Freedom for the Chechens

Dan K.

unread,

Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96

to

Isn't it time for Russia to get out of Chechnya just as Russia got out
of Afghanistan. The Chechen freedom fighters are showing the world that
even though they are outnumbered and outgunned they are willing to lay
down their lives for the freedom which they hold so dear. The Russians
know full well that Chechnya is not a part of Russia and it is time to
stop the blood shed of innocents and start becoming a civilized nation.
The whole world is waiting for Russia to give up her chauvinism and
imperialism and start acting like a democratic country.

Dan K.

unread,

Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96

to

Michael Kagalenko wrote:

> H. M. Hubey (hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
> ]SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> writes:

> ]>What Russia is doing in Chechnya is an act of utmost cowardice and
> ]>savagery. Get out and let them finally have their freedom!

> ]General Gromov said essentially the same thing
> ]in an interview. He said that what the Russian army is
> Incompetence of army command is, indeed, shameful. However,
> rebels will be put down, just like they were put down
> by Ermolov. There is simply no other choice.
> They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.

Kagalenko, have you no shame, have you no human decency, have you no
regard for the rights of nations to live in peace and freedom.
It is a shame that Russia still has people like you that hate freedom
and democracy and the rights of human beings to be masters of their
own homes and lands. The Chechens are in no way Russian and have
NEVER accepted being conquered and dominated by the Mongolo-Russians.
People like you that brand everyone who loves freedom and
the right to be a master in his own land a "bandit" are despicable.
The Chechen people deserve the same basic human right to be self
governing as all other nations do. Russians like you once called
Ukrainian patriots "bandits" as well, because they wanted Ukraine to be
a free country, and now in a free Ukraine they are honored as HEROS.
May the Chechens soon have their own independence.

Dan K.

Sic Semper Tyranis!

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96

to

Mr. Kagalenko below quoted some opinions of USA and Nick Burns
concerning Chechenya situation.
Now, it is good to remember, that between states there are certain
rules how to play politics. USA has confessed Russia as a state
and naturally USA can't have any rights to touch Chechenya's
position. Only thing where USA can touch is human rights.
Otherwise we'll get in full anarchy, no signed papers or
agreements would be value of zero. And if eg. Mississippi,
Carolinas etc. like to divorce USA, Russia and other states
would have a full right to support them.
It is also good to remember, that when Soviet Union still
existed, USA used the same words about the possible independence
of Baltic states! So Chechenya today is like Estonia or Lithuania
in 1989.

But Burns makes an mistake when claiming, that these fights
were started by Chechens. Actually the process started
immediately after Yeltsin was elected by some Russian
officials (actually I wrote in 2 newsgroups 15th June,
that that's what will happen). Now the difference is that
Chechens got fed up with these thousands of empty promises
and started a massive offensive.

Generally, Chechens have right for independence like any
nation, but the problem is this:
Russia is in trap. If Russia don't give up for Chechens
the fights *don't end*, but in 10 years terror spreads
all over the Russia.
If Russia gives independence for Chechenya, you can be
sure that there will be followers when time goes.
Russia gets in pieces.

I wrote about Chechenya, and about this long lasting
war in 3 newsgroups first time already in November
1994. When the real war was still in future.
So far has happened nothing, that wasn't obvious already
then.
If Chechenya means for Russia same, that Afganistan meant
for SU, we'll see. In five years...

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Dan K. (dkoro...@ezdial.com) wrote:
> Luckily, your points were addressed at the recent
> briefing of the US State Dept.

> } U.S. Department of State
> } 96/08/08 Daily Press Briefing
> } Office of the Spokesman
> }
> } Briefer: Nicholas Burns

> (complete text of the briefing is available at
> gopher://dosfan.lib.uic.edu:70/0F-1%3A11177%3A3396/08/08%20Daily%20briefing
> )

> ]Isn't it time for Russia to get out of Chechnya just as Russia got out
> ]of Afghanistan.

> } Q But in light of your disappointment, do you think it's now
> } time for the international community to become more involved in --
> }
> } MR. BURNS: We have to be very clear about what this is. Chechnya
> } is part of Russia. It remains so. It is recognized by every state
> } internationally, including the United States, to be part of Russia.
> } This is a conflict internal to the Russians and the Chechens.
> } ...........................[snip]

> ] The Chechen freedom fighters are showing the world that

> ]even though they are outnumbered and outgunned they are willing to lay
> ]down their lives for the freedom which they hold so dear.

> } Q Nick, can we talk about the fighting in Chechnya, reports
> } about Chechen rebels have seized part of the Moscow headquarters in
> } Grozny. The Red Cross workers are caught in the cross-fire, and how can
> } you directly address the situation?
> }
> } MR. BURNS: The United States is watching with great concern and
> } great disappointment the fighting this week in Chechnya, this time
> } clearly caused by the Chechen rebel offensive. What the Chechen rebels
> } have succeeded in doing by their offensive, of course, is endangering
> } the lives of the thousands -- the tens of thousands of civilians who
> } still live in Grozny and around Grozny and the suburbs of Grozny, and
> } those poor people have nowhere to go. They've already been subjected to
> } 20 months of war, and 35,000 civilians have been killed in the war.
> }
> } We frankly believe that the Chechen rebels and the Russian
> } Government need to return to their June 10 understanding that did give
> } some promise that after so much bloodshed, there was a way to resolve
> } these differences at the negotiating table. That's what they committed
> } themselves to do.
> }
> } The Chechen rebels now have taken up the gun again and have gone
> } after the Russians but not just after the Russian military; they have
> } put Chechen civilians and Russian civilians and others in the area into
> } extreme danger. The fighting has been horrific. You've seen the
> } television footage from Chechnya.
> } ...........................[snip]

> ]The Russians

> ]know full well that Chechnya is not a part of Russia and it is time to
> ]stop the blood shed of innocents and start becoming a civilized nation.
> ]The whole world is waiting for Russia to give up her chauvinism and
> ]imperialism and start acting like a democratic country.

> } Q But German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel had a meeting with
> } Yevgeniy Primakov and suggested that the Russians should consider giving
> } Chechnya more autonomy.
> }
> } MR. BURNS: That is a question that the United States believes is
> } up to the Russian Government to decide and to work out in negotiations
> } with the Chechen rebels. We're not going to offer free advice in a
> } very, very difficult situation for both sides.

> --
> LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Elevator Operator

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

jo...@jytko.jyu.fi (Jorma Kypp|)
in <4ukvsv$m...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi> writes:

>Chechens got fed up with these thousands of empty promises
>and started a massive offensive.

Can you see, Chechens always were ready to negotiate under one general
condition: "state independence". "OK guys, let's talk but we'll do only
according to our will." Their guerillas continued the fire and mining,
and the armistrice always was a great time for rest and complete
preparations to continue the war.
(Sir, you predicted well some possible events in Russia to happen, yet
you didn't mention one thing: if Chechnya gets independence this may
cause very big problems not only for Russia but for many other
countries as well. You can refer some gen.Dudaev's TV-interviews; don't
forget: that guy always fulfiled his promises.)
|||

SB

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>]
>]But Burns makes an mistake when claiming, that these fights

>]were started by Chechens. Actually the process started
>]immediately after Yeltsin was elected by some Russian
>]officials (actually I wrote in 2 newsgroups 15th June,
>]that that's what will happen). Now the difference is that
>]Chechens got fed up with these thousands of empty promises
>]and started a massive offensive.
>

> Quite contrary, Burns is entirely correct. He is blaming rebels
> for resorting again to using civilians, both Russian and Chechen,
> as human shields. It was rebels themselves who always were
> bringing combat into cities. It weren't federal troops
> who took hospital hostage - high point of barbarism, hardly
> matched by any other armed group in today's world.
>
> Thus, responsibility for civiliian's deaths in Grozny belongs
> to the unlawful armed groups. It is that simple.
>
>]Generally, Chechens have right for independence like any

>]nation, but the problem is this:
>]Russia is in trap. If Russia don't give up for Chechens
>]the fights *don't end*, but in 10 years terror spreads
>]all over the Russia.
>

> Opposite is true - terrorism will spread through
> Russia if federal government gives up.
>
>]If Chechenya means for Russia same, that Afganistan meant

>]for SU, we'll see. In five years...
>

> Russia is not SU. Russia is more efficient, not being encumbered by
> ideology.

>
>--
>LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
>

What Russia is doing in Chechnya is an act of utmost cowardice and

savagery. Get out and let them finally have their freedom!

Terrorism can't be justified, that's true; but to hear a Russian accuse
the Chechens of barbarism is truly sickening.

Almost as sickening as the White House attitude.

SB

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to Michael Kagalenko

Michael Kagalenko wrote:

> Quite contrary, Burns is entirely correct. He is blaming rebels
> for resorting again to using civilians, both Russian and Chechen,
> as human shields. It was rebels themselves who always were
> bringing combat into cities. It weren't federal troops
> who took hospital hostage - high point of barbarism, hardly
> matched by any other armed group in today's world.
>
> Thus, responsibility for civiliian's deaths in Grozny belongs
> to the unlawful armed groups. It is that simple.

Burns is entirely incorrect. The fighting was started by russians who
have been bombing chechen villages for a couple of weeks, right after the
election of Yelcin, breaking the truce. It seems that every time that
chechens attack, there is a big deal about it and everyone blames them.
Yet when russians attack, there is silence.

About the civilians. Was it russian troops that attacked Grozny in
December 1994 with planes, using the weapons forbidden by Geneva
convention and killing around 30,000 people?( I have seen the 30 minutes
film filmed by Lithuanian TV in Chechen Republic, so this is not an
opinion, but a fact)

Finally, why you russians just don't give them what they want - an
independent republic? This land is not yours anyway - you have occupied
it in I believe 18th century. Do you think that they will be happy in
Russia after what you have done? The land will be burning under your feet
there! Russia has too much territory anyhow and has not been able to
create a normal state in centuries. Let them try on their own!

Audrius

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to Jorma Kypp|

Jorma Kypp| wrote:
>
> Mr. Kagalenko below quoted some opinions of USA and Nick Burns
> concerning Chechenya situation.
> Now, it is good to remember, that between states there are certain
> rules how to play politics. USA has confessed Russia as a state
> and naturally USA can't have any rights to touch Chechenya's
> position. Only thing where USA can touch is human rights.
> Otherwise we'll get in full anarchy, no signed papers or
> agreements would be value of zero. And if eg. Mississippi,
> Carolinas etc. like to divorce USA, Russia and other states
> would have a full right to support them.

You americans make huge mistake equalling Chechen Republic (or any other
autonomous republic in Russia) to Carolinas etc.

Chechens are a separate nation, they have their own language, religion,
culture, history, land, etc. etc., which are entirely different from
Russian. It is a separate NATION!!! Now I will not argue that Indiana or
any other state is a separate nation with all its attributes.

Russia occupied Chechens some time in the 18th century, they have been
fighting ever since to regain their independence.

So it's bullshit to say that Chechen problem is an internal problem of
Russia. If you follow that logic, then you can say that France, Austria,
Poland, and every other country occupied by Nazi Germany was an internal
German problem once it was occupied!

Audrius

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

"Elevator Operator" <mas...@arranger.spb.su> writes:

>Can you see, Chechens always were ready to negotiate under one general
>condition: "state independence". "OK guys, let's talk but we'll do only
>according to our will." Their guerillas continued the fire and mining,
>and the armistrice always was a great time for rest and complete
>preparations to continue the war.
>(Sir, you predicted well some possible events in Russia to happen, yet
>you didn't mention one thing: if Chechnya gets independence this may
>cause very big problems not only for Russia but for many other
>countries as well. You can refer some gen.Dudaev's TV-interviews; don't
>forget: that guy always fulfiled his promises.)

From nost%LING.HU...@plearn.edu.pl Mon Aug 12 10:54:24 1996
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:16:53 +0200
From: Norbert Strade <nost%LING.HU...@plearn.edu.pl>
Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>
To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>
Subject: Reuters situation update

Yeltsin stays at Kremlin post as Grozny guns blaze

GROZNY, Russia (Aug 12, 1996 08:47 a.m. EDT) - Talks between Russian
security chief Alexander Lebed and the top rebel commander offered hope of
a breakthrough in Chechnya on Monday but fighting raged on for a seventh
day in the capital Grozny.

The sound of artillery and automatic weapons fire crashed through Grozny all
night and streets were deserted on Monday morning, except for rebel
fighters.

Konstantin Pulikovsky, acting chief Russian commander in Chechnya, said
Russian troops were gradually gaining control of more parts of Grozny. But
a rebel spokesman said separatist forces were still repulsing them.

"People stopped going outside this morning," said one local resident, adding
that people were starting to run out of food. "There are no cars moving on
the streets, only the fighters."

(snip)

Pulikovsky was quoted by Interfax as saying some of the rebels were being
forced back. But rebel spokesman Movladi Udugov said the separatists still
held communications buildings in the city centre.

"The pattern of the fighting has not changed," he said by telephone. "The
Russians advance each morning and withdraw to their initial positions each
afternoon."

(snip)

Refugees have been fleeing the city again, saying Russian planes and
helicopter gunships have made indiscriminate raids.

Interfax quoted a representative at the Russian military command as saying
the rebels were laying mines and preparing defensive positions in Grozny.
--
Regards, Mark

http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

"Elevator Operator" <mas...@arranger.spb.su> writes:

>Can you see, Chechens always were ready to negotiate under one general
>condition: "state independence". "OK guys, let's talk but we'll do only
>according to our will." Their guerillas continued the fire and mining,
>and the armistrice always was a great time for rest and complete
>preparations to continue the war.
>(Sir, you predicted well some possible events in Russia to happen, yet
>you didn't mention one thing: if Chechnya gets independence this may
>cause very big problems not only for Russia but for many other
>countries as well. You can refer some gen.Dudaev's TV-interviews; don't
>forget: that guy always fulfiled his promises.)

>|||
>

From nost%LING.HU...@plearn.edu.pl Sat Aug 10 19:15:47 1996
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:03:33 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: Reuter: Russians Say They're Winning; Rebels Resist

Saturday August 10 2:30 PM EDT

GROZNY, Russia (Reuter) - The Russian government said its troops had gained
the upper hand Saturday after five days of fierce fighting in Grozny but
Chechen rebels said they still controlled the city.

Journalists trapped since Tuesday in the basement of a government building
angrily contradicted statements by Moscow officials that federal troops
had rescued them. They said the combat in the center of the city was as
vicious as ever.

President Boris Yeltsin fired his personal representative in the region,
Oleg Lobov, and replaced him with Gen. Alexander Lebed, his national
security adviser.

Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov told parliament: ``The situation is
difficult. However, I will tell you that, today, now, as I stand before
you on the podium ... the initiative has passed to the federal forces.''

``The situation has passed the turning point,'' said Interior Minister
Anatoly Kulikov, also addressing the State Duma. The lower house held a
special session that endorsed Yeltsin's reappointment of Prime Minister
Viktor Chernomyrdin.

But some confident statements from Moscow officials were denied by those in
Grozny.

``It's yet another lie. Things are still the same,'' Russian Television's
Abrek Baikov said in a report broadcast at 8 p.m. (12 p.m. EDT) ``We're
sick of lies.''

``All we have left ... is rainwater and trouble,'' Itar-Tass news agency
correspondent Sergei Trofimov reported as night fell. After a brief lull,
fighting was raging again, he added.

Yeltsin, re-elected in presidential elections in June and July, has seen his
second term marred by the worst fighting in Chechnya for over a year.

Chernomyrdin told parliament the 20-month war was unwinnable and that
political solutions had not been exhausted. But ``terrorists and bandits''
had to be put down, he added.

Lebed, newly appointed by the Kremlin in June after a strong showing in the
election, believed the rebels must leave Grozny immediately if new peace
talks were to be possible, his spokesman told Tass.

It was not clear what effect, if any, his appointment would have. But the
general said after Tuesday's daring rebel raid on Grozny that he favored
``a new approach'' on talks.

Lebed has said in the past that he had no objection to the Chechens being
given the independence they have fought for but Chernomyrdin repeated
Friday there was no question of that.

Rebel spokesman Movladi Udugov told Reuters they were still resisting a
repeated onslaught by Russian armored columns and eyewitnesses spoke of
continued heavy fighting in the center.

``It's a real bloody mincing machine,'' Udugov said by telephone. ``Russian
armor is till trying to break through to the center of Grozny, they are
making attack after attack.''

Interfax news agency quoted Shamil Basayev, the rebel field commander in
overall charge of the operation, as saying Russian troops were taking
``appalling losses'' in men and armor.

Among unconfirmed reports, both sides have accused the other of atrocities
and of using civilians as human shields.

Interfax quoted rebel leaders as saying Doku Zavgayev, the head of the
pro-Moscow Chechen government, was dead. But Tass quoted a member of
parliament who said he had spoken to him.

Yeltsin ordered Chernomyrdin to hold a session of the State Commission on
Chechnya Sunday to establish how far Kremlin appointees were to blame for
the military debacle this week.

He ordered the chief prosecutor to investigate the raid, which followed
weeks of Russian attacks on Chechen villages that began after Yeltsin's
re-election on July 3. Each side accuses the other of breaking a
pre-election peace deal.

German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel voiced ``deep concern'' Saturday over
the fighting and urged both sides to let humanitarian organizations help
civilians in the area.

``Our appeal is unambiguous. President Yeltsin must bring this war in
Chechnya to an end, but the rebels must also play their part,'' Kinkel
told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in an interview, which was released
ahead of publication Sunday.

He said it was vital that aid organizations were given ``comprehensive
access to areas where fighting is taking place so they can give the
necessary help to the civilian population.''

