 2006 Wikipedia Idiocy Award! Reading wikipedia is very entertaining!

User ABC

[edit] Who's the leader on the pro-independence Chechen side ?

Provide evidence if he's Basayev.

Of course there is no such evidence because the current president is Alu Alkhanov. Do you need evidence for that?

No. Alu doesn't lead the resistance, because he's the next Kremlin pick-up for a puppet administrator. The elections were heavily criticised for example by the US dept. of state.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But just provide evidence if he leads the resistance instead of the pro-Moscow regime.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, see Yahoo Chechen list from 1999-2004 to get evidence of Mashadov's leadership.--BIR 13:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop refering to your useless list. The "list" is not a source of reliable data.

On the contrary, it is as reliable as the sources it quotes. Please, go there and read.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We had been over this many times before. The "list" is not a reliable source of information. Please stop using opinions as facts. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any web site where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any fighting in Chechnya since, say 2002? --Gene s 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may try the Chechenpress.com or .info. He's definitely on the lead as the commander-in-chief of the ChRI resistance army. You already know that. For a long time, it has been a russian trick to deny his status in media purposely, and now you try the same...--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a page where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any military action in Chechnya since 2002. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/ichkeria/dokumenty/prezident/index.shtml --BIR 15:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/news/2004/09/16/18.shtml --BIR 15:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You posted a link where Maskhadov condones the terrorist act in Beslan and otherwise defends the terrorists. What do you want to do with this link?

Actually, after consideration I won't object if you link Maskhadov with terrorists. He is a terrorist after all, you proved it. Good job. --Gene s 04:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was asking for a real independent link. Do you want a counter link form Russian media? Try again. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If youn insist on calling the resistance, I'll have to insist on calling them terrorists. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are NO pro-independent forces in Chechnya, never were, there were bandits, who kill children of their own nationality, I would not call this pro-independent, I would call this criminals.

[edit] Regarding "independent" and "resistance"

• Resistance to what? The word "forces" is neutral.

I am not sure if I'll repent, but, this time ok.

• Provide evidence that the islamic groups are independent.

In one of the latest international interviews of Reuters, BBC, or AFP etc. might be also a Russian one (don't remember which one anymore, but definitely one of them) that was also published some time ago on the LIST when asked about Basayev's position in the ChRI administration Mashadov stated something like "Basayev has chosen to act separately from us".--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you don't have a valid link. No link - no discussion. The "list" is not a mainstream media. Your personal opinion cannot be treated as fact. Even if an interview with Maskhadov was publshed by BBC, I am sure BBC also published Putin when he said that both Maskhadov and Basayev are terrorists. Don't mix propaganda with valid sources of information. --Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In an aftermach of the Dubrovka act of terror, also Basayev was interviewed by the mass media many times. He admitted his partisipation and resigned from the ChRI administration, and told details like that the Dubrovka wasn't the planned target but the Duma deputants were. The operation, reportedly, turned off-tracked by one Terbikayev, a FSB counter-agent of Chechen origin, and resulted an anti-ChRI inhuman carnage which only strengtened Putin's political position leading finally to the topical attempt of cancellation of democracy.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I remember Putin said Maskhadov is in the same group of terrorists as Basayev. Why should separatist propaganda be treated differenntly than federalist propaganda?

You seem to be condoning terrorism. Do you belive killing Duma deputies would not have been a terrorist act? Do you believe that "off-tracking" of the killing of deputies by FSB makes it OK to kill other people?

--Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Gene s 14:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killing a deputy is a politically motivated assination. Ericd 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should also consider that terrorism includes state-terror against civilians. mango2005

Here's the definition of Terror that is accepted by most Western Historians, (and prolly Russian Historians too). A terrorist is one who kills unarmed people with the purpose of inflicting fear into the society at large. The Russian State killing armed rebels is called unconventional warfare, not terrorism. The case of Dubrovka was an act of terror, because unarmed people were killed with the purpose of inflicting fear unto the Russian population. If one fires a gun at a criminal, misses and hits a baby, it's called murder, not self-defense.

User ABC

[edit] A determination for Putin's campaign ?

I would like to remind you again that this is not a political forum. This is an encyclopedia. Any discussion not related to the content of the current article (Second Chechen War) is off topic.

• Would you say that the war still underway is either a simple war or an antiterrorist operation ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say the last paragraph of the article is quite clear on it.

• Given that the ChRI MFA site tells that about 24 000 Chechen children have already died due to the war, do you consider that as an overestimation, or true?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the "MFA" is a propaganda outlet. Any data from there is a suspect.

• In this regard, how would you determinate Putin's personal style of conduct on the scale of A short-sighted plain terrorist ending in a forever ingenious statesman ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would determine that Putin's personal conduct is off-topic unless you justify inclusion of it here. There is an article Vladimir Putin. You may want to read it.

• For your eyes only, as the British say - even if you wasn't a James Bond;=)
• The Dagestan ProvocationJust looks like a Finnish site, near your home, I think.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record - this was yet another nationalistic remark from you.

