WI: Independent Chechnya... after the Second Chechen War?

[whitecrow]

I was thinking about how past and present events in Chechnya impacted and tarnished Russia's image in the world when an idea came to me:

In Afghanistan and Iraq, USA had to support, deal with and work along side people just as despicable as Kadyrov but the actions of the Iraqis and Afghans never seem to have rubbed off as much on USA because they were different nations. So while in Grozny you have a 107% vote for Putin during the election and the world shakes its head the fact that electoral ballots are being bought for $5 in Afghanistan doesn't impact the US election results or the world's view of America.

With that in mind, do you think it would have been possible for the Second Chechen War to occur but rather than reclaiming Chechnya as a federal subject of the Russian Federation instead have Russia in 2001 review the Khasavyurt Accord and declare Chechnya an independent nation? That way, they could still prop up someone like Kadyrov to support their interests but would be able to distance themselves from international criticism over what's going on in Chechnya by saying "don't blame at us, blame the Chechens themselves".

So what do you think? Plausible/possible? Or would it be political suicide for whomever suggests an independent Chechnya post-1999?

 

[SlideAway]

I was thinking about how past and present events in Chechnya impacted and tarnished Russia's image in the world when an idea came to me:

In Afghanistan and Iraq, USA had to support, deal with and work along side people just as despicable as Kadyrov but the actions of the Iraqis and Afghans never seem to have rubbed off as much on USA because they were different nations. So while in Grozny you have a 107% vote for Putin during the election and the world shakes its head the fact that electoral ballots are being bought for $5 in Afghanistan doesn't impact the US election results or the world's view of America.

With that in mind, do you think it would have been possible for the Second Chechen War to occur but rather than reclaiming Chechnya as a federal subject of the Russian Federation instead have Russia in 2001 review the Khasavyurt Accord and declare Chechnya an independent nation? That way, they could still prop up someone like Kadyrov to support their interests but would be able to distance themselves from international criticism over what's going on in Chechnya by saying "don't blame at us, blame the Chechens themselves".

So what do you think? Plausible/possible? Or would it be political suicide for whomever suggests an independent Chechnya post-1999?

The reason people in the rest of the world took such a negative view of Russia's actions in Chechnya had to do with the extremely brutal ways in which Chechnya's rebellion was suppressed. I opposed the Iraq invasion and think we need to withdraw from Afghanistan, but in neither case did the US commit the kind of wanton killing the Russians committed in Grozny.

Regardless, the world mostly turned a blind eye because Chechnya is legally Russian territory. And the Russians fought both wars specifically to prevent Chechnya from seceding, fearing that it would be a precedent that could break up the Russian Federation. So I don't really see why they'd concede independence just to dissociate themselves from various shenanigans.

 

[Orville_third]

If they succeeded in declaring and maintaining independence, I could see some nations recognizing them. It might not be until after 2008 that a major power recognizes them.

 

[Kome]

Are you suggesting that Russia kick Chechnya out of the Federation?

I mean legally it might be possible, but it would be political suicide. And insanely stupid. The whole reason for the war in the first place was because Chechnya had proven itself incapable of being a nation. It was easier just to restore control and rebuild it under Kadyrov.

 

[whitecrow]

Are you suggesting that Russia kick Chechnya out of the Federation?

I mean legally it might be possible, but it would be political suicide. And insanely stupid. The whole reason for the war in the first place was because Chechnya had proven itself incapable of being a nation. It was easier just to restore control and rebuild it under Kadyrov.

Yeah, but what I'm suggesting is that Russia restores control and rebuilds it under Kadyrov but with Chechnya having nominal independence to shield Moscow from international criticism over actions of Kadyrov and others.

I agree that it would likely be politically suicidal/infeasible, hence why I posted it here to see opinion of others on the matter.

 

[Falecius]

What international criticism?
Most countries very officially did not give a fig, the main exception I know of being Saudi Arabia.
OK, some Western countries are recorded to have muttered something about human rights, but most of the time the "international community" did mostly shrug Chechnya off.
Moreover, after 9/11 Russia became (shortly) a Western ally for the War on Terror and the Western perception of Chechnyans has significantly shifted toward the "terrorist" end of the spectrum in the light of some conspicuous atrocities like Dubrovka theatre and especially the Beslan massacre.
Of course, in general terms it's quite hypocritical on the Russian part to suppress Chechnya while propping up, say, Abkhazia (although Abkhazia is a working democracy of sorts) but their whole point was about stopping secessionist movements to tear apart the country at a moment where it seemed a real possibility.
I am under the impression that Russians fought so viciously because in their perspective the very existence of Russia as a state (more precisely, as an Imperial, multi-ethnic state) was at stake.* In this view, Chechnya would have started a domino effect to the rest of North Caucaus and Tatarstan and maybe other areas too, which by the way makes all the more ironic the way their current policy seems to contradict the principles behind this reading (the ground for intervening in Crimea being the ground for letting Chechnya go, as it tends to define Russia in terms of ethnicity and not imperial statehood; in a Russia for ethnic Russians, what place do Tatars or Chechens have?).
So there is no possible way Russia would let go Chechnya willingly in formal terms short of very major military defeat, on a level that Chechens are unlikely to be able to inflict. They could negotiate for autonomy that amounts to independence in all but name (I gather that actually Kadyrov is pretty free to do whatever the hell he wants within Chechnya) but the name is not going to be negotiable if there's perceived chance of it setting a precedent.**

* Interestingly, it seems to have been a similar motivation that inspired part of the extreme viciousness displayed by Indonesians in Timor Leste.

** One does not see how South Ossetia does not set the very same precedent, tough.

 

[Whanztastic]

With no victory in Chechnya Putin loses his mandate.

 

[Old Airman]

World criticized Russian actions in Chechnya because they were Russian actions. Taking into account the previous history (ethnic cleansing of 300000 Russians from Chechnya, liberally sprinkled with killings and rapes, to say nothing of customary repetitious robbery of fleeing civvies, hundreds of gangster rides a year from territory of Chechnya in 1996-1999), nobody would give a flying fig if it were Americans or Britons who were trying to restore a semblance of order. But it were Russians in that case, and each anti-Russian guerrilla just has to be encouraged and (at least morally) supported by West.

 

[Orville_third]

While much of the US establishment was neutral, there was a small but significant group in favor of aid to the Chechens. They shut down for a while after the Boston bombings, but may restart soon.