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:36:47 +0200

Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>

According to ARD TV, based on reports from Interfax news agency and
telephone calls from journalists still in Grozny, the situation is as
follows Thursday afternoon:

Heavy fighting continues in the whole city. The Russian side says they
have retaken some government buildings and are "engaged in mopping up
operations house by house". It seems to be clear that during the Russian
counter attack yesterday at least one of 3 tank columns managed to break
through into the centre. The Chechen side says they are still holding
Grozny, and they have been enforced by 500 new fighters.

The foreign journalists reported that the Russian forces have gained some
ground, but that the central buildings and installations still are in
Chechen hands. Russian helicopters are shelling certain building complexes
from the air, as well as the city is pounded with artillery from the outskirts.

Only a little part of the civilian population has managed to flee, most
are still sitting in their cellars. Civilian casualties must be very high.
The Russian side says that several hundred Chechen fighters have been
killed, while the Chechens give a number of about 200 Russians.

Yesterday, the Red Cross tried to organize a ceasefire in order to remove
civilians from the battle area, but the Chechens gave them only one hour,
while the Russian side didn't react at all.

Today, the second-in-command of the Russian forces in Chechnya (didn't get
the name) also proposed a ceasefire, but there was no reaction from the
Chechens yet.

In Moscow, president Yeltsin still hasn't made any comment about the
renewed fighting since it started on Tuesday. It has been announced today
that he will go back to his vacation immediately after the "coronation"
event on Friday.

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:18:23 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: Reuter: Russian Troops Begin Chechen Counter-Offensive

Thursday August 8 8:12 AM EDT

GROZNY, Russia (Reuter) - Russian troops launched a fierce counter-offensive
against Chechen rebels in the capital Grozny on Thursday and deployed
reinforcements around the headquarters of the pro-Moscow government.

Russian news agencies said street fighting raged for a third day after
convoys of federal army vehicles rumbled into the battered city overnight
to block separatist guerrillas threatening to storm the heavily-fortified
government compound.

Helicopter gunships unleashed new attacks on suspected rebel positions and
SU-25 fighter planes struck at targets in the suburbs, Interfax news
agency quoted its correspondent at the scene as saying.

Russian officials said the army was flushing out rebels who stormed into the
city on Tuesday, seizing control of many areas in a show of strength that
followed weeks of Russian attacks against Chechen villages.

The rebels, who felt betrayed by President Boris Yeltsin after the collapse
of peace agreements reached during his re-election campaign, launched
their offensive just days ahead of Friday's Kremlin inauguration ceremony.

Heavy casualties, embarrassing for Yeltsin after trumpeting pre-election
peace initiatives, have been reported on both sides. But accurate figures
from some of the fiercest fighting in the 20-month conflict were
impossible to come by.

The rival sides gave contradictory accounts and it was not clear if federal
forces were driving rebels out of the city.

At least 60 Russian servicemen have been killed and 250 wounded, according
to Russian figures quoted by Interfax. Rebel spokesman Movladi Udugov,
quoted by Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio, put separatist losses at six killed
and 12 wounded.

(snip)

Interfax said seven Russian soldiers had been killed and 20 wounded on
Wednesday night alone when army reinforcements came to the rescue of
beleaguered interior ministry troops and police around the government
buildings.

The compound was now under Russian control, Interfax said. But the boom of
artillery and crackling of machinegun fire bore witness to continued rebel
resistance.

Rebel representatives at a southern base told Interfax that about 500
separatist fighters had entered Grozny overnight, bringing the overall
number of rebels there to 3,000.

About 300 fighters were concentrated near the Severny airport outside Grozny
which houses a Russian military base, while another Russian stronghold at
Khankala to the east came under rebel fire 10 times overnight, the agency
said.

Interfax had earlier quoted the rebels as saying they controlled the centre
and had repelled all Russian attempts to lift the siege of the government
headquarters.

But a representative from the Russian command said the situation had
``improved considerably'' and the acting head of Russian troops in the
region appealed to the rebels to stop fighting to prevent further civilian
casualties.

Lieutenant-General Konstantin Pulikovsky, quoted by Interfax, said he was
ready for talks with the separatists.

But First Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Lobov ruled out negotiations with rebel
chief of staff Aslan Maskhadov, previously regarded by Moscow as a
moderate.

Lobov, Yeltsin's personal representative in Chechnya, reported to the
Federation Council upper chamber of parliament that federal forces were
mopping up resistance and bringing Grozny under control.

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:15:04 +0200

Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: Reuter: War toll in hundreds as Russia pounds Grozny rebels

GROZNY, Russia (Aug 8, 1996 09:00 a.m. EDT) - Russian troops backed by
helicopter gunships and fighter jets pounded rebel positions in the
Chechen capital Grozny in a third day of fighting that has killed or
wounded hundreds.

The separatists resisted Moscow's fierce counter-offensive in a stand-off
that has left neither of the warring sides in clear control of the
battered city.

A third day of bloody battles left more bodies lying on the streets.

As the casualty toll ran into the hundreds, the current rebel onslaught
showed no sign of running out of steam despite Russian statements about
"clean-up" operations.

Russian officials said the army was flushing out rebels who stormed into the
city on Tuesday, seizing many areas in a show of strength that followed
weeks of Russian attacks against Chechen villages.

(snip)

Heavy casualties, embarrassing for Yeltsin after trumpeting pre-election
peace initiatives, have been reported on both sides. But accurate figures
from some of the fiercest fighting in the 20-month conflict were
impossible to come by.

Russian army reinforcements, whose convoys rumbled into Grozny overnight,
guarded the headquarters of the pro-Moscow government after blocking an
attempt by rebels to seize the buildings on Wednesday.

But Itar-Tass news agency, whose correspondent is among a group of civilians
holed up in the compound, said fighting erupted again on Thursday after
rebels returned Russian fire.

Helicopter gunships unleashed attacks on suspected rebel positions elsewhere
in Grozny and SU-25 fighter jets struck at targets in the suburbs,
Interfax news agency quoted its correspondent at the scene as saying.

Separatist information chief Movladi Udugov later told Reuters by telephone
that the rebels had shot down one of the planes over the western district
of Chernorechye. No independent confirmation was immediately available.

The rival sides gave contradictory accounts of the battles and of
casualties. Both sides tend to underestimate their own losses and
exaggerate the casualties of their opponents.

About 70 Russian servicemen have been killed and up to 300 wounded, Interfax
said, quoting figures released by the Russian military command. It was not
clear if this included interior ministry dead and wounded, put at 37 and
153 respectively.

Udugov said the Russians had lost up to 1,000 men in Grozny. He put
separatist losses at six killed and 12 wounded.

(snip)

The rebels' biggest offensive in five months was masterminded by field
commander Shamil Basayev, who led a hostage-taking raid on southern Russia
last year, Interfax reported from southern Chechnya.

In a typically scornful statement, Basayev was quoted as saying he was in
complete control of Grozny and "ready to receive a Russian delegation."

Udugov said the rebels, who say they number up to 3,000, controlled the city
centre and had repelled all Russian attempts to lift the siege of the
government headquarters.

But a representative from the Russian command said the situation had
"improved considerably" and the acting head of Russian troops in the
region appealed to the rebels to stop fighting to prevent further civilian
casualties.

Lieutenant-General Konstantin Pulikovsky, quoted by Interfax, said he was
ready for talks with the separatists.

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:56:52 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: How RIA-Novosti looks at the situation

After one and a half day of silence, RIA-Novosti woke up today. Here is
the official Russian version of what's happening in Grozny:
-----------------------------------------------------------

THE SEPARATIST FIGHTERS HAVE BEEN OUSTED FROM THE CENTRE OF
GROZNY, BUT THEY STILL CONTROL THREE DISTRICTS IN THE CITY

GROZNY, AUGUST 8, RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT VASILY
DYACHKOV - The Chechen fighters have been forced out of the
centre of Grozny, only individual snipers open fire from the
roofs and from ruined buildings. This information was received
today from the republican Deputy Interior Minister Yury Plugin.

At present, the fighters control three districts in the
city - Staropromyslovsky, Oktyabrsky and Zavodskoy. Battles are
going on in the Zavodskoy District, in which the militia station
and the railway station are situated. By 7 o'clock this morning
the militia de-blocked the railway station where 70 builders now
stay under the protection of militiamen.

The greater part of the inhabitants of the Russian
mission's hotel has spent this night in the basement.

Plugin said that in the building of the Interior Ministry
its four staff-members were wounded. The number of the losses is
not yet known.

AS FIGHTING IN GROZNY CONTINUES, THE COMMANDER OF THE
FEDERAL FORCES INSISTS THAT THE GUERRILLAS' ACTION HAS FULLY
MISFIRED

MOSCOW, AUGUST 8, RIA NOVOSTI - The plan of Yandarbiyev's
commandoes to seize Grozny has totally misfired. This assessment
of the events in the Chechen capital has been made at the
Khankala air base today by the commander of the joint group of
federal forces in Chechnya, Lt.-Gen.Konstantin Pulikovsky.

In the meantime, according to various military sources,
fighting in Grozny continues unabated, with the most intensive
fire exchanges reported in the Staropromyslovsky and Zavodskoy
districts of the city and in the Chernorechye area. Additional
troops are being brought into the city which immediately go into
battle and "knock the rebels out" from their positions. More
than ten helicopter gunships are patrolling the air, track down
concentrations of rebels and fire missiles at them. The air
force and heavy artillery have not been used. There have been
several cases when Chechen militia units dropped their weapons
and stopped all resistance. Casualty reports need further
confirmation. The information that the militia headquarters at
Argun have been seized by the "irreconcilable" has not been
confirmed. According to a well-informed source in the group's
headquarters, the rebels have been practically totally driven
away out of that city and the situation there is under control
of army units. (maz/gar)

A REINFORCEMENT HAS BEEN SENT IN TO THE DEFENDERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT HOUSE IN GROZNY

MOSCOW, AUGUST 8, RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT BORIS
FYODOROV - The defenders of the Government House in Grozny has
received a reinforcement of 150 conscripts today. According to
Chechen Security Council Secretary Ruslan Tsakayev, the
separatists have managed to seize only one city telephone
exchange, other governmental buildings are controlled by the
Chechen militia. One defender of the Government House was killed
and three wounded. (kos/ign)

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> writes:

>What Russia is doing in Chechnya is an act of utmost cowardice and
>savagery. Get out and let them finally have their freedom!

General Gromov said essentially the same thing
in an interview. He said that what the Russian army is
doing in Chechnya is shameful. But some people
don't feel shame, they only feel good when they lie.

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

to

mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:

> Quite contrary, Burns is entirely correct. He is blaming rebels
> for resorting again to using civilians, both Russian and Chechen,
> as human shields. It was rebels themselves who always were
> bringing combat into cities. It weren't federal troops
> who took hospital hostage - high point of barbarism, hardly
> matched by any other armed group in today's world.

> Thus, responsibility for civiliian's deaths in Grozny belongs
> to the unlawful armed groups. It is that simple.

Wrong on almost all counts.

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:37:30 +0200

Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>
To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: VOA 11-Aug-96 2:51 PM EDT (1851 UTC)

DATE=8/11/96
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-201556
TITLE=RUSSIA/CHECHNYA DAYWRAP
BYLINE=PETER HEINLEIN
DATELINE=MOSCOW
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO: RUSSIAN PRIME MINISTER VICTOR CHERNOMYRDIN HAS CALLED FOR
"RADICAL MEASURES" TO END THE LATEST OUTBREAK OF FIGHTING IN
CHECHNYA. V-O-A'S PETER HEINLEIN IN MOSCOW REPORTS NEITHER SIDE
HAS A CLEAR ADVANTAGE AS THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF THE CHECHEN
CAPITAL MOVES INTO A SEVENTH DAY.

TEXT: PRIME MINISTER CHERNOMYRDIN TOLD AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF
THE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ON CHECHNYA SUNDAY THE WAR AGAINST
SEPARATIST REBELS SHOULD BE INTENSIFIED. MR. CHERNOMYRDIN WAS
QUOTED AS SAYING FEDERAL FORCES IN THE BREAKAWAY REGION MUST BE
RE-INFORCED.

THE PRIME MINISTER HELD URGENT TALKS DURING THE DAY WITH
PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN. NEWS AGENCIES REPORTED MR. YELTSIN
DEMANDED IMMEDIATE STEPS TO NORMALIZE THE SITUATION.

THE PRESIDENT'S NEWLY-APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE TO CHECHNYA,
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ALEXANDER LEBED, FLEW TO THE REGION TO
LOOK INTO WHAT WERE DESCRIBED AS GROSS MISCALCULATIONS LEADING TO
THE ROUT OF FEDERAL TROOPS. THE ITAR-TASS NEWS AGENCY SUGGESTED
MR. LEBED COULD BE ATTEMPTING TO OPEN TALKS WITH THE REBELS.

BUT DESPITE THE URGENT MEETINGS AND TOUGH RHETORIC IN MOSCOW,
THERE WAS NO LETUP IN THE INTENSE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF GROZNY.
REPORTERS IN THE CITY SUNDAY TOLD OF ROCKET AND MACHINE GUN
BATTLES, PLUMES OF BLACK SMOKE RISING FROM BURNING BUILDINGS,
STREETS LITTERED WITH BODIES, AND A MASS EXODUS OF REFUGEES.

AT DAY'S END, REBEL FIGHTERS WERE IN CONTROL OF MOST OF THE CITY,
WITH FEDERAL TROOPS STILL HOLDING KEY INSTALLATIONS IN THE
CENTER.

REBEL FIGHTERS WERE REPORTED MASSING DURING THE DAY AROUND A
HOSPITAL WHERE DOZENS OF FEDERAL TROOPS ARE SAID TO BE HOLDING
PATIENTS AND MEDICAL WORKERS HOSTAGE. AN INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS
OFFICIAL IN MOSCOW SAYS THE BESIEGED RUSSIANS ARE USING THE 200
HOSTAGES AS HUMAN SHIELDS, DEMANDING SAFE PASSAGE THROUGH REBEL
LINES.

BUT RUSSIA'S INTERFAX NEWS AGENCY SUNDAY GAVE A DIFFERENT
VERSION. INTERFAX QUOTED A FEDERAL FORCES SPOKESMAN AS SAYING
RUSSIAN TROOPS HAD OCCUPIED THE HOSPITAL TO PREVENT REBELS FROM
TAKING HOSTAGES.

THE RED CROSS MOSCOW OFFICE OFFICIAL SAID CONDITIONS INSIDE THE
HOSPITAL ARE NEARING THE CRITICAL STAGE. HE SAID THERE HAS BEEN
NO WATER FOR DAYS, WITH FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES RUNNING LOW.

DURING A DAY OF HEAVY CASUALTIES, A RUSSIAN MILITARY OFFICIAL
SAID AT LEAST 170 FEDERAL TROOPS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE NEARLY
WEEK-LONG BATTLE. HE ESTIMATED REBEL LOSSES AT SEVERAL TIMES
THAT FIGURE.

THE SEPARATISTS SAY THEY HAVE KILLED MORE THAN ONE-THOUSAND
RUSSIAN SOLDIERS IN THE FIGHTING, BUT HAVE GIVEN NO ESTIMATES OF
THEIR OWN CASUALTIES. THE NUMBER OF CIVILIANS KILLED IS ALSO
BELIEVED HIGH.

ANALYSTS SAY CIVILIANS MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THE ESTIMATED
30-THOUSAND PEOPLE KILLED SINCE RUSSIA SENT TROOPS TO CRUSH THE
CHECHEN REBELLION 20-MONTHS AGO. (SIGNED)

NEB/RAE

11-Aug-96 2:51 PM EDT (1851 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

to

Elevator Operator (mas...@arranger.spb.su) wrote:
> jo...@jytko.jyu.fi (Jorma Kypp|)
> in <4ukvsv$m...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi> writes:

> >Chechens got fed up with these thousands of empty promises
> >and started a massive offensive.

> Can you see, Chechens always were ready to negotiate under one general
> condition: "state independence".

Yes. That is the basic problem as also Russia also negotiate under
one condition: "Russia is undivided".

> "OK guys, let's talk but we'll do only
> according to our will." Their guerillas continued the fire and mining,
> and the armistrice always was a great time for rest and complete
> preparations to continue the war.

Well, yes. But that's also what Russians do. The problem is, that
Russians don't trust on Chechens and Chechens don't trust on Russians.
That's why Lebed has a golden possibility. He *might* be a person,
who Chechens belive. The man, who don't eat his words.

> (Sir, you predicted well some possible events in Russia to happen, yet
> you didn't mention one thing: if Chechnya gets independence this may
> cause very big problems not only for Russia but for many other
> countries as well.

It is very understanable, that if Russia starts to get in pieces
from south it certainly will have large effects also around.
Just like always when history is labile.
Another question is if the muslim based crisis from
Xinkiang, China to Caucasus and Mediterranian area.

> You can refer some gen.Dudaev's TV-interviews; don't
> forget: that guy always fulfiled his promises.)

Dudayevs "promises" what comes to western European
states were understanable on basis how these states
and European Union de facto support Russia in Chechenya.
What is political liturgia, that is another thing.

Yes. It is possible, that also European Union will
be drawn in this mess.

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:

> ]But Burns makes an mistake when claiming, that these fights

> ]were started by Chechens. Actually the process started
> ]immediately after Yeltsin was elected by some Russian
> ]officials (actually I wrote in 2 newsgroups 15th June,
> ]that that's what will happen). Now the difference is that
> ]Chechens got fed up with these thousands of empty promises
> ]and started a massive offensive.