Just for somebody's record, I didn't regard you a Brit nor a Finn, if you red carefully. In plain English, you is often a passive form, and near your home doesn't mean that you are a Finn.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the article, the author is pedding his/her agenda. It's apparent even from the title. No self-respecting journalist would open an article as The series of events known as the Dagestan provocation. Known by whom? Known where? The conclusion opens the investigation. Really impartial, right?

Actually, the title is The Eurasian Politician - October 2003, The Background of Chechen Independence Movement V:,The Dagestan Provocation. Don't be afraid to read, for then the facts may be known by you, too.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to think. Who is this "Eurasian Politician"? Why is this propaganda web site any better than any other propaganda web site? Are you saying the title "Dagestan provocation" is unbiased and impartial?

The article seems to belong to [http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/main.htm

the Eurasian Politician] collections, and for one I regard it highly.

And we already established that your opinion makes no difference. It does not matter if you regard them highly or completely disregard them. Who are they? It looks to me that are some university students.

What impartial investigations ? By whom, given the recent political developments, right?--BIR 08:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you agree that these people are biased? Then if you believe they are biased, why are you posting links to them? --Gene s 08:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the recent political developments, read the given sources to get informed, please.

You avoded the issue of bias again. If I write someting and post it to the web, does it become a source of information worthy of inclusion here? Why should I read ramblings of some students? Are they good students getting straight A's or something?

The paragraph above is just your personal opinion, that grants nothing either.

Well, I explained why I believe so. You posted no rebuttal, making it clear that you agree with my assessment of bias.

So, you agreed that Putin's methods in the regards of Chechnya resemble more the ones of terror than acts of an statesman ? Right.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to the statement where I said so. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gradually, your techniques of dispute (endless feedbacks etc.) have started to repeat themselves,

You are the master of evasive discussion. You never answer my questions. Whenever you find it difficult to answer or to find evidence, you just start a new section. I suggest you look at your own act. Remember, it was you who barged in and started rewriting articles with loaded language and false information.

so, please, present new ones to keep me awaken.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you miss the point again. I don't care if you sleep or not. Let me remind you. You have an agenda of adding loaded language and kooked-up opinions to Chechnya-related articles. I was prety much satisfied with the way they were written until you appeared. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to educate your English, not k but c like cooked-up.

Dear English teacher, please spend a few seconds of your valuable time and look up the word "kook" in a dictionary before you make a fool of yourself again. For example here.

You don't give up easily. Don't you ? I like it. Although I am no teacher, but just in case, I can't help but help if necessary. I think the online dictionary you suggested doesn't know literally a combined expression "kooked up" you used in the fist place. In addition, there are a valid commonly-known expression "to cook up" and its derivation "cooked up". --BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition, my dictionary and the other online ones I searched gave none or following results about a "kook": Keepers Of Odd Knowledge; Kook, Abraham Isaac, Jewish mystic, fervent Zionist...; Albert J. Kook, Early Chinese Bronzes (1970); and of course the one you linked; someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, a word "kook" really is an American slang expression, but further "kooked" or even "kooked up" do not exist in dictionaries. Instead, such expressions as a "cook-up", "to cook up", or "cooked-up" are proper standard English. Given the context where you kindly used "kooked up" you seemingly ment "cooked up". Otherwise it either doesn't make sense or it is'nt English.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then decently, back to the issue, i.e. your views on Putin's reported methods, please.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chechnya article was nothing but accurate or even encyclopedic.

Ok. I correct. The Chechnya article was anything but accurate or even encyclopedic.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have agree with that. Maybe your statement is even a bit too flattering.

Thanks. Let's agree on that you had to agree with that--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is quite narrow by its content, and I doubt that anyone seriously in this field can exploit it fully. Just lazy additional journalists may try it for some hinterland papers expecially if there are professionally written articles avaiable on the internet, including the LIST sources and footnotes, of course.

I just found it full of embedded elements of pro-Moscow propaganda I red all too often done by the tecniques I saw all too often.

Oh, I see. You really meant something else in the first phrase. You should really get someone to help you with English. Anyway, if you felt that way, why did you refuse to argue the article points, but concentrated on adding loaded language? If you believe it's full of pro-Moscow propaganda, why did not you remove it? Instead you were only adding pro-separatist propaganda. Do you think an article full of pro-separatist propaganda is better that an article full of pro-Moscow propaganda?

Factually, I considered it as tool to lead the lazy journalists up to the guarden path. In short; the ChRI and her leadership's role were ignored; for example, just Basayev was shown to lead some islamist insurgents and that's all the resistance, Kadyro's puppet regime was regarded as the ChRI one etc.--BIR 10:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links, links, links. No links, no discussion. And no, the "list" is not a source. --10:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Basayev's militants independent !