> Quite contrary, Burns is entirely correct. He is blaming rebels
> for resorting again to using civilians, both Russian and Chechen,
> as human shields.

I've to repeat your words: quite contrary. Just yesterday in Finnish
TV-news were told about Russian troops, who escaped from Grozny
by using civilians as shield. The news gave us to understand, that
this was told also in some Russian news and made a scandal there.

> It was rebels themselves who always were
> bringing combat into cities. It weren't federal troops
> who took hospital hostage - high point of barbarism, hardly
> matched by any other armed group in today's world.

Oh no! Already when this war started Russians used to bomb
civilians in the villages. Russians had same paranoia like
Americans in Vietnam: every local is an enemy, no matter
if she is a child or old woman.
And so it has been 2 years.

> Thus, responsibility for civiliian's deaths in Grozny belongs
> to the unlawful armed groups. It is that simple.

It is not simple at all, but I admit, that you can find
guilties from both sides.

> ]Generally, Chechens have right for independence like any

> ]nation, but the problem is this:
> ]Russia is in trap. If Russia don't give up for Chechens
> ]the fights *don't end*, but in 10 years terror spreads
> ]all over the Russia.

> Opposite is true - terrorism will spread through
> Russia if federal government gives up.

No. Not terrorism, but separatism.

> ]If Chechenya means for Russia same, that Afganistan meant

> ]for SU, we'll see. In five years...

> Russia is not SU. Russia is more efficient, not being encumbered by
> ideology.

Just the other way round. SU had an ideology, that made her efficient.
Communism. But communism was killed in Prague in 1968 and later
buried to Afganistan.
The problem of Russia is the lack of identitety. Nationalism doesn't
work if only 70% of citizens are Russians and only one third of
them nationalists.
Now they try Orthodox Church, but I doubt it will work...

Santtu Asp TKKK

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:

: Incompetence of army command is, indeed, shameful. However,

: rebels will be put down, just like they were put down
: by Ermolov. There is simply no other choice.

Except independent/autonomous Chechnia..
The advantage Chechens have is that they feel they are
on a just cause and therefore extremely committed.
I don't think that's the case with Russian military.

: They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.

Ruthless, yes. Bandits, no.

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to Michael Kagalenko

Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
> H. M. Hubey (hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:

> ]SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> writes:
> ]
> ]>What Russia is doing in Chechnya is an act of utmost cowardice and
> ]>savagery. Get out and let them finally have their freedom!
> ]
> ]General Gromov said essentially the same thing
> ]in an interview. He said that what the Russian army is
>

> Incompetence of army command is, indeed, shameful. However,
> rebels will be put down, just like they were put down
> by Ermolov. There is simply no other choice.

> They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.
>

> --
> LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

You, russians are bandins, not chechens. You have started the war, you
have killed thousands of people. After all, it's the land of chechens, no
t russians. You are damned bloody occupants, dreaming about derzava which
has only caused harm for all people in it. Wake up and mind your ouwn
russian business in Moscow. Other nations don't need you!!!

Audrius

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:44:24 +0100
From: WriteNet <ficon6%GN.AP...@plearn.edu.pl>

Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>

Subject: Items of Interest from the Russian Press

The following articles were posted by Arthur Martirosyan to the Groong
newsgroup.

MOSKOVSKIY KOMSOMOLETS 13 August 1996 page 1

Report by Yuliya Kalinina: "Chechnya Has Waited Till Lebed Come to It"

It is one week since Groznyy has been in the Separatists' hands. Our
losses are huge. According to the most roughest estimates, there are about
two hundred killed, seven hundred wounded and an unknown number of the
unaccounted-for.
The president ordered the city cleared of gangsters. How can this be
done? There still remain in Groznyy several thousand of our military people
pinned down by rebel fighters in road-block posts and military headquarters
-- meaning that the city cannot be bombed from the air or thoroughly worked
over by the artillery without killing them by the friendly fire. In the
words of the North Caucasus Military District Commander Anatoliy Kvashnin,
there remains the only way to let into the city mobile anti-subversion
groups which would under the cover of armored vehicles take "one block of
buildings after another" and get entrenched there. This tactic is expected
to make possible to avoid high casualties among the military people.
This means that the federal forces are not going to take Groznyy in the
next few days. Apparently, they mainly bargain on the fighters finally
leaving of their own accord after their ammunition gives out rather than on
our military might. Despite the fact that such a situation appears as a
show of weakness on the part of our command, in reality it rather
demonstrates wisdom having suddenly come awake. The decision "not to be in
a hurry and not to harm people" is good at least because it lies on the same
plane of arguments and actions on which the separatists act.
Indeed, they did not come to Groznyy to fight with the Joint Group of
Federal Forces. Maskhadov said more than once that everybody realizes very
well: it is impossible to manage the Russian military machine by force, one
should not even try, therefore one may only talk with Russia. At the same
time, the separatists can manage by force another factor hostile to them --
"national-traitors who brought Russian troops in Chechnya and who now hide
behind their back and steal 'rehabilitation' money and frustrate all talks
with Russia." They have in mind Zavgayevites (who are also Avturkhanovites,
Khadzhievites and other collaborators of the local militiamen and economic
managers type. It is in these people that the separatists see the main
reason for which war in Chechnya continues, and it is with them that they
have come to deal.
Which is why the fighters walk in the city wearing masks. It is not TV
cameras or special services that they are afraid of. They are afraid of
their own people. They do not want the relations of a Zavgayev supporter
whom they kill to wage a blood feud against their own families.
For the sake of what, under the situation, should Russian military people
come out and draw the internecine fire? This is absolutely unnecessary.
Let the Chechens argue it out among themselves and Russian politicians argue
it out with those who would stay alive.
The presidential plenipotentiary representative in Chechnya, General
Lebed seems to be also acting on the same plane. Inside twenty-four hours,
he contrived to take a trip to Chechnya, come under fire, meet with
Maskhadov, return to Moscow and report his impressions to Yeltsin. It is
known that the meeting discussed terms of a bilateral cease-fire and a
pullout of the fighters from Groznyy.
Yet another effort with regard to settling the situation was made by
Premier Chernomyrdin. He ordered the Justice Ministry to consider, inside
three days, the possibility of introducing in Groznyy a "state of
emergency." This initiative is somewhat out of keeping with today's
realities in Chechnya. Firstly, before an emergency situation can be
introduced, Groznyy should be cleared of the fighters. Secondly, a
corresponding presidential edict should be approved by the Federation
Council which is now in recess. Thirdly, there has long been in effect in
Chechnya actually all the main attributes of emergency situation: curfew,
patrolling the territory, housing and property search, examination of
identity papers, guarding of state and economic facilities, strengthened
"border" rules. Meetings and marches alone have not been banned. However,
a ban of "street marches" can hardly prevent fighters from entering Groznyy.
The absence of a legally confirmed emergency situation is the last reason
one can cite explaining the authority's impotence in Chechnya. It is hardly
wise to play this last card now. Should emergency situation prove unable to
keep fighters outside Groznyy, the authorities would have to learn how to
tell tales about magic hats, flying carpets and other devices the perfidious
Chechens have but the impoverished army, unfortunately, does not.
(end)

KOMMERSANT-DAILY 13 August 1996 page 3

Commentary by Ilya Bulavinov

"They could have fought better and smarter." Such was Defense Minister
Igor Rodionov's comment yesterday on the actions of his subordinates in
Groznyy. But despite the fact that it is, perhaps, for the first time
during the entire of the Chechen campaign that a high-ranking military man
should have summoned up courage to admit ineffectiveness of the army's
actions, one has to recognize that, to all appearances, there are no people
in Russia who can fight better or smarter. The number of generals who
proved their ineptitude runs into dozens and there is no real alternative to
Kvashnin, Tikhomirov, and Shamanov in sight. Nor is there a place from
where one can get smarter ordinary soldiers and officers -- most of the
combat worthy units were in Chechnya before or are in it today. Thus, one
should have long reconciled themselves to the fact that a Russia unprepared
for war is doomed to making do with the personnel and assets which it has
rather than those which it should have had. With all the consequences this
entails.
Unlike the minister, his subordinates are in no hurry to admit mistakes.
An informed Defense Ministry source told your KOMMERSANT-DAILY correspondent
yesterday that there were no Defense Ministry subunits in Groznyy on 6
August (the day the fighters launched the operation) with the exception of a
motorized rifle platoon and an airborne company since, in accordance with
the plan developed by the MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs] and signed by
Viktor Chernomyrdin, Groznyy is a zone of responsibility of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs (incidentally, the military man recalled that the general
supervision of disarming all unlawful formations was put by a presidential
edict back last year on MVD head Anatoliy Kulikov). Deployed in the Chechen
capital were about 7,500 servicemen of the internal troops and of internal
affairs agencies. As late as 7 August there were formed and sent to Groznyy
assault detachments with heavy equipment from the Defense Ministry group of
forces. Up to 1,500 men all in all. The military man thinks that the army
"for yet one more time" played a "fire brigade" role. As for the actions of
army units in Groznyy, the source thinks that "this was not a classical
combat in a built-up area because the military people could not use the
available assets because they had to try to protect civilians." "Of course,
all the work could have been done better but under the given situation our
actions could have hardly been different."
Obviously, should the current situation continue, the whole thing will
repeat itself -- the troops clear the city and villages of fighters, "lock
them up" in the mountains only to see them coming back every time. To
withdraw the troops and to seal the border with Chechnya putting up an "iron
curtain" along the perimeter is impossible for purely technical reasons --
both the Chechen and Tajik experience confirms this. It is technically
possible to declare a state of emergency, to bring in the republic
additional divisions and post a soldier at every bush. This could at least
prevent the seizure by the fighters of towns. But this would in no way
solve the problems of either Chechen terrorism in particular, or the
Chechnya problem on the whole.
(end)

NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA 13 August 1996 page 3

Report by Sergey Mulin: "Russian Peacekeepers Mandate Extended"

Fifty-eight billion rubles a year is the total cost to the Russian
taxpayer of the upkeep of 1,506 servicemen and combat equipment billeted in
the area of the border between Georgia and Abkhazia. This figure heard from
deputy Russian foreign minister Boris Pastukhov in the Federation Council on
7 August impressed journalists in the press center much more than the senators.
The Russian Foreign Ministry's proposal to extend until 31 January 1997
the mandate of the Russian Federation peacekeepers synchronizing it with the
extension by the UN Security Council until the same date of the mandates of
international observers in the conflict zone was supported by 127 to 12
votes with 3 abstentions.
Such a consensus in the upper house of parliament was preceded by a
positive conclusion by the senate security and defense committee aired by
its chairman Aleksandr Ryabov and purely protocol-related questions from the
floor.
The senators were somewhat put off by the word "collective" appearing in
the name of the CIS peacekeeping forces which separate the opposing sides.
Boris Pastukhov confirmed the Federation Council members' doubts saying that
none of the CIS countries had wanted to contribute its representatives to
the military contingent along the Georgia-Abkhazia border although the
contingent was at first proposed to have an intergovernmental status.
(end)

NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA 13 August 1996 page 1

Report by Alan Kasayev: "Lebed Maintains That He Has Nearly Agreed with
Maskhadov About a Ceasefire and the Separation of Forces"

What has always happened in the brief but tempestuous history of modern
Russian-Chechen relations has happened again: After yet another
unprecedented escalation of violence and reciprocal terrorism the sides have
again decided to come to terms. Except that now the main protagonists in
the new spiral of the negotiating process have changed: On the Russian
side, Security Council Secretary Aleksandr Lebed has shown himself as a
peacemaker, finally taking at least one decisive step that has long been
expected from him. On the side of the Chechen separatists his counterpart
has been chief of staff Aslan Maskhadov who has always been seen as an
optimal figure for negotiations on various compromises. True, owing to the
efforts of Doku Zavgayev, head of the Chechen Republic who has done his
utmost to prevent any negotiations, Maskhadov, together with separatists'
head Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, is on the list of wanted criminals subject to
immediate detention.
But then Power [preceding word capitalized] in Russia is Power precisely
because when there is a need, it does not reckon with any juridical, let
alone moral, obstacles. This is exactly how the situation is now: By
undoing the Moscow and Nazran agreements with Yandarbiyev, the Kremlin
sought to force the opposing side to comply with its terms that can, in
brief, be summed up as the unilateral disarmament of the separatists and
recognition of the legitimacy of Doku Zavgayev, and on this basis the
holding of elections for the new power structures, and the opening of
negotiations on the status of Chechnya. Meanwhile the draft of such a
treaty on status -- the final product of the negotiating process -- has
already been published by the Russian side, putting Yandarbiyev and his
inner circle in an unequal position compared with the federal delegation.
In this context the behavior by the separatists, who not agree to
unconditional dictate and who were even less prepared to recognize Doku
Zavgayev in any form, was absolutely predictable.
The capture and holding of major areas in Groznyy by large -- by Chechen
standards -- forces of separatist fighters in spite of the attempts by
Russian Federation interior troops and part of Russian Federation Defense
Ministry armed formations to drive the separatists out of Groznyy, clearly
demonstrated to the sober minded Russian politicians that Moscow has not
accomplished a military success in Chechnya and will hardly achieve it by
using the current forces and methods. The USSR's experience in Afghanistan
and the United States' experience in Vietnam show that it is difficult, if
at all possible, to achieve success in the struggle between a regular army
and guerrillas on a territory loyal to the latter without reliable internal
allies. The only thing that can be done is to adopt "scorched earth"
tactics, destroying everything alive on the territory where the enemy is
based. Yet this cannot be done for many reasons.
First, this will not be well received. The times are not what they used to
be while the western allies' and sponsors' wish to support reformist forces
is not so strong after Yeltsin's success in the presidential elections.
Second, because the army is incapable of undertaking even local "special
operations," there is no way they can undertake a large scale operation.
Third, political consensus in the Kremlin and the White House is far from
being reached: The various groupings continue to fight for power and
influence, as they did under Korzhakov and Barsukov. The only difference is
that the main characters have changed. The acute competition will not allow
anyone to obtain the right to unconditionally to resolve the Chechen crisis,
emerging as a sole military winner or global peacemaker.
Owing to this, there are no grounds to hope for a final success of the
moves initiated by the lightning "Lebed mission" yesterday. Nor will it be
allowed to fail. To all appearances the current spiral of escalation and
negotiations will be a half-way measure, while the Russian side will only be
able to break the deadlock after the new "party of peace" defeats the new
"party of war."
(end)

"The most common form of human stupidity is
forgetting what one is trying to do."

Friedrich Nietzsche

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:31:07 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: Reuter: Russians Deny Truce with Chechen Rebels

Wednesday August 14 6:49 AM EDT

GROZNY, Russia (Reuter) - A respite for the people of Grozny
from eight days of bitter fighting was cast into doubt on
Wednesday when the Russian army denied it had agreed a ceasefire
with Chechen rebel forces.

``Broadcast statements about a full ceasefire in Chechnya
from 12 o'clock Moscow time today do not correspond to
reality,'' Itar-Tass news agency quoted a military official as
saying.

But the guerrillas insisted they would stop shooting at noon
local time. People in the city said there was a lull in fighting
on Wednesday morning after overnight shooting.

General Konstantin Pulikovsky, the acting Russian commander
who met his rebel counterpart on Tuesday, told Interfax: ``This
was an ordinary meeting between two fighting and opposing
sides...We did not reach agreement on anything.''

But rebel spokesman Movladi Udugov said the guerrillas had
already ``sharply reduced'' their activity and would go ahead
with a ceasefire they said was agreed to evacuate civilians and
the wounded.

Their chief-of-staff Aslan Maskhadov, who met Pulikovsky on
Tuesday evening, had given the order to stop shooting, he said.

``Despite this (Russian) statement, Maskhadov has clearly
declared we will keep to our agreement and begin a complete
ceasefire from 12 o'clock today,'' Udugov told Reuters.

``If the Russian side continues military operations it will
be completely their responsibility and we will see who it is
that is supporting the war.''

The Russian army spokesman who denied reports of the
ceasefire told Tass talks would continue and both sides had
agreed to help civilians. ``A decision was reached to continue
consultations and that is the main thing,'' he said.

Thousands of refugees have been trying to flee the fighting
in the Chechen capital Grozny since the rebels attacked the city
on August 6. Aid agencies have asked the two sides to open up
``humanitarian corridors'' to let people leave the city safely.

A Reuter cameraman in the city centre said: ``There was no
heavy fighting this morning, just a bit of firing here and there
on the outskirts. The centre is quiet and peaceful.''

Rebel unit commander Khizer Dadazhev told him: ``There will
be no military activity from midday to provide a corridor for
civilians to get out of the city.''

Large parts of the city were still in rebel hands.

Interfax news agency quoted a Russian military source
saying: ``All attempts by Russian forces to secure the city
centre have been unsuccessful.''

Rebel leader Shamil Basayev, who made his name with a bloody
raid on the southern Russian city of Budennovsk last year, said
on Tuesday he had no plans to retreat.

``We did not come just to show off or to rob the city,'' he
told the Reuters cameraman before attending the talks. ``We
began the war in Grozny and we have decided to end it in
Grozny.''

Late on Tuesday a Red Cross worker in Grozny told Reuters
that conditions were desperate.

``We're running out of food. Most people have absolutely no
water. There are a lot of wounded people stuck in basements,''
said Fery Aalam, head of the International Committee of the Red
Cross in Grozny. ``We certainly hope the ceasefire will hold.''

Tens of thousands of civilians, many wounded, have been
trapped by the heavy fighting.

Despite a Russian army statement that its forces had halted
air strikes, helicopter gunships fired on refugees on Tuesday,
killing some, including children, Western journalists said.

(snip)

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

From ficon6%GN.AP...@plearn.edu.pl Wed Aug 14 12:45:25 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:50:44 +0100
From: WriteNet <ficon6%GN.AP...@plearn.edu.pl>

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: Items of Interest from the Russian Press

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

"Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> writes:

>Kagalenko, have you no shame, have you no human decency, have you no
>regard for the rights of nations to live in peace and freedom.

Kagalenko also doesn't know any history. [Y]Ermolov did not end
the war during the last century but prolonged it. Exactly
what is going on now, happened before, as can be seen from the
history books I posted. The Caucasians, and Chechens humiliated
many generals, and Tsars before, and are doing it now, again.

Those that don't know any history, usually repeat it. That's
why Russia has been the land of slaves for a 1,000 years. Too
many people like Kagalenko. So far, Lebed is coming in like one
of the few honest people Yeltsin has been able to find. Let's
see if he gets framed by the rest of the corrupt, and incompetent
bureacracy or will actually start to clean up the real criminals
who live in Moscow, and allow the Russian nation to join the
rest of the world. If there are too many slavish Kagalenkos
nothing will happen. Then we can say that every nation gets
the leaders it deserves. As we all know willing slaves get
what they deserve also.

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

From nost%LING.HU...@plearn.edu.pl Wed Aug 14 12:46:25 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:23:03 +0200

Reply-To: Discussion list about Chechnya CHECHNYA <CHEC...@plearn.edu.pl>

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: VOA: 14-Aug-96 7:56 AM EDT (1156 UTC)

DATE=8/14/96
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-201694
TITLE=RUSSIA / CHECHNYA (S UPDATE)

BYLINE=PETER HEINLEIN
DATELINE=MOSCOW
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO: SCATTERED FIGHTING IS CONTINUING IN THE CHECHEN CAPITAL,
GROZNY, HOURS AFTER REBEL FORCES SAID THEY WOULD BEGIN A
CEASEFIRE. V-O-A'S PETER HEINLEIN IN MOSCOW REPORTS THE LATEST
BATTLE CASUALTIES HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS.

TEXT: NEWS AGENCIES SAY A RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT HAS BOMBED A COLUMN
OF CIVILIANS FLEEING THE CHECHEN CAPITAL, GROZNY. FIRST REPORTS
INDICATE SEVERAL PEOPLE KILLED.

INSIDE THE CITY, REBEL FIGHTERS AND RUSSIAN FORCES WERE LOCKED IN
COMBAT AT THREE LOCATIONS HOURS AFTER A REBEL-DECLARED CEASEFIRE
WAS DUE TO TAKE EFFECT. THE ITAR-TASS NEWS AGENCY QUOTED FEDERAL
TROOP COMMANDER KONSTANTIN PULIKOVSKY AS TELLING OF A BATTLE IN
PROGRESS AROUND A BUILDING IN THE CITY CENTER, WHERE A GROUP OF
SOLDIERS IS TRYING TO FEND OF A FIERCE REBEL ATTACK.

GENERAL PULIKOVSKY EARLIER DENIED HAVING AGREED TO A CEASEFIRE.

DESPITE THE VIOLENCE, THERE ARE SIGNS TENSIONS IN GROZNY MIGHT BE
EASING. PARTS OF THE CITY ARE CALM, AND REBEL SPOKESMAN MOVLADI
UDUGOV SAYS SEPARATIST FIGHTERS HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO HOLD THEIR
FIRE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RUSSIANS DO.

A FEDERAL FORCES SPOKESMAN TOLD ITAR-TASS THE RUSSIAN SIDE WOULD
NOT SHOOT UNLESS PROVOKED, AND WOULD ALLOW A HUMANITARIAN
CORRIDOR TO ALLOW CIVILIANS TO FLEE. AID AGENCIES HAVE
REPEATEDLY REQUESTED SUCH A CORRIDOR AS CONDITIONS DETERIORATED
IN THE CAPITAL DURING THE NINE DAYS OF FIGHTING. (SIGNED)

NEB/PH/JWH

14-Aug-96 7:56 AM EDT (1156 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

From nost%LING.HU...@plearn.edu.pl Wed Aug 14 12:47:21 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:06:51 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: RIA: Still no corridor for refugees

RIA IS THE OFFICIAL RUSSIAN NEWS SERVICE

HUMANITARIAN CORRIDOR FOR REFUGEES OUT OF GROZNY NOT YET
PROVIDED, CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE OF CHECHEN REPUBLIC UNDER
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT

MOSCOW, AUGUST 14, RIA NOVOSTI'S BORIS FEDOROV - The
federal troops have not provided yet a "humanitarian corridor"
for the exist of refugees from Grozny, deputy permanent
representative of the Chechen republic under the Russian
President Aslanbek Buchulayev has told RIA Novosti. He claims
that the federal block posts refuse to let refugees and wounded
persons get out of the city saying that there may be rebels
among them.

Buchulayev stressed that the government of the republic is
doing everything possible to make the federal troops let through
the columns of buses to the Grozny suburbia to take the wounded,
women and children to safe areas. (fed/gar)

Isam Kamel

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
> H. M. Hubey (hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
> ]SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> writes:
> ]
> ]>What Russia is doing in Chechnya is an act of utmost cowardice and
> ]>savagery. Get out and let them finally have their freedom!
> ]
> ]General Gromov said essentially the same thing
> ]in an interview. He said that what the Russian army is
>
> Incompetence of army command is, indeed, shameful. However,
> rebels will be put down, just like they were put down
> by Ermolov. There is simply no other choice.

Mr. xy, the proud freedom fighters in Chechnya are in no way bandits; your sort of mankind is like that of your
alkoholist and corrupt leaders, who just throw hundreds of russian young soldiers into this war mashinary.
Wake up and try not to justify the crimes of others if you don't have enough information. Your country leaders
are decadent Hitlers of this decade. The resposibility of europians is now to tell the truth as it is, that the
Chechnyains have been killed since three hundred years just for asking and trying to live in freedom as all
nations on this globus.

> They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.dummkopf

>
> --
> LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

--
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
email: is...@prz.tu-berlin.de
is...@oks1.fokus.gmd.de
pc...@cs.tu-berlin.de
ikam...@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" KEEP IT SIMPLE: AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, BUT NO SIMPLER."

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

In article <4uvgnd$i...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> It takes a bit of sanity to realize that those who take hospitals
> hostage are bandits.

Right on, Myhailo. Especially in the context of the recent events:

" 11/08/1996

Segodnja federal'nyj otrjad, zaxvativshij v subbotu 9 Gorbol'nicu
Groznogo i blokirovannyj v nej, pokinul zdanie bol'nicy i pod
prikrytiem primerno 100 zalozhnikov (iz personala bol'nicy i
zhitelej sosednego doma) otstupil. Federaly zaverili chechencev,
chto osvobodjat vsex zalozhnikov, kak tol'ko dojdut do svoix."

" 12/08/1996

Situacija s zaxvatom rossijskimi vojskami zalozhnikov v 9
Groznenskoj Gorbol'nice v subbotu imela segodnja prodolzhenie.
Vo-pervyx, zdanie bol'nicy, iz kotorogo federaly ushli pod
prikrytiem sotni zalozhnikov, stalo podvergat'sja artobstrelu.
Vo-vtoryx, segodnja imeli mesto neskol'ko sluchaev zaxvata
federalami soten mirnyx zhitelej, kotoryx vystavljajut "zhivym schitom"
pered specnazovcami, iduschimi v nastuplenie (ranee vperedi
specnaza shli tanki, no vopijuschaja neeffektivnost' etogo priema v
gorode zastavila ot nego otkazat'sja). V chastnosti, zaxvachen Glava
administracii (promoskovskoj) Itumkalinskogo rajona."

Copyright Info-Russ.

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

In article <4uvidi$o...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>,
Russ Mestechkin <ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu> wrote:

Sorry for the self - followup. I just realized that some of the
reader of this groups will not understand the latin russian below,
so, here is some rough translation:

>
>" 11/08/1996
>
>Segodnja federal'nyj otrjad, zaxvativshij v subbotu 9 Gorbol'nicu
>Groznogo i blokirovannyj v nej, pokinul zdanie bol'nicy i pod
>prikrytiem primerno 100 zalozhnikov (iz personala bol'nicy i
>zhitelej sosednego doma) otstupil. Federaly zaverili chechencev,
>chto osvobodjat vsex zalozhnikov, kak tol'ko dojdut do svoix."

Today a group of Federal forces that took over the Grozny City Hospital
#9 and was blocked in it on Saturday, left the Hospital building taking
approx. 100 hostages as a cover ( hospital personnel and the residents of
the nighboring building). The Federal's assured Chechens that they will
release all the hostages as soon as they return to the Federal base.

>" 12/08/1996
>
>Situacija s zaxvatom rossijskimi vojskami zalozhnikov v 9
>Groznenskoj Gorbol'nice v subbotu imela segodnja prodolzhenie.
>Vo-pervyx, zdanie bol'nicy, iz kotorogo federaly ushli pod
>prikrytiem sotni zalozhnikov, stalo podvergat'sja artobstrelu.
>Vo-vtoryx, segodnja imeli mesto neskol'ko sluchaev zaxvata
>federalami soten mirnyx zhitelej, kotoryx vystavljajut "zhivym schitom"
>pered specnazovcami, iduschimi v nastuplenie (ranee vperedi
>specnaza shli tanki, no vopijuschaja neeffektivnost' etogo priema v
>gorode zastavila ot nego otkazat'sja). V chastnosti, zaxvachen Glava
>administracii (promoskovskoj) Itumkalinskogo rajona."

The situation with the hostages taken by the russian forces an the
Grozno City Hospital on Sut. had continuation today.
Firstly, the Hospital building left with a hundred of hostages as a cover
became subject of mortir fire. Secondly, today a few cases of hundreds
of civilian hostages taking took place. Hostages are used by the special
forces as "life cover" in front of the soldier during the offensive operation
(since the tanks used before proved to be ineffective in the city fighting).
In particular, the Head of the adminitration of ( pro-moscow) Itumkalinsk
region was taken hostage.

>Copyright Info-RUSS.
http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/ARCHIVE/test.html

__
RM

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

In article <4uvlds$m...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:

>Who, apart from suckers like you from emigree community
>believes a word from so -called "Info-Russ" ?

The article was written in Russia, by a russian, based on the materials
gathered from Russian Media, raging imbecile you.

Keep quiet, people might think you have something to say.

__
RM

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

I tried to answer by email (as I got this response first by email,
but this address "netsca...@nd.edu" seems to be no one's

Your message was not delivered to netsca...@nd.edu
for the following reason:
Unable-To-Transfer
User netsca...@nd.edu : No matches to nameserver query)

netsca...@nd.edu wrote:

> Jorma Kypp| wrote:
> > Mr. Kagalenko below quoted some opinions of USA and Nick Burns
> > concerning Chechenya situation.
> > Now, it is good to remember, that between states there are certain
> > rules how to play politics. USA has confessed Russia as a state
> > and naturally USA can't have any rights to touch Chechenya's
> > position. Only thing where USA can touch is human rights.
> > Otherwise we'll get in full anarchy, no signed papers or
> > agreements would be value of zero. And if eg. Mississippi,
> > Carolinas etc. like to divorce USA, Russia and other states
> > would have a full right to support them.

> You americans make huge mistake equalling Chechen Republic (or any other

> autonomous republic in Russia) to Carolinas etc.

perhaps you should reread my article.
1) I'm not an American.
2) I think Chechens have right for independence.

But I can see also the problems on Russian side,
and thatwhat makes it difficult for them to
give this right for Chechens.

> Chechens are a separate nation, they have their own language, religion,
> culture, history, land, etc. etc., which are entirely different from
> Russian. It is a separate NATION!!! Now I will not argue that Indiana or
> any other state is a separate nation with all its attributes.

But USA is a state and states confess other states, not nations.
If a nation has right for a state of it's own is VERY complicated
question. Usually you gain that right by fighting.
Sad but true.

> Russia occupied Chechens some time in the 18th century, they have been
> fighting ever since to regain their independence.

That's true, but if USA eg. don't confess the Russian borders from
80's, there should be made also several other changes. And if
in Russia, why not also in other countries?

> So it's bullshit to say that Chechen problem is an internal problem of
> Russia.

Officially it is. Only thing where the other states can touch
is the human rights.

> If you follow that logic, then you can say that France, Austria,
> Poland, and every other country occupied by Nazi Germany was an internal
> German problem once it was occupied!

But Nazi Germany *was not* confessed by the other states. That's a basic
difference.
I also like here to correct a mistake in my original posting. USA had
an oppoturnity to protest Soviet occupation in Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania, because USA never confessed, that they were part
of Soviet Union. So also didn't Finland. I think, that Sweden was
the only western state, that did it.

But if we allow your logic, you can say, that USA has full rights
to support eg. Basque in her fight to get independent from Spain
and France.
I think, that Basques have this right, but USA has not right
to support them.

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Incompetence of army command is, indeed, shameful. However,
> rebels will be put down, just like they were put down
> by Ermolov. There is simply no other choice.

If a nation has fight for her freedom already 150 years
it tells us that there are exactly 3 choices.
a) Russians have to kill all the 1-2 million Chechens
in Chechenya and abroad.
b) The fighting continues at least another 150 years.
c) Chechens get finally their independence.

A compromise could be a strong autonomy, but after all this blood
it is very very difficult to sell them.

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu (Russ Mestechkin) writes:

>of civilian hostages taking took place. Hostages are used by the special
>forces as "life cover" in front of the soldier during the offensive operation
>(since the tanks used before proved to be ineffective in the city fighting).
>In particular, the Head of the adminitration of ( pro-moscow) Itumkalinsk
>region was taken hostage.

You're wasting your time with Kagalenko. Those
of us who've been reading his posts for the last
N years know that there's something wrong with
his reasoning capabilities.

He reminds me of one of my professors who said that
there was some kind of a proverb or saying in Czech
to the effect that "don't bother me with facts, I've
already got my mind made up." Kagalenko already
has his mind made up for him by his brainwashing.
No amount of facts will change it. I suspect in his
case a slight rinse was enough to clean out his brain,
no need for a good washing :-).

Dmitry Gryaznov

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

> of civilian hostages taking took place. Hostages are used by the special
> forces as "life cover" in front of the soldier during the offensive operation
> (since the tanks used before proved to be ineffective in the city fighting).
> In particular, the Head of the adminitration of ( pro-moscow) Itumkalinsk
> region was taken hostage.
>

> >Copyright Info-RUSS.

> http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/ARCHIVE/test.html

I checked the above URL. It appears to be a mailing list, not
an informational agency. The articles posted there are written
by individual participants - in fact, as with most mailing lists,
anybody can subscribe and send articles to INFO-RUSS.

Now, the two quoted artciles come from the same person:
"Alexander A. Suhanov" <al...@ium.ips.ras.ru> , who neither works
for any informational agency nor gives any references to such agencies
in these articles of his. (Alexander Suhanov is a Moscow school teacher).

Then, INFO-RUSS includes the following disclaimer in its digests of posted
articles and not without a reason, I think:

INFO-RUSS assumes no responsibility for the information
supplied by its users or/and for their views.
-------------------------------------------------------

Now, I tried to find any leads to the info elsewhere. And there is NOT
A SINGLE LINE about this hostage taking neither in CNN, nor in Associated
Press, nor in Reuters, nor in "The Time", nor in several other newspapers,
magazines and informational agencies I checked. They do report Russian
troops firing at civilians, blocking refugees from leaving Grozny hell,
Russian military helicopter allegedly firing a rocket at a refugees convoy
(the latter goes as an unconfirmed report - that's why "allegedly".)
But NOT A SINGLE LINE about any hostages taken in any Grozny hospital by
anybody.

Not that I find it difficult to believe that such a thing _could_ happen :(
But I refuse to believe all the major informational sources would ignore
such an outrageous news IF there were any, even unconfirmed, information
about it - from either side. Still, NO any Chechnya-related hostage stories
were reported by the above mentioned media sources during the last few days.
Thus, I must conclude that these particular reports from Alexander Suhanov
about Russian military unit taking hostages in a Grozny hospital are, putting
it mildly, simply NOT TRUE.

--
Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
Senior Research Consultant | Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3XU, United Kingdom
E-mail: gr...@dial.pipex.com | Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
WWW: http://www.drsolomon.com | Fax: +44 (0)1296 318734

rv

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,
> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.
>

Kagalenko!

I'm happy to read that you did not state that all countries that
cheered Hitler now cheer Chechens. (^_^)

Apparently the signatories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are not
only not cheering the Chechens but are brutally annihilating their
civilian population.

But then again, if enough bandits are killed in Grozny, the
remaining ones may return to their vast motherland and leave the
freedom loving Ichkerians alone.

RV

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

In article <321386...@dial.pipex.com>,

Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>Now, I tried to find any leads to the info elsewhere. And there is NOT
>A SINGLE LINE about this hostage taking neither in CNN, nor in Associated
>Press, nor in Reuters, nor in "The Time", nor in several other newspapers,
>magazines and informational agencies I checked.

The information coming from Alik Sukhanov usually is based on the Russian
Media, not CNN and Reuters, since he realizes that the Info-Russ subscribers
abroad (over a 1000 all over the world) have access to it as well.
You can check with Alik on the sources of this particular, but in my eyes
he gained enough credibility reporting events in Russia for the past year
and a half not to check his sources every time, especially (as you admit)
since the story is quite believable and the tactic is not new.