The globalsecurity link you provided did confirm crearly that Basayev's groups operated independently from the Chechen governement. Therefore, I agree that the word independent must be added contextually there in the text body.--BIR 10:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They are saying so. Without providing a source for this information, but I guess it's no big deal. But you, as already happened many times before, don't recognize a difference between years. The last paragraph is about post-2002, the SF is about 1999. Why is it so difficult for you to see a 3+ year difference? Why do you keep adding external links to the article body? --Gene s 10:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Independent analyses and reports

• the beginning of the crisis

- *[ http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30389.pdf "De Facto independence", "Chechen resistance" etc.]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechnatism.htm Chechen Nationalism and the Tragedy of the Struggle for Independence]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechtale.htm A Tale of Two Theaters: Russian Actions in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999; "The 1999 intervention was executed according to a well-conceived plan. According to the former Minister of Internal Affairs and Yeltsin loyalist Sergei Stepashin, the plan was prepared for execution in March 1999 but was delayed."]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/secchech/secchech.htm The Second Chechen War: The Information Component]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/mvd/post_cccp.htm FAS: Post-Soviet Developments]

-*[ http://phrusa.org/research/chechnya/chech_rep.html Physicians for Human Rights: Endless Brutality, Ongoing Human Rights Violations in Chechnya]

• In the heat of the crisis

_ *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?download=1&doc_id=6093 IHF Report: The Silencing of Human Rights Defenders in Chechnya and Ingushetia]

- *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=6087 Russian Federation: Joint NGO Statement on the Beslan Hostage Tragedy]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/riyadus.htm FAS: Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM)]

-* [ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/iipb.htm FAS: Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)]

• Signs of 'Realpolitik' on Chechnya developments

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/09/uk9329.htm HRW: ä U.K.: Postponing Rights Report Sends ‘Wrong Message’]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/08/russia8415.htm HRW: Russia: Conditions in Chechnya and Ingushetia Deteriorate]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/russia7248.htm HRW: Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights]

-*[ http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/cau_200409_253_1_eng.txt IPWR: Life After Beslan]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000002-000016&lang=1 Prague Wacthdog: Is Beslan the result of Russian policies in the Caucasus?]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000001-000120&lang=1 Prague Watchdog: Four Putinist years in Chechnya]

-*[ http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=caucasus Yahoo Chechnya page]

you mean "independent"

[edit] section How the existent war turned publicly non-existent

The section is currently not much more than a collection of external links. Thus, it violates the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Please rewrite the section in a meaningful way, so it actually represents a digest of linked articles instead of being a list of external links. Otherwise, the section should be removed because it does nto add much to the content of the article. --Gene s 10:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section continues to be completely unclear. What is it supposed to represent? What is the purpose of this section. It seems to be some random text copied from somewhere and pasted here without a context.

Nop. Believe or not, it's my own product based on the given international independent and unbiased sources.--BIR 13:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information warfare has been the kernel of war on the Russian side while the onfield operations turned into a stalemate resulting wide-scale abuses on the Chechen civilians.--BIR 13:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section Prospects of warfare in the cricis [sic!] should be rewritten to remove all loaded language and dubious claims (like "usually reliable Chechen resistance news agency". "usually reliable"? By what standards? Who is the judge?) and should be actally incorporated with the rest of the article. Grammar and spelling need improvements as well. --Gene s 13:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could't provide evidence for your point. Give a valid reputable international and impartial URL to justify your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance and its news agency. Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part, and another aiming to make it independent. To be encyclopedic you must take both views into account.--BIR 13:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try one last time, although I am pretty sure it's futile.

"You could't provide evidence for your point" - which exactly point is that? Let's see. I said (a) the loaded language should be removed; (b) claims like "usually reliable" are dubious; (c) the section should be incorporated with the rest of the article; (d) your grammar and spelling need improvement. Now you are saying I need to prove some of these points. Please be specific. What kind of proof do you need?

"your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance". Please give me a link to my edits in the article space that illustrate my "extreme pro-Kremlin opinion". Please be specific. Provide a link to the diff which you see as "extreme pro-Kremlin".

"Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part". You actually try to remember that the "ratling parties" (whatever that means) do not have such disagreement. You may have an agenda to keep/not keep Chechnya in Russia. I only want to edit this article for clarity and NPOV. My disagreement is over the content of this article, not political issues. I don't like the fact that you pollute the articles with loaded language, dubious claims, huge number of external links, and odd writing.

--Gene s 09:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A ratling party is a standard expression in the Queen's English. I based my writings on the impartial international sources which contribution I quite didn't perfect yet. For one, you've skilfully curbed the facts that may harm one ratling party of the conflict by way of Wiki rules contradicting its original purposes beginning from the nature of the Dubrovka gas lately ending in labouring the copy rights procedures against the Wiki-publishing of the origins of the war, and not to speak about "separatism" which was enough to make another ratling party's official internet site unmerited. Until proven otherwise I regard your ways of editing biased and dubious. The fact that some 250-300 000 people (not such "insurgents" but civilians en masse) have got killed already on the spot doesn't quite indicate your do-not-have-such-disagreement claims.--BIR 15:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edited

I felt the need to edit a little bit because whoever recently edited this has some spelling problems. I'm not really an expert on the war so I didn't add any info but maybe one of you people could do it. Well......Bye!-Flyingcheese 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yeah,do any of you know the proper way to spell Chechnya? Or is it Checna? Or Chechnia? I don't know could somebody tell me, PLEASE? Thanks!!!-Flyingcheese 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, use google test:

• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnya 2,290,000
• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnia 30,600
• http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechna 1,100

"Chechnya" wins --Gene s 05:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.-Flyingcheese 10:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm...........