On the other hand, US is *good* to Yeltsin's administration this days
- if they did report the story, they would have to call Russians
bloody murderers, and that *really* does not fit the current American foreign
policy. So the only somewhat objective source of information parhaps can
be found in the Chechen - sympathetic press, i.e. either liberal Russian
press, or Muslim media.

>Thus, I must conclude that these particular reports from Alexander Suhanov
>about Russian military unit taking hostages in a Grozny hospital are, putting
>it mildly, simply NOT TRUE.

Well, here is some other "unreliable" info I gathered on the net in
the last 5 min. I won't argue for their credibility, the point is: it is
HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Sukhanov had access to this particular
report. So... 2 unrelated source, similar info. What's the word here?
"Probability of error"? You do the math.

OMRI Daily Digest *** Aug/13/96 ***
Russian military spokesmen
*** told ITAR-TASS early on 13 August that separatist fighters
*** continued to offer "fierce resistance" to federal troops. NTV
*** reported that separatist fighters still controlled much of the
*** city, which federal forces continue to blast with indiscriminate
*** artillery barrages. Meanwhile, according to AFP, separatist
*** fighters ambushed a Russian convoy near Vedeno, killing 20
*** federal troops, and fighting also continues in Argun and
*** Gudermes. An RFE/RL correspondent reported on 11 August that a
*** Russian unit had taken hospital workers hostage in an attempt to
*** escape encirclement by Chechen fighters. -- Scott Parrish

Here is something from our Islamic "friends":

GROZNY - Fierce fighting resumed early Saturday in the centre of the
Chechen capital Grozny between Chechen and Russian, Russian media
reported from the scene. In one incident dozens of Russian soldiers,
surrounded by Chechen fighters, took over a hospital and held 200
civilians hostage to persuade the Chechens to allow them to leave.
The soldiers were advancing on central Grozny with a dozen tanks
sent to reinforce soldiers blocked in the centre of the city, but
Chechen fighters managed to stop the column and destroyed eight of
the tanks, the other four having turned tail. The soldiers who had
got through found themselves surrounded by Chechen fighters and fled
into a nearby hospital, where they took its 200 occupants hostage.
"If you don't stop shooting, we will execute everybody," one of the
soldiers shouted, coming out of the hospital holding a civilian in
front of him as a human shield. The Chechens then stopped shooting.
The soldiers then demanded that the Chechens let them leave the
area.

And finally:
GROZNY - The forgotten victims of fighting in the Chechen capital
Grozny lay dying Monday in a fetid cellar, hiding from Russian
artillery shells. In the flickering light of oil lamps, 22 seriously
wounded or ill patients could be seen groaning in blood-stained
beds, or shuffling along the damp corridors. One man lay motionless,
bandages wrapping a deep headwound. Others were missing a leg or
hand. The civilians were briefly held hostage by Russian soldiers
escaping the Chechens. After the soldiers broke out on Sunday, using
about 100 people from the hospital as human shields, the area around
the war-torn facility was immeditately shelled. One nurse was
killed, said Natasha Papova, a 26-year-old nurse. The patients were
then hurriedly moved into the shelter of a nearby food shop's
underground storage cellars. By Monday Papova was the only person
with medical training to remain with the wounded. "Yesterday the
hospital was shelled, we had run out of water and because of
shellingwe couldn't go for more," she said. "Now we have moved here
but we have nothing against infections, no anesthetic and only a few
bandages. "We have people with amputated legs, head wounds, knee
wounds. Yesterday three people died from injuries and we couldn't
even bury them because of the fighting," she said. One woman said
her daughter, who had been run over by a Russian troop carrier in
Grozny two weeks before was "lying in her own blood, because there
aren't enough bandages."

__
RM

P.S.Feel free to apologize to Sukhanov.

SB

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>(...)

> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,
> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.
>

> It takes a bit of sanity to realize that those who take hospitals
> hostage are bandits.
>

Nazis are not defined by their nationality, but by their actions. The
Russians have behaved in Chechnya in a manner that certainly more than
fits that description. You've obliterated whole cities, towns and
villages, without any concern for the civilians, or, which is much more
likely, targeting them in particular and on purpose. Your behavior has
been below any human standards. The Nazis of Hitler's Germany were no
worse than you in their methods of warfare.

You are in no position to give anyone any lessons on morality or fair
play.

It's not just "the countries who cheered for Hitler" that are against you.
Everyone is, even some Russians. The only reason the White House may not
openly condemn you is because of the double standards politicians are so
(in)famous for.

By the way, your USSR would never have waged war on Germany, had it not
been attacked first. Actually, Stalin and Hitler cooperated just fine in,
say, carving up Poland in 1939.

Russia is the largest country on Earth. Why can't it give up, what, 1% of
its huge territory, which doesn't even belong to it? It would rather
sacrifice the lives of not only countless Chechens, but also thousands of
Russian soldiers for something ordinary Russians don't give a damn about.

Despicable.

SB

Leonid L. Delitsyne

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

In article <4v1u79$f...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu (Russ Mestechkin) writes:

> *** Gudermes. An RFE/RL correspondent reported on 11 August that a
> *** Russian unit had taken hospital workers hostage in an attempt to
> *** escape encirclement by Chechen fighters. -- Scott Parrish

>the tanks, the other four having turned tail. The soldiers who had

>got through found themselves surrounded by Chechen fighters and fled
>into a nearby hospital, where they took its 200 occupants hostage.
>"If you don't stop shooting, we will execute everybody," one of the
>soldiers shouted, coming out of the hospital holding a civilian in
>front of him as a human shield. The Chechens then stopped shooting.
>The soldiers then demanded that the Chechens let them leave the
>area.

That sounds like a bunch of 18-years olds, trying to save their lives.
Neither me, nor anybody else actually did anything real to help them escape
from Chechnya. So, I only can say that many Russians must share the guilt of
taking hostages. Though I doubt I will find much support of this idea.
Most people would probably say, that no, they never take hostages.
And those alike Kagalenko will say, that these are lies and hardly will ever
apologize.

>RM
>
>P.S.Feel free to apologize to Sukhanov.

Well, see, I was thinking just about the same thing. I doubt, he will.

--
Sincerely yours
Leonid Delitsin
BookCrawler http://www.komkon.org/teneta/bookcrawler/
Banner Olympics http://sharat.co.il/teneta/banners/

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> writes:

>Now, I tried to find any leads to the info elsewhere. And there is NOT
>A SINGLE LINE about this hostage taking neither in CNN, nor in Associated
>Press, nor in Reuters, nor in "The Time", nor in several other newspapers,
>magazines and informational agencies I checked. They do report Russian
>troops firing at civilians, blocking refugees from leaving Grozny hell,

I posted this to this group before. The news was also in
another news agency's report but I cannot find it now.

>Path: goliath.montclair.edu!pegasus.montclair.edu!hubey
>From: hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
>Subject: Hostages taken in Grozny
>Date: 12 Aug 1996 12:05:41 -0400

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:39:24 +0200

To: Multiple recipients of list CHECHNYA <CHEC...@PLEARN.EDU.PL>

Subject: VOA 10-Aug-96 4:18 PM EDT (2018 UTC)

DATE=8/10/96
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-201529
TITLE=RUSSIA/CHECHNYA O'NITER

BYLINE=PETER HEINLEIN
DATELINE=MOSCOW
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO: THOUSANDS OF REFUGEES ARE FLEEING THE CHECHEN CAPITAL,
GROZNY AS THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF THE CITY MOVES INTO A SIXTH
DAY. FROM MOSCOW, VOA'S PETER HEINLEIN REPORTS DOZENS OF BESIEGED
RUSSIAN SOLDIERS HAVE TAKEN CIVILIANS HOSTAGE AT ONE OF GROZNY'S
MAIN HOSPITALS.

TEXT: RUSSIA'S DEFENSE AND INTERIOR MINISTERS TOLD PARLIAMENT
SATURDAY THE SITUATION IN THE CHECHEN CAPITAL WAS STABILIZING,
WITH FEDERAL FORCES REGAINING CONTROL. BUT NEWS REPORTS FROM THE
CITY CENTER SEEMED TO CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL ASSESSMENTS.

THE CONFUSION WAS SUCH THAT THE DEPUTY RUSSIAN ENVOY TO CHECHNYA
ACCUSED OTHER OFFICIALS OF SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION.

JOURNALISTS TRAPPED AT THE CITY'S MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPOUND TOLD
OF FRESH OUTBURSTS OF FIGHTING, AND ANGRILY DENIED OFFICIAL
REPORTS THEY HAD BEEN RESCUED.

A RUSSIAN ARMORED COLUMN ATTEMPTING TO BREAK THROUGH TO THE
COMPOUND DURING THE DAY WAS VIRTUALLY DESTROYED BY REBEL FIRE.
DOZENS OF SOLDIERS FLEEING THE WRECKAGE TOOK REFUGE IN A HOSPITAL
WHERE WOUNDED CIVILIANS WERE BEING TREATED. A FRENCH NEWS AGENCY
CORRESPONDENT AT THE SCENE SAID THE SOLDIERS WERE HOLDING AS MANY
AS 200 PATIENTS AND MEDICAL STAFF HOSTAGE, DEMANDING THE REBELS
GRANT THEM SAFE PASSAGE.

AS THE BATTLE RAGED, PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN FIRED OLEG LOBOV,
HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE TO CHECHNYA AND NAMED NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISER ALEXANDER LEBED TO THE POST. MR. LEBED, A FORMER
ARMY GENERAL IS EXPECTED TO TAKE A MORE MODERATE APPROACH THAN
HIS HARDLINE PREDECESSOR. (SIGNED)

NEB/PH/KL

10-Aug-96 4:18 PM EDT (2018 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

Santtu Asp TKKK

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Santtu Asp TKKK (sa...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:

: I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
: irrevocably colors their worldview.

Like we had a choice. Stalin on one side and Hitler on the
other. After 39 war we coulnd't really trust Stalin could we?

: It is indeed amazing,

: how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
: Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.

I don't think the common factor is Hitler. It's rather the knowledge
of the ways Russians treat smaller nations.

Leonid L. Delitsyne

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

In article <321386...@dial.pipex.com> Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> writes:

>Russ Mestechkin wrote:
>> >
>Now, the two quoted artciles come from the same person:
>"Alexander A. Suhanov" <al...@ium.ips.ras.ru> , who neither works
>for any informational agency nor gives any references to such agencies
>in these articles of his. (Alexander Suhanov is a Moscow school teacher).

you tell us...

Btw, suppose Ivan Petroff works for "Pravda" during last 77 years.
Does his glorious past make his articles any better?

>Thus, I must conclude that these particular reports from Alexander Suhanov
>about Russian military unit taking hostages in a Grozny hospital are, putting
>it mildly, simply NOT TRUE.

Hey, Sukhanov, where are you? Are these just rumors or is this real?

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu (Russ Mestechkin) writes:

>In article <4v23hm$2e...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,

>Leonid L. Delitsyne <deli...@rpm.geology.wisc.edu> wrote:

>>That sounds like a bunch of 18-years olds, trying to save their lives.

>The whole damn army in Chechnia is nothing but a bunch of 18-year olds
>trying to save their lives, with a few exceptions.

I don't blame them for what they are doing. They think all
the leaders are corrupt and making big bucks while they send
the young kids to fight their dirty war. The population has
been told for 70+ years that they are saving the world from
the imperialists and colonists, and that everybody loves them
wherever they go because they save everybody. And they told the
boys that they are going to kill a few terrorists, but now they
see the whole population hates, them so it's not a small
bunch of terrorists. Then they see that they've spent the last
20 months bombing villages and killing civilians, and now they
realize that they are not saving anybody.

When Raduyev's gang got caught in the village, and the artillery,
airplanes, helicopters, and missile batteries rained death on
the village, and the radio said that the rebels fired on them
first, the soldiers started hooting. A lie that big was too
much for them. What is really surprising is people like
Kagelenko and Henrietta. Even the Fly doesn't fall for these
anymore.

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

In article <4uvgnd$i...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>]
>]: They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.
>]
>]Ruthless, yes. Bandits, no.
>

The Chechen terrorists have for example taken hostages. That is an
international crime and there is no excuse for it. They are criminals.
period.

> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it

> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,

> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.
>

Maybe you should reread your history books and I mean western ones. It
was the USSR that allied with Germany and then attacked Finland. Finland
never allied with Germany. If you say it did, then point the year and
number in Finnish law collection for the document specifying that
alliance.

We did not cheer for Hitler. Our leaders did not like him any more
than Roosevelt or Churchill liked Stalin. The oldest truth in a
war just is that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Do not assume that all Finns have same views on the issue.

Osmo

Y. S. Perkhounkova

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

On 16 Aug 1996, H. M. Hubey wrote:

>
> A RUSSIAN ARMORED COLUMN ATTEMPTING TO BREAK THROUGH TO THE
> COMPOUND DURING THE DAY WAS VIRTUALLY DESTROYED BY REBEL FIRE.
> DOZENS OF SOLDIERS FLEEING THE WRECKAGE TOOK REFUGE IN A HOSPITAL
> WHERE WOUNDED CIVILIANS WERE BEING TREATED. A FRENCH NEWS AGENCY
> CORRESPONDENT AT THE SCENE SAID THE SOLDIERS WERE HOLDING AS MANY
> AS 200 PATIENTS AND MEDICAL STAFF HOSTAGE, DEMANDING THE REBELS
> GRANT THEM SAFE PASSAGE.
>

Sounds like those 18-20 year old boys really didn't want to die. As all of
us don't. Not a nice thing to be cut into pieces. Is it?

Although taking hostages even in these circumstances doesn't depict those
soldiers well, isn't it different from hostage taking by rebels in the
beginning of this war? Was it necessary for saving their lives, or it was
just a means for getting arms, money, etc?

Yelena.

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to Osmo Ronkanen

Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>
> In article <4uvgnd$i...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
> Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >]
> >]: They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.
> >]
> >]Ruthless, yes. Bandits, no.
> >
>
> The Chechen terrorists have for example taken hostages. That is an
> international crime and there is no excuse for it. They are criminals.
> period.

Do you have any ideas what else they can do after Russia has killed more
that 30,000 CIVILIANS! in Grozny, after Russia has waged the war against
them using weapons forbiden by Geneva Convention? What can they do when
Boutros Boutros Ghali and EU and the US and the rest of theworld do not
give a damn about them, when their families and children are killed
everyday, when their men and boys are taken to infamous "filtration"
(=concentration camps) and when they hear that russians are planning to
fight until the "victory" (whatever that means, probably wiping all
chechens from the face of the Earth). Isn't it a terrorism from the
russian side. Funny thing, nobody speaks about it in that way. Or is it
legal if you are state and use the regular army to conduct terrorism?

Any ideas what they can do?

Btw, the most of the victims of these raids were caused by the stupid
attack of russian special forces on the hospital and the village.

Agree with the rest of your message.

Cheers,

Audrius
abal...@nd.edu

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

In article <4v23hm$2e...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Leonid L. Delitsyne <deli...@rpm.geology.wisc.edu> wrote:

>That sounds like a bunch of 18-years olds, trying to save their lives.

The whole damn army in Chechnia is nothing but a bunch of 18-year olds
trying to save their lives, with a few exceptions.

Can you blame this boys for being there and doing what they do? Hardly.

Should the kagolenkos be deported straight to Grozny so that they could promote
the ideas of Great Russia more effectevely? Absofuckinglutely.

__
RM

Dan K.

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

to

Henrietta Thomas wrote:

> In article <1996Aug16.1...@njitgw.njit.edu>,
> rov...@m.njit.edu (rv) wrote:

> >Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:

> >> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
> >> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,
> >> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> >> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.

> >Kagalenko!

> > I'm happy to read that you did not state that all countries that
> >cheered Hitler now cheer Chechens. (^_^)

> > Apparently the signatories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are not
> >only not cheering the Chechens but are brutally annihilating their
> >civilian population.

> What I don't understand is why there are any civilians left in Grozny. Who are they? And why do they remain in a war zone? Intelligent people usually
evacuate a war zone. And, in the beginning, the Russian military did ask
the people to leave. But they are still there, getting in the way of the
> crossfire.

What amazes me is that you are so ignorant as to ask!!!
What if the Russians were going to bomb Chicago would all of the
old women, children, doctors, frail and elderly be able to leave?
And where would they go? Do put on your thinking cap Henrietta,
even if it is rusty and full of cobwebs!!!

> Don't anybody try to answer this question. Especially don't Voronka or
> Hubey answer me. I've heard all their stock arguments about the evil
> Russians, and I don't believe a word they say.

How about a gracious Dan K. response?
I think that it is absolutely astounding that you are so
incapable of having any compasionate feelings for victims of
aggresion but prefer to align yourself with those who perpetrate
crimes against humanity. You are even much worse than the likes
of George Bush who claiming to be a Republican American went to
Ukraine and told the freedom loving Ukrainian people to remain
slaves in his ole buddy's, Gorby remember him, EVIL EMPIRE,
which unfortunately still remains albeit in a downsized form.
The real question is why are the Russians in Chechnya at all since after
the collapse of the FSU the Chechens declared that they did not
want to remain in the Russian Federation. There is absolutely
no reason for the Russians to be barbarically invading and destroying
Chechnya. As for believing anything that Mr. Hubey or Prof. Voronka
say, they are not fabricating anything, they are merely discussing
the facts of the situation as REPORTED BY THE US AND RUSSIAN NEWS
MEDIAS for all the world to know what is going on there and the last
polls I saw showed that more than 60% of the RUSSIAN peole want the
fighting to end and that Ms. Thompson dedends WHOLLY ON THE RUSSIANS.

So the question remains why are you trying to discuss something
which you apparently know very little about and blindly side with those
who are perpetrationg crimes against humanity???
Are you totally corrupt and evil?
I can only imagine what great freedom fighters like Patrick Henry or
Nathan Hale or Thomas Jefferson would say about someone with views
as disgusting as yours.

> Henrietta
> h...@pop.wwa.com

Regards, Dan K.

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,
> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.

That is *most typical old soviet propaganda* I tell you (again..) how
it was.
1. Stalin attacked to Finland in 1939. Finland was alone, but SU was
allied with Nazi-Germany through the (then) secret Molotov-Ribbentrop
pact.
2. Stalin was not able to conquer Finland after 100 days fighting.
3. After that Finns made an agreement with Germany, because there
was nobody else to help, and the threat of Stalin was still on.
4. Finland was *not* a Nazi state. Eg. Gen. Mannerheim disliked
strongly Germans and especially Hitler. In spite of the Nazi
demands, Finns *did not* let Finnish Jews to Germany to be killed.
Except the 6 poor ones (a mistake of one, later punished officer),
Jews in Finland were safe even though later in Lapland were
also German troops.
5. Finns didn't cut Murman railroad, though Hitler wanted.
6. Finns didn't attack to Leningrad, though Hitler wanted.
7. If Finns had done 5 and 6, Ibelive, that SU had lost the war
for Germany!
8. After war there were still German troops in Lapland, Stalin wanted
Soviet troops to throw them away. Finns didn't want that =>
started a Lapland war, where Finns threw Germans out from Finland.
9. There has never been any German or any Soviet occupation in Finland.
10. Also after war there were no Soviet troops in Finland.
11. After war Finalnad inhabited 400 000 Carelian immigrants all over
the Finland and there were no "Palestinian" kind camps ful of
hate along the Soviet border.
12. After war Finland was still a western democracy, people were
free to travel all over the world and ... the Finnish border
was the most friendly border of communist world on the west.

Chechenyan war has several similarities with a 100 days Winter War
in 1939-40, where 300 million Soviet Union was unable to conquer
4 million Finland and lost as dead some 150 000 - 300 000 soldiers.
The similarities with Winter War are partly because of Gen. Dudayev,
who studied, that fighting when he was a a commander in Tartu, Estonia.

> It takes a bit of sanity to realize that those who take hospitals
> hostage are bandits.

The international news report told how Russian soldiers took women and
children (as hostages) to use them as a shield when escaping a week
ago from Grozny....

Alec Nyiri

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

: 122692B...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Organization: Mlink Internet, Montreal, Canada
Distribution:

Whatta shame. We should deport this Kagalenko to Russia and see by
himself what Russia is doing in Chechenia. By the way, what are you
doing in US Kagalenko. We should maybe deport you back.

Alec

Y. S. Perkhounkova
(yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:

Leonid L. Delitsyne

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960816...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>

"Y. S. Perkhounkova" <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:

>Although taking hostages even in these circumstances doesn't depict those
>soldiers well,

what would depict them well? Writing "treugolkas" with their
fiancee's pictures and shooting themselves? Sending a postcard to all
of us, saying: we died to make our motherland powerful and prosperous!
If this was just a mistake, please fuck our girls skillfully, live our
lives long, and be happy and wealthy! If by any chance gen. Lebed
will imprison his former boss, gen. Grachev, please bring
gen. Grachev some icecream and oranges for us.

Sometimes I recall Bulgakov's Pilat's question: "Did you have a
woman?" Well, Jesus was 30. At least he was given some time.

Or may be they should go to prizons, just because they have been born
in late 70-s?

dannie hawkins

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

On 16 Aug 1996 13:48:25 GMT, ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu (Russ Mestechkin)
wrote: <on hostages>

> The Chechens then stopped shooting. The soldiers then
> demanded that the Chechens let them leave the area.

Didn't a group of Chechen fighters do something [similar] in a
Russian town, and were then allowed to leave in a bus?

It true, they were smart enough to at least try something in order to
avoid surrendering... and I admire them for it -- Russian or Chechen.
--
COWARDS Die Many Times___BRAVE Men Die Once! _Old Norseman
_________________________www.resist.com
_________________________met...@cts.com

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to Y. S. Perkhounkova

Y. S. Perkhounkova wrote:
>
> On 16 Aug 1996, H. M. Hubey wrote:
>
> >
> > A RUSSIAN ARMORED COLUMN ATTEMPTING TO BREAK THROUGH TO THE
> > COMPOUND DURING THE DAY WAS VIRTUALLY DESTROYED BY REBEL FIRE.
> > DOZENS OF SOLDIERS FLEEING THE WRECKAGE TOOK REFUGE IN A HOSPITAL
> > WHERE WOUNDED CIVILIANS WERE BEING TREATED. A FRENCH NEWS AGENCY
> > CORRESPONDENT AT THE SCENE SAID THE SOLDIERS WERE HOLDING AS MANY
> > AS 200 PATIENTS AND MEDICAL STAFF HOSTAGE, DEMANDING THE REBELS
> > GRANT THEM SAFE PASSAGE.
> >
>
> Sounds like those 18-20 year old boys really didn't want to die. As all of
> us don't. Not a nice thing to be cut into pieces. Is it?
>

> Although taking hostages even in these circumstances doesn't depict those

> soldiers well, isn't it different from hostage taking by rebels in the
> beginning of this war? Was it necessary for saving their lives, or it was
> just a means for getting arms, money, etc?
>
> Yelena.

Dear Yelena, what would you advise to chechens, when your army has killed
more than 30,000 of them, when they use all possible means to destroy
chechen and say that there will be an end only when chechens agree to be
slaves of Russia, and when nobody cares about them (including you?).

What are they supposed to do. And, the most of those killed in those 2
raid by chechens were killed by russians unsuccessfuly conducting the
operation of "freeing the hostages".

Finally, what are the russians doing in Grozny? By which laws can you
claim that land a russian property when nobody there wants you. Any such
case is called simply - occupation. Just let them go. And if you want,
I'm 110% sure that chechen would agree with referendum with observers
from the EU and the US and Russia and would overwhelmingly vote to
separate. That would be a civilized way to solve this problem. But you
say you , russians have a right to that land. Who gave it to you?
Democracy is literally the "government, power of people". So let chechen
people decide what they want.

Audrius
abal...@nd.edu

Stan

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

Michael Kagalenko wrote:

> I realize that it Finns were Nazi allies, and it
> irrevocably colors their worldview. It is indeed amazing,
> how the same countries which cheered for Hitler now cheer for Chechens-
> Germans, Finns, Estonians, Western Ukrainians and so on.

Belarussians met Gremans with pleasure too (only after some German
caratel operations they began strike). Nu i chto?

Stan

Y. S. Perkhounkova

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 netsca...@nd.edu wrote:

>
> Dear Yelena, what would you advise to chechens, when your army has killed
> more than 30,000 of them, when they use all possible means to destroy
> chechen and say that there will be an end only when chechens agree to be
> slaves of Russia, and when nobody cares about them (including you?).

If you are asking my opinion, I am personally against any war as a means
of solving any kinds of problems. Life is too precious to sacrifice
for any goal however noble it is.

Those who start wars realize that it will eventually involve civilians,
so they are to blame.

However, I don't attempt to justify the means Russian government uses to
stop this war.

>[...]

> Democracy is literally the "government, power of people". So let chechen
> people decide what they want.

Considering the circumstances, it is probably the only possible solution now.

Yelena.

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

al...@Mlink.NET (Alec Nyiri) writes:

>: 122692B...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>Organization: Mlink Internet, Montreal, Canada
>Distribution:

>Whatta shame. We should deport this Kagalenko to Russia and see by
>himself what Russia is doing in Chechenia. By the way, what are you
>doing in US Kagalenko. We should maybe deport you back.

Kagelenko is standard-issue third world leftist pseudo-intellectual.

Now that there are no more third world leftist pseudo-intellectuals
left in the world, it seems a few from Russia are still carrying
the torch. I've known people like him for about 25 years and have
heard everything. About 20 years ago a friend of mine got so
upset at one of them, he offered to pay his airfare if he
promised never to return. Guess what? After mumbling for years
on how bad it was in the West and specifically the USA, do you
think he left? Nope, he's still around, and refuses to go to
any worker's paradise.

Don't forget, a couple of years ago Kagalenko claimed that the
Russians sent an invitation to the Vikings to come over and make
the Russians their slaves, and that Russians voluntarily became
slaves. He's got problems. Don't ever suppose a slave like
Kagalenko can understand the meaning of freedom or democracy.
To a slave like Kagalenko, freedom is obedience.

Santtu Asp TKKK

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
: Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
: >Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
: >
: > Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
: > Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
: > and didn't desire to continue.
: >
:
: Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
: specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
: Finland being an ally of Germany.

I don't know how you would call it but we did have Lappland full of
'krauts' and hell of a lot of German weapons. Reasons for this
co-operation are another matter alltogether...

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:

> ]If a nation has fight for her freedom already 150 years

> ]it tells us that there are exactly 3 choices.
> ]a) Russians have to kill all the 1-2 million Chechens
> ] in Chechenya and abroad.

> That is quite wrong. Not all chechens support Maskhadov and his ilk.

Right in a way, but let me say it in other words:
Not all the Chechens did support Dudayev in 1994. After Russian
invasion and all these mass murders of civilians almost all do.
Most of the local Russians *do not* support Yeltsin kind of
invasion politics in Chechenya.
That's why Lebed is a hero.

> Neither it is correct to say that they were "fighting for her
> independence" during those 150 years.

Why?

> ]b) The fighting continues at least another 150 years.

> Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
> Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
> and didn't desire to continue.

Germans are not under the power of Russia like Chechens.
Germans wanted to conquer Russia, Chechens don't want.
Germans and Russians are like brothers, in many ways...
Germany and Russia (SU in that time) were allies, when Stalin
attacked on Finland in 1939.

> ]c) Chechens get finally their independence.
> That isn't practical possibility.

Yes. It is indeed a big problem. Almost comparable with Kurdistan.
If Chechenya will get her independence, the process might continue.
And Russia might become as big as Germany.

Jorma Kypp|
Laukaa
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi

Michael Maron

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>
> In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

> Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
> > Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
> > and didn't desire to continue.
> >
>

> Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
> specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
> Finland being an ally of Germany.
>

> Osmo
Osmo,

I would appreciate a lot if you provided a brief overview of Finland's
role in WW2:

- Did the country participate in the war formally or it was neutral?

- Did Finnish troops participate in the war formally or informally
(for ex.: SU didn't participate in Spanish war formally, but there
were Soviet "freelances" there)?

Thanks a lot!

-Michael

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> writes:

>Note this - OMRI refers to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

OMRI refers to Open Media Research Institute. I don't know if it
is a part of RFE. It could be true but where did you get this info.

>Now, RFE-RL and VOA are closely related - this makes them _one and the same_

OK, RFE and VOA are closely related, but are you sure OMRI is also
an arm of RFE?

I seem to recall that this info was also published in Moscow.

Dmitry Gryaznov

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Russ Mestechkin wrote:
>
> In article <321386...@dial.pipex.com>,
> Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >Now, I tried to find any leads to the info elsewhere. And there is NOT
> >A SINGLE LINE about this hostage taking neither in CNN, nor in Associated
> >Press, nor in Reuters, nor in "The Time", nor in several other newspapers,
> >magazines and informational agencies I checked.
>
> The information coming from Alik Sukhanov usually is based on the Russian
> Media, not CNN and Reuters, since he realizes that the Info-Russ subscribers
> abroad (over a 1000 all over the world) have access to it as well.
> You can check with Alik on the sources of this particular, but in my eyes
> he gained enough credibility reporting events in Russia for the past year
> and a half not to check his sources every time, especially (as you admit)
> since the story is quite believable and the tactic is not new.

> P.S.Feel free to apologize to Sukhanov.

First of all, allow me to put this straight. I did not question personal
honesty of Mr.Sukhanov. I do appologise if I gave the impression of accusing
Mr.Sukhanov in a deliberate lie. This was not my intention. Well, have nobody
to blame but myself for not being clear enough. In his posts, Mr.Sukhanov did
not give any references to the sources of his information. Still, I did not
imply he made it up himself.

Note this - OMRI refers to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Mr.Hubey also posted a similar info coming from Voice of America. V.O.A digest,
however, gave two alternative views at the situation. And in _one_ digest only.
The info was _not_ repeated neither in other digests that day nor the next day.

Now, RFE-RL and VOA are closely related - this makes them _one and the same_

source of informatiom. Next, both are funded by the US government - so much
for your implication that American government tried to conceal the facts. So,
even if the government-connected info sources published that info, what on Earth
prevented independent info giants like Reuters, AP, CNN from doing so? Maybe,
simply that the info was never confirmed?

That some Russian federal troops took refuge in the hospital seems to be
an established fact - this came from numerous sources. _In a sense_ this
_might_ be put as using the hospital staff and the patients as a human
shield. But did the soldiers really took the patients and the staff hostages?
Did they really threaten to kill them if Chechen militants did not let the troops
escape? Once again, I do _not_ deny a _possibility_ of this - I would be glad
to, but alas :(( You see, in all the hatred, crimes and atrocities that are
going on in Chechnya, I am very careful in judging reported facts - too much
disinformation from both sides. Reputable info agencies usually do take care
to verify their info. If they publish anything they are not sure about, they
usually do state it clearly - e.g. as an unconfirmed report. In this case,
however, they did not report anything about taking hostages. That's why I am
not ready to accept this particular info as granted.

If my position is not clear yet (I thought I had made it clear in other
threads on Chechnya), let me just say that this alleged hostages taking by
Russian federal troops does not change virtually anything. Russian army
has committed many more outrageous crimes against civilians in Chechnya
already. I simply want to have the facts straight.

--
Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
Senior Research Consultant | Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3XU, United Kingdom
E-mail: gr...@dial.pipex.com | Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
WWW: http://www.drsolomon.com | Fax: +44 (0)1296 318734

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

[newsgroups and followups trimmed]

In article <4v6mv9$f...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>,

I am not so sure it is a lie. I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A Country
Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler "strengthened
his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says that, after the
war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and further
concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion in 1941)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a consequence
of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact."

Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@pop.wwa.com

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <4v2ssd$3...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
>]
>]Maybe you should reread your history books and I mean western ones. It

>]was the USSR that allied with Germany and then attacked Finland.
>

> Incorrect. SU was not allied with Germany. It did sign non-aggression
> pact, with infamous secret addendum. This was caused by Munich
> agreement; which made it apparent that Western powers don't
> care to lift a finger for the countries who trusted them.
> Stalin's inference that he has to fend for himself was not
> unreasonable.
>

The secret addendum was at least very close to an alliance. I do not
know what you mean with countries that trusted West. Soviet Union had no
specific reason to trust West. Or was the pact in your view to protect
Poland?

>]Finland

>]never allied with Germany. If you say it did, then point the year and

>]number in Finnish law collection for the document specifying that
>]alliance.
>
> It is common knowledge that Finns were Nazi allies, and denying it will
> not help your image any. Finnish troops formed part of the circle
> of blockade of Leningrad; Russian people remember that, you may
> be sure.

Russians may remember those things as the Soviet propaganda said so. It
does not make it true. If you still claim there is an alliance then give
me the document, if you can't do that, then retract.

Finland took land only up to the old border in the Isthmus. No military
actions were taken against Leningrad form the Finnish side. If you look
at the map, you see that leaving any land corridor to supply the
Leningrad would have been impossible. Note also that the whole war was a
result of the unjust Winter War. That is why it is called the
Continuation War.

>
>]We did not cheer for Hitler. Our leaders did not like him any more

>]than Roosevelt or Churchill liked Stalin. The oldest truth in a
>]war just is that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
>

> Fact remains; in WWII Finns were on the Axis side.

Actually more than anything we were on our side against the enemy that
had in the history had 100 years of wars against us.

>
>]Do not assume that all Finns have same views on the issue.
>
> I don't need and don't make such an assumption. I have
> to note, though, that citizens of the country which
> gave name to the phenomenon of "Finlandisation",
> seem to make a habit of complaining on Russian groups.

Now you are blaming us for having good relations with Soviets after the
war when you previously blamed us for having war. Please make your mind.

Maybe you are new to the idea of freedom of expression that we have had
here for long. That means the people can express views that are
different from the official government policy.

Osmo

Jarmo Ryyti

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: ]Maybe you should reread your history books and I mean western ones. It
: ]was the USSR that allied with Germany and then attacked Finland.

Kagalenko is a product of the chauvinist,selective Soviet thinking.

: Incorrect. SU was not allied with Germany. It did sign non-aggression

: pact, with infamous secret addendum.

SU and Germany made a pact about dividing Europe. Just two
days later when Germany attaced Gdansk/Danzig the Soviet troops
crossed the Polish - SU border according to the pact to take
their share of the cake.

The very same army unit was sent to the Finnish-SU border
their task was cut Finland into two pieces in the level
Oulu-Kuhmo. (Read more about Rattee road.)

This Ukrainian elite division who had conquered Eastern-Poland
as pact made by two dictators did never return from Finland but
they still fertilate forests in Suomussalmi:-^

(About 17 000 of them over there and in no hurry anymore to
conquer anybody's homeland)

That happened in the winter 1939-40. Finland fought *alone*
like Chechens today for their independence when these two dictators
wanted to divide up Europe.

And indeed , Germany is again supporting Russia both poltically
and economically - agaist the interests of smaller nations.
This time the Chechens are the victims, 1939 the Finns,Estonians,
Latvians,Lithuanians and Poles.