Hey BIR you should take spelling lessons if you can't spell view (which you spelt as viw) and nope (which you spelt as nop). Yeeaahh, well anyway just wanted to tell you that.-Flyingcheese 10:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I need new spectacles because I seemingly hit wrong keys, too--BIR 11:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was sarcasm you know,right?-Flyingcheese 11:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=)--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah,what are spectacles?-Flyingcheese 11:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Eyeglasses--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also that's missing keys altogether not just hitting different ones.-Flyingcheese 11:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) True--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good glad that's over.-Flyingcheese 12:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And here's another face: >_<-Flyingcheese 13:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another possible copyright violation

BIR: Did you obtain a permission to copy contents of www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm ? Please provide evidence of obtaining such permission. --Gene s 12:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gene S: I don't quite think I "copied" this one of the sources up to the extent that it shoud be highlighted with the regards of copy rights at all. Rather, the items were taken from the variety of sources.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your version:

In July 1999 the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The original:

In July 1999, the storm clouds started to gather, as the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The work is clearly derived. Thus it is a copyright violation. By polluting wiki with copyrighted text your are breaking the law. Stop doing it. If you do it one more time I will report you for repeated copyright violation. This is the third of fourth time when you knowingly pollute wiki with copyrighted texts. --Gene s 13:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. As everyone can see (in the original context) this fact proves that Russia first conducted an act of war, thus Basayev and others acted on their own but after 3 months of this mentioned act. Seemingly, this truth just makes you to worry here, not such as copy rights which you just laboured against the free delivery of Wiki info. Nor the quote of mine violates copy rights as everyone can see by oneself. The thuth is Russia started the war first. That's an undeniable encyclopedic fact.--BIR 13:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also I tend to keep on thinking that if I wrote facts freehand, you've asked reputable URLs, and if finally given such you'd just gainsaid by way of your own widened copy rights views. And then, if I wrote freehand and footnoted the facts quoted by reputable sources, you'd gainsaid by way of overprotracted Wiki practices of your own. Just perfect.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hereafter, this is for the records, I regard the measures above as the evidence of purposeful censorship in order to side with one overwhelming ratling party of this terrible conflict, if just not intentional vandalism against the original sanctified Wiki intentions.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking in NPOV, reads more like a mish-mash of both sides propoganda. The First Chechen War shows a content/style/structure if not perfect then certainly more preffered. It should focus more on facts not on `he said, she said`, and when areas on dispute arise (such as Basayev`s role in the rebel movement) a more balanced approach is needed. This conflict still runs today and many of the issues and facts are sill up in the air.--Mazzarin 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russians attacked Chechnya first to start the war? How can a country (because Chechnya is part of Russia) attack itself? The correct way to state that is Russia attacked the terrorist-supported Chechen insurgency; the attacked ignited tension, and hence started the war. Few people are disputing that Russia started the war, but the war was started against an insurgency movenment, not against the Chechen people or Chechnya.

User ABC

[edit] BBC viewpoints

Here are some prominent interviews of the people who are either observers or involved in the crisis [1]--BIR 08:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non copyvio rewrite

There is a rewrite of this article from scratch at Second Chechen War/Temp; hopefully it alleviates some of the NPOV concerns, as well.

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed copyvio material

Hi,

I've reverted the copyvio addition, and I'm in the process of merging in the fresh content from the temp article page. Hopefully this should address some of the NPOV concerns and help to remove the ugly profusion boxes on the page.

See also the talk page of the temporary article for further discussion (though further comment on the development of this article should be made here).

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Russian politics

I've drafted a beginning of a description of the effects of the Second Chechen War on Russian politics, but I'm definitely not an expert on the topic. Factual, neutral contributions are welcome; speculation should be sharply limited, however. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] this article is actually really crap

i was expecting to find a large description of the actual fighting, technology and troop movements for the war rather then causes and affects of the war. so i think this article needs a major rewrite!--GregLoutsenko 14:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the miracle of the wiki—dive in and add material if you think it's missing something. I did a large part of the first rewrite; it was in very rough shape before. I'd be pleased to see an expert fill in the remaining gaps. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yeltsin never lost the 2000 election

"Nevertheless, the guerilla war progressed, and public dissatisfaction over continued casualties and uncertainty may have contributed to Yeltsin's 2000 election loss" - I deleted this.Gaidash 30 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Improvement Wikepedians

When I last saw this article in Feb 05 it was in my opinion pretty bad, in style, structure, content and NPOV (or lack there of).

Now its a very readable and informative article and I think shows what the open nature of wikipedia can achieve. Congrats.