: It is common knowledge that Finns were Nazi allies, and denying it will

: not help your image any. Finnish troops formed part of the circle
: of blockade of Leningrad; Russian people remember that, you may
: be sure.

Soviet troops attacked on Finland in the autumn 1939 and Finland
was completely alone.

Later 1941 Finland and Germany had cooperation which was from
the Finnish point of view the only option, because for instance
the US,Great-Britain,Sweden etc. stood completely passive when
SU attacked on Finland.

: Fact remains; in WWII Finns were on the Axis side.

Finland had a completely separate war against the invaders
who were Russians and Ukrainians under the pseudonym SU.

It does not make Finland an axis state when the Finns fought
against Soviets in order to resist becoming a Soviet Republic.
As much as the Chechens were an axis nation in 1940's.

The goal of SU was to make Finland similar state as Estonia,
Latvia or Lithuania.

The Finns had as far as I understand the right to resist
and we know now that we were right;-^

Now the SU paradise is just a heap of shit where the Russians try
to save what they can in order to maintain their positions like
in the glorious days of SU.

Where is Russian Nurnberg trial?
All the Russian war criminals are free.

Even the former leader of dictatorship is worshipped in
the main market square in their capital by them still today.

Something is compeltely wrong in that society.

regards,
jami
--
#In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning#
# the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools.However,some #
# municipalities maintained restrictions until 1968 #

Jarmo Niemi

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <4v8fks$r...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:

> Finnish troops participated in the siege of Leningrad. I think,
> about 1mln died from hunger there.

This we get to hear every now and then. Tell me, were there any attempts
by the SU leadership to save Leningrad by making separate peace with
Finland by, say, returning the areas SU took in 39-40 ? Could one say
that the Leningradians starved because Stalin bull-headedly tried to
hold on to his conquests ?
--
Jarmo Niemi jar...@utu.fi http://www.utu.fi/~jarnie/

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <321732...@dial.pipex.com>,

Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Now, RFE-RL and VOA are closely related - this makes them _one and the same_
>source of informatiom. Next, both are funded by the US government - so much
>for your implication that American government tried to conceal the facts. So,
>even if the government-connected info sources published that info, what on Earth
>prevented independent info giants like Reuters, AP, CNN from doing so? Maybe,
>simply that the info was never confirmed?

May be it was not. But then again, the big guys often report unconfirmed
info.

>shield. But did the soldiers really took the patients and the staff hostages?
>Did they really threaten to kill them if Chechen militants did not let the
>troops escape?

Well, no, they probably said something like " let us leave safely, because
if you won't, well, we won't do anything to the hostages anyways...so...
PLEASE? " Is this how you envision it?

Do you usually re-read your writings?

>Russian federal troops does not change virtually anything. Russian army
>has committed many more outrageous crimes against civilians in Chechnya
>already.

Yeah, but should they be called "hostage-taking bandits"?

__
RM

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <32151D...@nd.edu>, <netsca...@nd.edu> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>>

>> In article <4uvgnd$i...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

>> Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>> >]
>> >]: They are ruthless bandits who can not be tolerated in any state.
>> >]
>> >]Ruthless, yes. Bandits, no.
>> >
>>
>> The Chechen terrorists have for example taken hostages. That is an
>> international crime and there is no excuse for it. They are criminals.
>> period.
>
>Do you have any ideas what else they can do after Russia has killed more
>that 30,000 CIVILIANS! in Grozny, after Russia has waged the war against
>them using weapons forbiden by Geneva Convention?

How reliable the figure is? I do not see what Geneva convention has to
do with anything as the issue is not a war between nations. Almost all
police officers use weapons banned by the Hague convention.

Is the idea of negotiating something that Chechens can't do.
...

Osmo

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to Osmo Ronkanen

Osmo Ronkanen wrote:

> >that 30,000 CIVILIANS! in Grozny, after Russia has waged the war against
> >them using weapons forbiden by Geneva Convention?
>
> How reliable the figure is? I do not see what Geneva convention has to
> do with anything as the issue is not a war between nations. Almost all
> police officers use weapons banned by the Hague convention.

It is a war between nations, you uninformed man! Russians and chechens
are entirely separate nations, as finns are separate nation fron
russians! The religion, language, culture, etc. are different. And the
fact that Russia occupies Chechen Republic doesn't make a difference, it
is not a civil war. It is a national liberation war (remember US
President Wilson and his notion that every nation has a right to
independent state. I guess you used this as well getting your
independence fron Russian Empire).

> Is the idea of negotiating something that Chechens can't do.
> ...
>

> OsmoThe chechens always wanted to negotiate - remember, it wasn't chechens
who started the fighting, but russians! Today russians again showed they
didn't want to negotiate by introducing unacceptable provision into the
truce agreement (that chechens withdraw from Grozny) and attacking
chechen positions!

About the killed - there were 400,000 people living in Grozny on the day
russians attacked using jet fighters, helicopters, mortars, shells. Look
at the photos of the city - do they tell you anything? Even russians
don't deny the figure - 30,000, and now it is approaching 40,000. Seems
your finnish TV doesn't give a shit about what's happening in
Chechnya.Probably you think there that it doesn't have any implications
for you. Believe me, it does!

Audrius
abal...@nd.edu

SB

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

"Y. S. Perkhounkova" <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 16 Aug 1996, H. M. Hubey wrote:
>
>>
>> A RUSSIAN ARMORED COLUMN ATTEMPTING TO BREAK THROUGH TO THE
>> COMPOUND DURING THE DAY WAS VIRTUALLY DESTROYED BY REBEL FIRE.
>> DOZENS OF SOLDIERS FLEEING THE WRECKAGE TOOK REFUGE IN A HOSPITAL
>> WHERE WOUNDED CIVILIANS WERE BEING TREATED. A FRENCH NEWS AGENCY
>> CORRESPONDENT AT THE SCENE SAID THE SOLDIERS WERE HOLDING AS MANY
>> AS 200 PATIENTS AND MEDICAL STAFF HOSTAGE, DEMANDING THE REBELS
>> GRANT THEM SAFE PASSAGE.
>>
>
>Sounds like those 18-20 year old boys really didn't want to die. As all of
>us don't. Not a nice thing to be cut into pieces. Is it?
>

You've brought tears to my eyes. And what about those thousands of
Chechen men, women and children torn to pieces by Russian bombs in Grozny
and other towns and countless villages throughtout Chechnya during the
twenty months of Russian aggression? 30,000 killed. If you want to defend
Russia's policy, I suggest you do it on another matter. Justifying its
war in Chechnya can earn you no respect with any intelligent readers.

SB

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
> In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

> Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
> > Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
> > Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
> > and didn't desire to continue.
> Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
> specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
> Finland being an ally of Germany.

As a simple person, stupid questions sometimes bother my poor mind.

Question: what has this "triangle drama": russians-germans-finns to
do with the war in Chechenya????????????????????????????????????

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi

... Finns saved Leningrad ...

clever or not.

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <4vaavj$7...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hubey, whoever opened the lid of the container in which they
> shipped you to the US made a mistake. He probably didn't
> know Russian and therefore ignored those warning stickers
> "Ostorozhno: Churka !".

LOL!

How cute! Kagalenko saga continues! What yesterday could pass (with a
stretch) for a mind of a 4th grader, today degenerates to a
meaningless story-telling of a defective childcare pupil.

Looking forward to tomorrow - after all, it is amusing to hear the
personal views on the modern world of a retarded toddler ;-)

Mr. Hubey, beware - it might call you "Barney" in the next 24hrs :-)

__
RM

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960816...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,

Y. S. Perkhounkova <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:

>[...] isn't it different from hostage taking by rebels in the

>beginning of this war? Was it necessary for saving their lives, or it was
>just a means for getting arms, money, etc?
>
>Yelena.

No, it isn't different.

Post some more KBAC recepies.

Good luck,

__
RM

Cluster User

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to Michael Kagalenko

who the hell are you to decide whether chechens should have their
independence or not? God?

Just forget it and get out of that country!

You also imply that there are some people in Chechen Republic who
still love russians after all that they have done to Chechens. Why
then russians are so afraid to organize a referendum there ang get the
opinion of the people? Why you use tanks?

Finally, can you explain me how chechens ended up in Russian empire?
By free will? Referendum? They were politely asked? Or did russians
decide (as always) to "defend" them from and unspecified threat?

And face it, Kagalenko, what you have been doing in Chechen republic
and the former USSR has a very simple name - nazism. No more, no less.

Audrius
abal...@nd.edu

H. M. Hubey

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

ru...@gateway.ece.neu.edu (Russ Mestechkin) writes:

>In article <4vaavj$7...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hubey, whoever opened the lid of the container in which they
>> shipped you to the US made a mistake. He probably didn't
>> know Russian and therefore ignored those warning stickers
>> "Ostorozhno: Churka !".

>LOL!

>How cute! Kagalenko saga continues! What yesterday could pass (with a
>stretch) for a mind of a 4th grader, today degenerates to a
>meaningless story-telling of a defective childcare pupil.

I've been reading Kagalenko's posts for a while. When Dragon Fly
went into sniping attacks, he lost his entertainment mode, and then
voila, God gave us Kagalenko :-) to replace the fly.

The problem is that the poor guy keeps shooting himself in the
foot all the time, so it's not even funny to watch him squirm
and wiggle anymore :-).. Now that the federal troops have been
caught taking civilian hostages, about a week after Kagalenko
called Chechen fighters "hostake taking bandits", and that
General Lebed has said that they are"fine soldiers, not bandits",
Kaka-lingo doesn't know what to say. My nephew when he as about
2-3 years old and hadn't yet learned fully about causation and
did not really know the meaning of the word "because" sometimes
after he said something silly, and I asked him "why?" he'd
say "Because!". He didn't know that something else was suposed
to follow the word, but thought that the word was like a Unix
wildcard that stood for any kind of reason :-). Kagalenko reminds
me of him. When he doesn't know what to say, he starts to try to
change the topic, as if we can't catch unto the trick :-)..
The poor boy is confused because his comprehension of history
and humanity is that of a Chetnik. When the war in Bosnia was
going full strength, the internet chetniks were polluting the
Balkan groups exactly with the same approach. It took a year of
posting from history books before they quited down.

Kagalenko doesn't know any history, and does not want to learn,
just like Grachev who got sacked, and Kulikov and Pulikovsky who
have been humiliated beyond belief. Only a few weeks ago the generals
(more like sergeants who got promoted by accident) were telling
the news agencies that they were ready to push the rebels into the
mountains above the tree line, and them destroy them with fighter
planes. While they were saying this, the Chechens were killing
several soldiers in Grozny every day/night, and were telling all
the news agencies that the only place the soldiers control is
the ground they stand on, and no further.

>Looking forward to tomorrow - after all, it is amusing to hear the
>personal views on the modern world of a retarded toddler ;-)

He's done it before. Getting called "Churka" by people like him
and the Fly must be a standard insult (to them). About 10 years
ago I saw someone whom I hadn't seen in about 10 years. He said
he was operating a bar and that I should go there and see all the
pretty go-go girls. So one night I went. There was nobody there.
Then he started telling me a story about 5-6 Hispanics he kicked out
of the bar several nights earlier single-handedly. I knew he
was a pathological liar, so it was fun for me to listen to all
this. While he was doing this, two young Puerto-Rican kids walked
in, each about 5'5". So this guy ran to the door to meet them (and he's
about 6' but a true coward) and surprised me. Anyway, he talked to one
of them (more like spit in his face, since he sprayed everything in
sight when he talked) for a few minutes, eyeball to eyeball (their
noses almost touched). But he was so much bigger than the kid that his
face was practically parallel to the ground. Anyway, the kids finally
left. He walked back with a smile on his face and he said "These fuc***ng
spics, it was them!" And then he remembered his story a few minutes
ago and tried to correct himself "And they had this big nig**r with
them." I almost fell off my chair, laughing. But he never batted
an eyelash, because he's so used to lying and getting caught. That
was the last time I saw him. I heard he's even worse now, because
his wife took his daughter and ran off.

Kagalenko must be practicing to be like him.

>Mr. Hubey, beware - it might call you "Barney" in the next 24hrs :-)

Oh, no! Anything but that ! :-)..

Dmitry Gryaznov

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

Russ Mestechkin wrote:
>
> In article <321732...@dial.pipex.com>,

> Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >Now, RFE-RL and VOA are closely related - this makes them _one and the same_
> >source of informatiom. Next, both are funded by the US government - so much
> >for your implication that American government tried to conceal the facts. So,
> >even if the government-connected info sources published that info, what on Earth
> >prevented independent info giants like Reuters, AP, CNN from doing so? Maybe,
> >simply that the info was never confirmed?
>

> May be it was not. But then again, the big guys often report unconfirmed
> info.

But then again, they did _not_ publish _anything_ on this alleged hostage taking.

> >shield. But did the soldiers really took the patients and the staff hostages?
> >Did they really threaten to kill them if Chechen militants did not let the
> >troops escape?
>

> Well, no, they probably said something like " let us leave safely, because
> if you won't, well, we won't do anything to the hostages anyways...so...
> PLEASE? " Is this how you envision it?
>
> Do you usually re-read your writings?

Yes, I do. Do you? :)

> >Russian federal troops does not change virtually anything. Russian army
> >has committed many more outrageous crimes against civilians in Chechnya
> >already.
>

> Yeah, but should they be called "hostage-taking bandits"?

Not until proven. Feel free to call them murderers of civilians,
women and children, though - if it makes you feel better.

The info on that hostage taking seems to have originated from Chechen
militants. This source should not be taken as an unbiased and fully
trustworthy. I wouldn't recommend to rely on Russian official info
regarding the war in Chechnya either - for the same reasons.

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

In article <4v40ve$k...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>,
Jorma Kypp| <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> wrote:
...

>4. Finland was *not* a Nazi state. Eg. Gen. Mannerheim disliked
>strongly Germans and especially Hitler. In spite of the Nazi
>demands, Finns *did not* let Finnish Jews to Germany to be killed.
>Except the 6 poor ones (a mistake of one, later punished officer),
>Jews in Finland were safe even though later in Lapland were
>also German troops.

Actually there was 8 of them, but they were not Finnish Jews, they were
German refugees that were returned as a part of a larger group. Our law
bans extraditing of Finnish citizens.

>5. Finns didn't cut Murman railroad, though Hitler wanted.

Actually it was done already on June 22th 1941 when a civilian
clothed patrol was sent to destroy the Stalin's channel but as they
could not do that they cut the railroad instead. Of course to really
cut a railroad one has to hold the territory. Nothing is easier than
fixing trails.

>
>Chechenyan war has several similarities with a 100 days Winter War
>in 1939-40, where 300 million Soviet Union was unable to conquer
>4 million Finland and lost as dead some 150 000 - 300 000 soldiers.
>The similarities with Winter War are partly because of Gen. Dudayev,
>who studied, that fighting when he was a a commander in Tartu, Estonia.

I cannot find much similarities. Finland was an independent country that
was democratically governed. Soviet Union was a totalitarian country.
Now Russia is a democratic country and part of it that is repelling
against their legal government.

What do you really know of the leaders of Chechnya? Do they respect
democracy, human rights and equality between genders or are they just
establishing another Islamic hellhole?

Osmo

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

[newsgroups and followups trimmed]

In article <3218E3...@nd.edu>, netsca...@nd.edu wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>
>> >that 30,000 CIVILIANS! in Grozny, after Russia has waged the war
>> >against them using weapons forbiden by Geneva Convention?
>>
>> How reliable the figure is? I do not see what Geneva convention has to
>> do with anything as the issue is not a war between nations. Almost all
>> police officers use weapons banned by the Hague convention.
>
>It is a war between nations, you uninformed man! Russians and chechens
>are entirely separate nations, as finns are separate nation fron
>russians! The religion, language, culture, etc. are different. And the
>fact that Russia occupies Chechen Republic doesn't make a difference, it
>is not a civil war. It is a national liberation war (remember US
>President Wilson and his notion that every nation has a right to
>independent state.

[snip]...

FYI, Woodrow Wilson was opposed to the breakup of Russia at the end of
World War I. His plan was to keep her intact, except for Armenia, and
appoint a _dictator_ to install democratic rule. (Kolchak was supposed to
be the guy.) This is true. Go look up the old books on the aftermath of
World War I in your local public library.

Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@pop.wwa.com

--
***********************************************************************
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
---Marie Curie
***********************************************************************

SB

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

"Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> wrote:
>
>How about a gracious Dan K. response?
>I think that it is absolutely astounding that you are so
>incapable of having any compasionate feelings for victims of
>aggresion but prefer to align yourself with those who perpetrate
>crimes against humanity. You are even much worse than the likes
>of George Bush who claiming to be a Republican American went to
>Ukraine and told the freedom loving Ukrainian people to remain
>slaves in his ole buddy's, Gorby remember him, EVIL EMPIRE,
>which unfortunately still remains albeit in a downsized form.
>The real question is why are the Russians in Chechnya at all since after
>the collapse of the FSU the Chechens declared that they did not
>want to remain in the Russian Federation. There is absolutely
>no reason for the Russians to be barbarically invading and destroying
>Chechnya. As for believing anything that Mr. Hubey or Prof. Voronka
>say, they are not fabricating anything, they are merely discussing
>the facts of the situation as REPORTED BY THE US AND RUSSIAN NEWS
>MEDIAS for all the world to know what is going on there and the last
>polls I saw showed that more than 60% of the RUSSIAN peole want the
>fighting to end and that Ms. Thompson dedends WHOLLY ON THE RUSSIANS.
>
>So the question remains why are you trying to discuss something
>which you apparently know very little about and blindly side with those
>who are perpetrationg crimes against humanity???
>Are you totally corrupt and evil?
>I can only imagine what great freedom fighters like Patrick Henry or
>Nathan Hale or Thomas Jefferson would say about someone with views
>as disgusting as yours.
>
>> Henrietta
>> h...@pop.wwa.com
>
>Regards, Dan K.