--Mazzarin 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship to 'List of terrorist incidents'

I have recently taken a list of Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 from List of terrorist incidents and given them their own page, while keeping a link to the new page from the old. The original page also lists a number of Chechen attacks within Russia, especially over the period 2001-2005, and I would like to do something similar - removing that information to this page, and then linking to it. However, the attacks in question are discussed by category here, rather than chronologically, rendering linkage difficult. Any suggestions? Mporter 12:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English

Am I the only one that has noticed the poor wording in parts of this article? I have started to edit parts but do not have the time to do it all in one go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasHoughton (talk • contribs).

[edit] The NPOV of this Article is Bullshit

This article is incredibly biased. The language used to describe the battle for Grozny is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, it does not provide enough links for it's claims, it refers to possible Russian war crimes as fact, even thought they are unproven, and the language used sounds more like an action novel. And I believe it is a copy-paste from another web-site Ive read before, even though I haven't been able to find it just now. DarthJesus 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely unsympathetic to Russia and Russians. I think it needs a few touch-ups. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.103.92.169 (talk • contribs).

Why should this article be sympathetic towards that russians? their presence in Chechnya is purely illegal.

Russian Troops being on Russian soil is purely illegal? Chechnya was never recognized as an independent country by the UN. Also, this NPOV in this article is bullshit; it doesn't make the connection between Mudjahadeen and Taliban. Since 1922 Chechnya was considered to be a part of Russia by the League of Nations. Prior to that, at the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Chechnya was considered a part of Russia. Since when was Chechnya not considered a part of Russia? During the Russian Civil War when the government was an anarchy? Communists didn't achieve real power to be called a government until NEP. Also, do you people not see how this leads into the Russo-Georgian Conflict today? BTW, Russia won the war and no one is disputing their presence in Chechnya today. Read Newsweek. Also NATO-style tactics? Umm, those failed in Iraq, so I don't think it was NATO-style tactics. Please preserve this hilarious article, for future generations to read and know what true propaganda looks like!

- User ABC

I agree with ABC here, the article is purely ANTI-russian, and does not deserve to be called encyclopedia article.

[edit] Re: Accuracy of this article

I've read this article yesterday. And I was surprised to see the article say that Russians used Vaccum Bombs contrary to international conventions to destroy Grozny.

I was following western media news reports during the war. And I've never heard any reports that such bombs were used in Grozny.

I've read this article again today. And I was surprised again to see that now there is no mention of Vaccum Bombs being used in Grozny.

Apparently, some people editing articles here are intent on spreading false rumors and propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick36 (talk • contribs).

It's very easy to check: vacuum bombs leave craters, so one could just check the land, I am sure some reporters are allowed in, and a vacuum bomb use can be spotted from satellite, so please city facts; if Russia would use the bombs, we'd have the photos!

User ABC

[edit] Chechen Propaganda?

Who wrote this version of this article? Some one-legged chechen male, I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.176.124 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Neutrality

Ive cut out most of the incidents mentioned in the Guerilla war section to cut down on the length of the article. Ive also had to edit other parts talking about the battle for Grozny due to neutrality and grammar issues. I also have to say that much about the Chechen war cannot be independently confirmed so we should only put info into the article that we are sure is accurate. This includes reports by Human Rights Watch and other orginizations since they are based solely on eye-witness accounts. You can mention these allegations but you have to make sure that they are not written as undeniably true.

Other parts, like mentioning the Russians were losing 25 soldiers a day are not appropriate for the article unless we have firm confirmation that it is true. And the "vaccum-bomb" use in Grozny is also not confirmed. It should not be mentioned in the article since people will accept it as truth, when it is far from certain it is true. The Chechen War is a very controversial issue among many people and we have to be very careful about what is written in the article to insure we produce a neutral and balanced view. DarthJesus 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. As for lenght of the article, the Iraqi insurgency since just 2003 is similiar, and it doesn't even include the "major hostilities"; I believe these incidents are important, as some of the more famous ones. The aerial FAE bombs in Grozny were not confirmed, but the ground-launched TOS-1 rockets were (NTV footage), as well as an infantry RPO Shmel weapons (the latter were used even in the first war); for sure the vacuum bombs were dropped on Tando in Dagestan, however, and there are very strong allegations as of on Katyr-Yurt in 2000.

The massacres were documented on video (after, of course), and in Alkhan-Yurt there's even a footage of a drunken Russian soldier shouting "We will shoot you" to no less but the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia himself [2]. Casaulties in Grozny - 25 is conservative. Up to 50 a day, and never less than 10 [3]. Officially they suffered some 500 dead in 19 days, too, so some 25 is actually official(!).

As for a balance and neutrality, I wrote everything on the issue of terrorist bombings - which wasn't even touched before (and I think omitted some - but no, the Moscow passage bomb was just from a gang war). Grammar - be my guest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kocoum (talk • contribs).

The BBC reports all rely on unnamed witness accounts and they are denied by the Russians. I know you're going to say who can trust the Russians? But all we have are allegations of crimes and accounts from supposed eye-witnesses. This does not confirm it as true. The BBC itself says it does not have independent confirmation of the charges. The 25 dead a day figure is a pointless number, the only reason for including it is to imply that the Russians were incompetent, and taking massive casualties from the Chechens. Put the casualties in a section at the end and use the total numbers. As for the videos: lets see them. The vaccum bombs; no the TOS-1 has not been confirmed as being used on Grozny. Lets see that video as well. Whether or not FAE's were used in Dagestan or elsewhere is meaningless since this article is talking about Grozny.

The length of the Iraqi article doesn't matter since we are talking about Chechnya. Why are all the events listed under guerilla war crucial? And you need more links; where are you getting your information about these attacks from?

And remeber to sign your discussions DarthJesus 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All the information you put in this article must be verifiable. A single report from BBC or Guardian quoting un-named witnesses is not a verifiable source. That story about the Russian soldiers killed after they were not exchanged is a myth. The Chechens released photos of dead Russian soldiers with their throats cut and the Russians said that the pictures were from the first war. Unless you have verifiable information about it do not put it into the article. That article coming from Pavel Felghaneur; where is he getting his information from? And why is he considered an expert analyst on the Russsian military?

The stories of the massacres in Grozny and the bombing of the white flag convoys; Human Rights Watch is a more respectable source than BBC or the Guardian but the allegations still are not confirmed. Put them into the war crimes section. The story about the Chechen anti-terrorist group that has supposedly defected; that is another unverifiable story. All we have are reports from the Chechen side that this has occured. The Chechen government denies it. And if it is true why do we have no info about it, why have the names of the defectors not been released, why are there no photos of the men? All we have about that story is a report from the Chechen rebels, which is not a verifiable source. DarthJesus 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article repeatedly uses un-verifiable sources. I repeat my earlier statement: A single report from BBC or Guardian quoting un-named witnesses is not a verifiable source. DarthJesus 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Graves

We need some links for the mass grave sections. The article has that rather large section with all those entries and not a single linke to any of them. DarthJesus 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII relocation

During World War II Chechens were accused by Stalin of aiding Nazi forces. In 1944, Stalin deported nearly all the Chechens and Ingushs to Kazakh SSR and Kirghiz SSR, and Siberia. About quarter to half of the population perished in the process

What is the source for the last notion? And if we mention "halfs" or "quarters", shouldn't there also be some real numbers, at least that of the population of Chechnya prior to relocation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theocide (talk • contribs).

Stalin did deport the Chechen people because they were allegedly planning and anti-Soviet independence movement. Was it real, or part of Stalin's paranoia, we will never know, but I can provide citations that Stalin deported the Chechen people; is all of the encylopedias existing a good citation? But you need to be more specific with numbers, we're not flipping coins but counting people's lives, so have some damn decency! Cite evidence, such as 400,000 approximately 400,000 Chechens were deported; no one knows how many perished, but you can write about how many returned! Not quarters and halves, talking like tht one sounds like a mafia shmuck. "We killz quarter o dat mob". Also, they weren't the only ones deported! The most deported were the Volga Germans, about 435,000 to 450,000. Others too, had to be deported due to Stalin's craziness and/or other issues. Stalin wasn't exactly angellic...

User ABC

[edit] Chechen invasion of Dagestan

Why isn't the chechen invasion of Dagestan mentioned as a beginning of the Second Chechen War?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theocide (talk • contribs).

It does state that Chechen fighters invaded Dagestan, TO HELP ISLAMIC FIGHTERS UNDER ATTACK IN DAGESTSAN BY RUSSIAN FORCES. First of all, Russia had all the rights to take out such fighters in Dagestan, but after the Chechen fighters invaded, it gave Russia a reason to counter the Chechen fighters with an attack on their own grounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.150.61 (talk • contribs).

Sign your posts using  ~~~~

Thanks Travb (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaamat Sharia

Is this the same thing as Shariat? If so, then Makasharipov was replaced by Rappani Khalilov.

[edit] Casualties:

Can someone please start investigating or adding the number of dead from all the massacres, battles, hostages crisis and other causes because the number of dead at the infobox looks unupdated.

The problem is: No one knows. Really - there are only estimates, and these vary radically. Memorial does a count on civilians, but they cover only about 30% of the territory, and it's the more peaceful lowlands, so it doesn't count either. --HanzoHattori 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kavkhaz Center

Why isn’t the Kavkaz center part of the links collection? Biased as it is (and it is one of the best examples of blatant, laughable bias I can think of) it is one of the few sources for covering this war day-to-day. Also, the phenomenon of Chechen video madness on the internet (examplia gratia, the fascination of non-Russians, non-Chechens, and non-Muslims such as myself with Chechnya) should be addressed.

KC uses an infamously incomprehensible newspeak, and has a mostly mind-boggling selection of world news, but yes, they're at least (and at last) have a quite realistic daily battlefield reports if anyone needs these. Nowadays they most often say of an unknown yet casaulties, or cite reports from Russian and international media (often based on official Russian stuff), and it's reasonable enough. In the past, they would make some really absurd claims most people would only roll their eyes on (one I remember was they would run straight into a Russian encampment, guns blazing and throwing grenades everywhere like in some bad action movie, "and killed 50" or something). No more I think. Of course, the other side (ITAR-TASS) had a plenty of a very hairy stories too. But for anything else, Chechnya Weekly rather. --HanzoHattori 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unified Timeline

What do you think of unifying the timeline?

Keep the paragraphs as they are, only bring all the timelines together into one unified whole.

Neutralaccounting 06:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We really need one. I'm not sure if people get the idea this is still going on.

[edit] Need a template

For the new articles. --HanzoHattori 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

I guess I finished this one. --HanzoHattori 10:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battles box

Wrong for following reasons:

• un-chronological
• Moscow? Beslan?
• I don't think it's really needed at all

--HanzoHattori 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Can someone please explain how the dates in the infobox (1999 — 2002) combine with the result in the same infobox (Ongoing)? --AVIosad 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chechen War is still ongoing

Really?! Wow, it's news to me, guess you learn something everyday. Well I can see how people are confused, Putin hasn't made the official announcement yet, although he can make it anytime he wants to; he's prolly waiting for America to pull out of Iraq and then say: "we won our war against insurgents, you lost yours haha, let's have a parade. Can't he just make the announcement already, so that most Russians can breathe easier? Gah, politicians are so annoying with their jabs.

User ABC

yeah, you're probably right I also haven't heard for a Chechen IED, ambush or terror attack for a while... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

we certainly do not need Putin's announcement to see it's over --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Putin said it many times, first in February 2000, last time this year (2007). Also: Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya "The war is over and you have won," Yeltsin told Russian troops in the Chechen capital of Grozny, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. The date: May 28, 1996.

In November 2001, Akhmad Kadyrov, then head of the pro-Russian administration in Chechnya, declared that "there is no more need to use aviation and artillery in the region" and that "the police should fight with the remnants of the rebels" (Newsru.com, November 12, 2001). Five years have passed since that time. Akhmad Kadyrov had been killed, the Kremlin has declared the war over and Kadyrov's son Ramzan, who is now the new Chechen president, promises to bring a stable peace to Chechnya. What has not changed since 2001 is the shelling and bombardment of the Chechen mountains and forests. On November 24 of last year, representatives of the Russian military command in Chechnya met with deputies of the local pro-Russian parliament. The parliamentary deputies wanted to ask the security officials (including deputy heads of the Russian military group in Chechnya, the officials of the Chechen branch of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Interior Ministry officials) when they would stop the air strikes and the shelling of Chechnya's mountainous areas. The parliamentary deputies said that in 2006, livestock, land under cultivation and private houses had been damaged in five districts of Chechnya (Shatoi, Vedeno, Nozhai-Yurt, Shali and Itum-Kale) as a result of endless artillery barrages. According to the Chechen Forestry Department, bombardment and shelling have caused serious damage to the mountains' natural environment (Vesti-Severny Kavkaz, November 24, 2006). The security officials said during the meeting that they also cared about Chechnya's future and promised to take measures against "unsanctioned shelling," as they called it. Nevertheless, nothing changed after the meeting. On December 1, the Russian Air Force bombed the village of Sharon-Argun, located high in the mountains. According to Kavkazky Uzel, one private house was totally destroyed and two locals (the Gaytamirov brothers) were seriously injured. A girl, Zulpa Akhigova, experienced shell shock (Kavkazky Uzel, December 4, 2006). On December 24, artillery shelled the outskirts of the village of Avtury in Shali District (Kavkazky Uzel, December 28, 2006). Earlier this year, as Ramzan Kadyrov was promising a bright future for the Chechens, the artillery barrages and bombardment were significantly intensified. On February 21, the Russian–Chechen Information Agency (RCIA) reported shelling of forests near the villages of Stary Atagi, Novy Atagi, Duba-Yurt, Chishki, Yulus-Kert, Agishti and Selmentauzen. These settlements are situated in Vedeno, Shali, Shatoi and Grozny districts. On February 27, Russian artillery shelled southeastern Chechnya (RCIA, February 27). On March 7, the rebel Kavkaz-Center website reported shelling in the Urus-Martan District. It should be noted that the areas and villages mentioned above are not high in the mountains, but rather in foothills and even valleys. Last October, the commander of the Russian military group in Chechnya, Colonel-General Yevgeny Baryaev, said the shelling was needed to prevent the rebels from penetrating the population centers and to disrupt the supplying of rebel bases in the mountains (Chechnya Weekly, November 9, 2006). Late last year, Baryaev was dismissed from his post and replaced by General Yakov Nedobitko, who had been deputy commander of the North Caucasian Military District (Vesti-Severny Kavkaz, December 12, 2006). After taking office, Nedobitko declared that significant progress had been made by the Russian military in fighting the insurgency. At the same time he ordered intensified shelling and air strikes in southern Chechnya. On January 17, Yakov Nedobitko told RIA Novosti that "special measures to neutralize the militants allow them no opportunity to conduct large-scale terrorist acts." On February 12, Leonid Krivonos, the military commandant of the Chechen Republic, said that the military had managed to prevent the rebels from organizing in large groups and that the insurgency could no longer mount a serious resistance to the authorities. However, despite Krivonos' optimism, it is clear that the military is increasing its shelling of the mountains as spring approaches. It is a moot question how seriously the rebels' network in the Chechen woods can be damaged by the shelling. Yet there is no doubt that shells and bombs are very destructive to the natural environment and make civilians suffer. Last October, residents of the village of Serzhen-Yurt in Shali District met with Viktor Fomenko, the district military commandant, and demanded that he stop the shelling immediately. "People die of heart attacks, while livestock gets killed by shrapnel," Imran Ezhiev, a local activist, told the commandant. According to Ezhiev, 78 private houses were destroyed or damaged in 2006 due to the shelling in Serzhen-Yurt alone (Kavkazky Uzel, October 13, 2006). Fomenko gave a strange response, saying that "the political will of the federal center is needed to stop the shelling." Fomenko certainly did not mean that each time the military in Chechnya wants to use artillery it asks the Kremlin for permission. He probably meant something else, something more global: that the shelling is just a part of the war and that the war can be stopped only on Moscow's orders. The current use of artillery and aviation in Chechnya means that the situation in the region has not changed much since the beginning of the war in 1999. Five years ago, Akhmad Kadyrov already believed that the Chechen pro-Russian forces were capable of fighting the rebels without help of the Russian army, but it seems that even now the Russian generals still do not believe this enough to stop the shelling and withdraw their troops from the republic.

--HanzoHattori 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to copy/paste an article at least provide a link to it somewhere in the quote. And the Jamestown Foundation says a lot of things about Chechnya. They pretty much say the opposite of what the Russian government says about everything in Chechnya, whether or not what they are saying makes any sense. DarthJesus 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When the Russian commander says he needs artillery fire to prevent enemy from operating, it means the war is going on (Putin said last year they do "the same duties as elsewhere", but I don't think they shell the forests near Moscow). So, yesterday "militant on a federal wanted list blew up himself and a woman in refusal to surrender" in Ingushetia, RIAN reported.[4] The day before, KC reported a convoy of Russian lorries was ambushed in Chechnya.[5] Last week, Umarov called on the Muslims of the Caucasus and Russia to take part in a "jihad".[6]

Also, the article needs pictures. --HanzoHattori 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ingushetia is not Chechnya, as you would know if you looked at a map. KC is a ridiculous website and completely unreliable. Umarov's statement does not constitute a "war". There are groups in Scotland calling for independence from Great Britain, so does this mean there is a civil war going on in the United Kingdom? Actually the Russian Army probably does shell the woods near Moscow, since there are artillery ranges in the Moscow district used for practice. DarthJesus 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now "Chechen war" only by name, for a quite long time. Ingushetia is the rebel "front" now, and so is Dagestan, etc. As for Chechnya itself, for example [7] last month. You don't see this in Scotland? --HanzoHattori 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"2 unarmed volunteer police officers shot dead in New York"[8] So I guess this means theres a "war" going on in New York City? Or how about this "Officers outgunned on U.S. border" [9]and Nation of Aztlan. So we have US border agents being fired at on the border, police across the US being killed and we have groups calling for the secession of most of the American Southwest. By the standards of this article this means there is a war being fought inside the US. DarthJesus 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring absurd comparisions. We are talking about war here - do you mean there was no war in Chechnya, like there was no war in US since the 40's (and ended for sure, with the official surrender of Japan)? This is ridicalous, and you are REALLY trying too hard. We are talking about the war which was once the most destructive in Europe since WW2, now evolved into "only" low-level insurgency and dirty war, but it doesn't mean it "ended". The First War didn't end when Yeltsin rolled around and said it ended and they "won", it ended when the cease fire and then peace treaty was signed.

Also, like I said, it's not only Chechnya now - Stavropol "combat collision" officially reported, 1 "militant" killed, 2 captured, 1 police killed and 1 wounded. [10] Previous day, 3 police wounded and 1 civilian killed in a shootout in Dagestan - AP commentary: "Dagestan is plagued by violence, some of it seen as a spillover from neighboring Chechnya, where separatist rebels have been fighting Russian soldiers for most of the past dozen years" [11] On the day still before: "Gunman kills 2 Russian security agents in Dagestan (...) In the province of Ingushetia, west of Chechnya, police tracked down a suspected rebel in the town of Malgobek and killed him Thursday when he resisted arrest." [12] People are dying every day, even according to the official reports (you believe only the reports from one side - but okay, unless they film it it's technically uncomfirmable).

Anyway, when you think did the war "end"? With the death of Basayev, maybe? What about "the remaining 700 bandits", then? (I remember in 2001 it was supposedly "1,200".) No absurd answers or I'll just stop replying. --HanzoHattori 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you display an inability to read maps. Chechnya is seperate from Dagestan and Ingushetia. Therefore what happens in Dagestan is not a Chechen "war". And you're comment about the videos is exactly why I say it's should no longer be considered ongoing. Why are there no videos? KavkazCenter used to post dozens a year but there have been none for over 6 months now. I guess they broke all their video cameras. Or maybe its because there haven't been any attacks? I'll say it again; Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, and all the surrounding republics are NOT Chechnya. So therefore any attacks or criminal activity in them cannot be considered part of the Chechen War. DarthJesus 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)