Indeed.
I can't recall a war where the sides were so mismatched and the stronger
one was so brutal and barbaric as it is the case in Chechnya. And to see
a member of a democratic civilization, what Ms.Thompson probably is,
advocate for that kind of cruelty is truly a slap on the face of
democracy. Almost makes you think people don't deserve it.

SB

dannie hawkins

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

On 19 Aug 1996 03:01:38 GMT, SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
>"Y. S. Perkhounkova" <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:

>>Sounds like those 18-20 year old boys really didn't want to die. As all of
>>us don't. Not a nice thing to be cut into pieces. Is it?

>You've brought tears to my eyes. And what about those thousands of
>Chechen men, women and children torn to pieces by Russian bombs in Grozny
>and other towns and countless villages throughtout Chechnya during the
>twenty months of Russian aggression? 30,000 killed.

What has that got to do with young men (actually boys) that were SENT
there by their gov? Are you saying you could care less about their lives?
If you have no feelings for those youngsters... then you are lower than
whale shit.

>If you want to defend Russia's policy, I suggest you do it on another matter.

That post had absolutely NOTHING to do with defending ANY policy of ANY
gov.

>Justifying its war in Chechnya can earn you no respect with any intelligent readers.

Your words have exposed your very low level of comprehension. Words have a
way of doing that if you make complete sentences with them. Try using one
at a time for a while.
--
COWARDS Die Many Times___BRAVE Men Die Once! _Old Norseman
_________________________www.resist.com
_________________________met...@cts.com

Dmitry Gryaznov

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

H. M. Hubey wrote:

>
> Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> >Note this - OMRI refers to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
>

> OMRI refers to Open Media Research Institute. I don't know if it
> is a part of RFE. It could be true but where did you get this info.

OMRI _stands for_ Open Media Research Institute. In that particular digest
OMRI were _referring to_ RFE/RL as their source of the info:

> OMRI Daily Digest *** Aug/13/96 ***

...

> *** ... An RFE/RL correspondent reported on 11 August that a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> *** Russian unit had taken hospital workers hostage in an attempt to
> *** escape encirclement by Chechen fighters. -- Scott Parrish

>

> >Now, RFE-RL and VOA are closely related - this makes them _one and the same_
>

> OK, RFE and VOA are closely related, but are you sure OMRI is also
> an arm of RFE?

Why??? They are not and I never said they were. They just used RFE/RL info.
See above.

> I seem to recall that this info was also published in Moscow.

In what newspaper/magazine/other edition? Giving what as their source of info?
And what exactly did they say? VOA gave two different reports. One came from
Chechen militants sources and stated that Russian federal troops took the
hospital's staff and patients hostages. Another was from Russian Interfax agency
and said the troops took refuge in the hospital, fleeing from Chechen fighters.
While taking refuge in a hospital _might_ be interpreted as using a human
shield (to the honour of Chechens, they would not attack or shell the hospital
full of civilians, more as most of the patients were their countrymen), it is
far from taking hostages, isn't it?

SB

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

DHawk...@pop.gnn.com (dannie hawkins) wrote:
>On 19 Aug 1996 03:01:38 GMT, SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
>
>>You've brought tears to my eyes. And what about those thousands of
>>Chechen men, women and children torn to pieces by Russian bombs in Grozny
>>and other towns and countless villages throughtout Chechnya during the
>>twenty months of Russian aggression? 30,000 killed.
>
>What has that got to do with young men (actually boys) that were SENT
>there by their gov?

They're the ones who threw the bombs. I've heard no reports of Russian
soldiers refusing to obey such orders.

Are you saying you could care less about their lives?
>If you have no feelings for those youngsters... then you are lower than
>whale shit.

I care. But it seems YOU couldn't care less about the Chechens. I just
have a problem crying over Russian soldiers, even though they are victims
of their country's policies, because I know what they did to the
completely innocent people of Chechnya. Don't you?

If you don't, you're lower than whale shit.

>
>>If you want to defend Russia's policy, I suggest you do it on another matter.
>
>That post had absolutely NOTHING to do with defending ANY policy of ANY
>gov.
>

Oh, yes, it did. Appealing to compassion for the soldiers of a murderous
army, however abused they are themselves, and not even mentioning the true
victims of the war, does just that, yet indirectly. I'm not even saying it
was intentional.

>>Justifying its war in Chechnya can earn you no respect with any intelligent readers.
>
>Your words have exposed your very low level of comprehension. Words have a
>way of doing that if you make complete sentences with them. Try using one
>at a time for a while.

What's that? Come again, please? Sorry, I didn't quite catch that?

>--
>COWARDS Die Many Times___BRAVE Men Die Once! _Old Norseman
>_________________________www.resist.com
>_________________________met...@cts.com
>

Maybe you should skip this slogan the next time. It kinda sticks out.

SB

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

In article <32175B...@megalinx.net>,

Michael Maron <mic...@megalinx.net> wrote:
>Osmo,
>
>I would appreciate a lot if you provided a brief overview of Finland's
>role in WW2:
>
>- Did the country participate in the war formally or it was neutral?
>
>- Did Finnish troops participate in the war formally or informally
>(for ex.: SU didn't participate in Spanish war formally, but there
>were Soviet "freelances" there)?

It makes no sense to compare Russian participation in the Spanish Civil
war to our fighting for existence in WWII. I do not get how the war
could be less official than it was. A state of war was declared in
Finland on 30th November 1939 at 13.30. In the continuation war, after
Soviet planes had bombed several Finnish cities on June 25th 1941, out
President acknowledged that a war existed between Finland and Soviet
Union. In the War of Lapland the war was declared on March 1st 1945 so
that the state of war between Finland and Germany had began on September
15th 1944. The actual fighting had began on September 15th 1944 when
Germans tried to attack on the Island Suursaari on the Gulf of Finland.
They thought that we would not defend it as the island had to be Given
to Soviets according to the Armistice. They were wrong. (Idiotic
operation on Germans as just a few days later entire Baltic front
collapsed)

>Thanks a lot!
>
>-Michael

Osmo

Dmitriy Rumynin

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

ry...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti) writes:

: Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: : Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: : ]Maybe you should reread your history books and I mean western ones. It
: : ]was the USSR that allied with Germany and then attacked Finland.
:
: Kagalenko is a product of the chauvinist,selective Soviet thinking.

I certainly agree.

: : It is common knowledge that Finns were Nazi allies, and denying it will

: : not help your image any. Finnish troops formed part of the circle
: : of blockade of Leningrad; Russian people remember that, you may
: : be sure.
:
: Soviet troops attacked on Finland in the autumn 1939 and Finland
: was completely alone.
:
: Later 1941 Finland and Germany had cooperation which was from
: the Finnish point of view the only option, because for instance
: the US,Great-Britain,Sweden etc. stood completely passive when
: SU attacked on Finland.

It is called allies. Jarmo, you should try to be objective about
Fins also.

: It does not make Finland an axis state when the Finns fought

: against Soviets in order to resist becoming a Soviet Republic.
: As much as the Chechens were an axis nation in 1940's.

It doesn't make Finland an axis state but just a german ally.
I accept the fact that SU was a german ally too before 1941.

: Where is Russian Nurnberg trial?

: All the Russian war criminals are free.

Unfortunately, war is not a crime. A crime is a deliberate
killing civilians or using a banned weapon. Thus, Russia
is not guilty in war crimes, although it conducted aggressive
wars.

: Something is compeltely wrong in that society.

That is true,
regards,
Dmitriy

:
: regards,

:

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

Jarmo Niemi (jar...@utu.fi) wrote:
> In article <4v8fks$r...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
> > Finnish troops participated in the siege of Leningrad. I think,
> > about 1mln died from hunger there.

Finnish troops didn't "participate" in nothing, but stayed *gbehind*
the border of Finland. Same border, that soviets crossed in Winter War.

> This we get to hear every now and then. Tell me, were there any attempts
> by the SU leadership to save Leningrad by making separate peace with
> Finland by, say, returning the areas SU took in 39-40 ? Could one say
> that the Leningradians starved because Stalin bull-headedly tried to
> hold on to his conquests ?

One could say, that if Finns had indeed attacked on Leningrad,
there very probably would not exist any St. Petersburg today.....

But Finns didn't.

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Russ Mestechkin

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

In article <3219B0...@dial.pipex.com>,
Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>> I seem to recall that this info was also published in Moscow.
>
>In what newspaper/magazine/other edition? Giving what as their source of info?
>And what exactly did they say? VOA gave two different reports. One came from
>Chechen militants sources and stated that Russian federal troops took the
>hospital's staff and patients hostages. Another was from Russian Interfax agency
>and said the troops took refuge in the hospital, fleeing from Chechen fighters.

I don't believe this guy! BOTH of the conflicting sides reported an incident
of Federal troops occupied the civil hospital in order to flee the Chechens.
Let me try it again, BOTH sides, Russian *and* Chechen.
Does it mean the incident took place, or do you need CNN to confirm it?!
Start making sense dear, or we better drop it.

>While taking refuge in a hospital _might_ be interpreted as using a human
>shield (to the honour of Chechens, they would not attack or shell the hospital
>full of civilians, more as most of the patients were their countrymen), it is
>far from taking hostages, isn't it?

No it isn't. Unless you think those civilians where willing participants.
Do you now? 'cause if not, it's called "hostage".

__
RM

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

In article <4v8fks$r...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> Finnish troops participated in the siege of Leningrad. I think,

> about 1mln died from hunger there. Does this count as "active
> participation" ?
>

Finnish troops did not participate in the siege of Leningrad. Our troops
stayed at the border that was established in Tarto peace treaty in 1920.

Osmo

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

In article <4v84fg$o...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:

>]In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>]Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:

>]>Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>]>
>]> Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
>]> Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
>]> and didn't desire to continue.
>]>
>]
>]Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
>]specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
>]Finland being an ally of Germany.
>

> You are being quite hilarious, dude. Check out any reference on WWII,
> and stop making fool of yourself. As if anyone cares whether
> some Finnish cangaroo court formalized the alliance or not.
>

I have no interests in checking foreign references as they are full of
errors when it comes to Finnish history.

What do you mean with cangaroo [sic] court? Treaties are here ratified by
the parliament. No treaty of alliance between Finland and Germany were
ratified. The closest thing to a treaty was the Anti-comintern pact to
which Finland joined. Germans wanted Finns to make formal treaties and
both German and Soviet propaganda emphasized the idea that there was an
alliance.

Osmo

Message has been deleted

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

In article <4v9bb2$e...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>,
Jarmo Ryyti <ry...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi> wrote:

>Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
>: Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:

>: ]Maybe you should reread your history books and I mean western ones. It
>: ]was the USSR that allied with Germany and then attacked Finland.
>
>Kagalenko is a product of the chauvinist,selective Soviet thinking.
>

>: Incorrect. SU was not allied with Germany. It did sign non-aggression
>: pact, with infamous secret addendum.
>
>SU and Germany made a pact about dividing Europe. Just two
>days later when Germany attaced Gdansk/Danzig the Soviet troops
>crossed the Polish - SU border according to the pact to take
>their share of the cake.
>
>The very same army unit was sent to the Finnish-SU border
>their task was cut Finland into two pieces in the level
>Oulu-Kuhmo. (Read more about Rattee road.)

The place is Raate. It is a small place near the border and so the road
leading from Suomussalmi to Raate was (is?) called Raatteen tie. The
English term could be Road to Raate. On that road the 44th division that
was sent to help the 163th division (in Suomussalmi) was destroyed.
Total of 17500 men of the 44th division were killed and 1200 were takes
as prisoners. Finns lost 900 killed and 1200 wounded. Had we had enough
artillery our casualties would have been much smaller. The 163th division
was luckier, it lost only 6500 men. In total we got 64 tanks 125
cannons, 410 trucks and 1420 horses from the two divisions.

>
>This Ukrainian elite division who had conquered Eastern-Poland
>as pact made by two dictators did never return from Finland but
>they still fertilate forests in Suomussalmi:-^
>

Not all of them were elite troops. One POW told to Finns how he had just
bought his wife new shoes and was returning home when some party
official asked why was he not fighting against Finnish fascists (or
something like that). He was directly sent to the front without no
military training. When he was captured, he still had the shoes he had
bought with him.

Osmo

netsca...@nd.edu

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to Michael Kagalenko

Here is just some more info about what's happening in Chechen Republic
for those little informed or very biased, like Kagalenko or Henrietta:

ALKHAN-YURT, Russia (Reuter) - Russian troops cut a major
escape route from Grozny Tuesday, trapping thousands of
civilians frantically trying to flee a threatened military
bombardment set to begin Thursday.
The troops apparently aimed to close the route to Chechen
separatist fighters holed up in the city. But they stranded
civilians in a perilous area between rebel and Russian lines
which has been shelled heavily in the last few days.
About 30 well-armed Interior Ministry soldiers with armored
personnel carriers swept through the dusty village of
Alkhan-Yurt on the southwest fringe of the Chechen capital.
They took up positions near a ramshackle bridge that was one
of the few points of passage for thousands of refugees.
``They started shooting up the bridge with grenades when
they got down there and everyone turned back,'' said one woman
who managed to cross from the Grozny side just before the
Russians moved in. Sporadic explosions could be heard from the
vicinity.
Western journalists who visited the bridge in the early
evening saw the bodies of two civilians on the Grozny side. At
least 30,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed
since Russia sent troops into Chechnya 20 months ago to crush
the rebels' independence drive.
A Chechen rebel spokesman had accused troops of blowing up
the crossing earlier in the day killing many civilians.
But at the bridge, a precarious structure of metal plates
balanced on rusting steel tubes, there was no evidence of this
later in the afternoon.
The troops' arrival, however, halted the flow of refugees,
many of them old people who had hobbled for several miles from
Grozny, which was seized by the rebels Aug. 6.
The soldiers, who were extremely agitated, searched refugees
and forced men to lie on the ground. A number complained they
were robbed of some of the few possesions they had been able to
take along as they fled their homes.
``They shoved me onto the ground and ripped my gold ring
off. Then they took my wallet with $300 in it,'' one man said.
One of the APCs trained its cannon on the reporters.
``Out of the car!'' screamed one of the blue-camouflaged
soldiers, sticking his Kalashnikov assault rifle in this
correspondent's face.
``You damn journalists! Don't you have enough blacks in your
own country? You've come here to defend these black asses we're
trying to wipe out,'' he said. Russian troops use such racist
terms for the dark-skinned peoples of the Caucasus, including
Chechens.

(Reuters)
The Clinton administration has in the course of the war accused
Russia of violating international treaties barring attacks on civilian
centers with such weapons, falling just short of characterizing the
assaults as war crimes.

Audrius
abal...@nd.edu

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
> In article <4v40ve$k...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>,
> Jorma Kypp| <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> wrote:
> >Chechenyan war has several similarities with a 100 days Winter War
> >in 1939-40, where 300 million Soviet Union was unable to conquer
> >4 million Finland and lost as dead some 150 000 - 300 000 soldiers.
> >The similarities with Winter War are partly because of Gen. Dudayev,
> >who studied, that fighting when he was a a commander in Tartu, Estonia.
> I cannot find much similarities. Finland was an independent country that
> was democratically governed. Soviet Union was a totalitarian country.
> Now Russia is a democratic country and part of it that is repelling
> against their legal government.

I was talking about the similarities between these two *wars*.
If we want to compare Chechenya and Finland as states, we have to
go 22 years back in history. To the year 1917 when Russia was
a boiling cattle and Finland became independent.
Your argument is quite dangerous, just that kind what also Mr. Zhirinovsky
used. Do you really mean, that also Finland shouldn't become independent?

About the "democracy" of Russia.. yes formally, but in practise?
Well, I guess there's still something to do for it...

> What do you really know of the leaders of Chechnya? Do they respect
> democracy, human rights and equality between genders or are they just
> establishing another Islamic hellhole?

What that has to do with the issue? What do you really know about
Yeltsin, does he respect human rights and equality?
About islam there: By my opinion first comes the will of independence
and own nation. Just after that islamic. It was same in
Azerbaidzhan .. at first Iran was very excited, but now more
careful.
Islam is a tool, the power under which you can gather and gain support.
The islamic religion will go stronger on that area and all over
the long belt from China to Mediterranian just because of
this kind of fightings.

I remind once more that not all Chechens did support separatist
leaders from the beginning. Russian army has succeded to join
Chechens together. Just like it joined Finnish "whites" and
communists in 1939.

dannie hawkins

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

On 20 Aug 1996 14:00:13 GMT, SB <lu...@enterprise.ca> wrote:

>DHawk...@pop.gnn.com (dannie hawkins) wrote:
>>What has that got to do with young men (actually boys) that were SENT
>>there by their gov?

>They're the ones who threw the bombs. I've heard no reports of Russian
>soldiers refusing to obey such orders.

It's apparent you know nothing about the military.

>Are you saying you could care less about their lives?

I care More of the Russian boys than any Chechens. I have nothing against
Chechens, and understand their desires for a free nation, but when left to
choose one over the other, I choose to go with Blood. It has nothing to do
with who's right or wrong.

>>If you have no feelings for those youngsters... then you are lower than
>>whale shit.

>I care. But it seems YOU couldn't care less about the Chechens.

Not true. It's a very complicated situation. I wish it could be settled in
a way that would be agreeable to both sides. However, Russia is between a
rock and a hard place by the fact of location alone -- thousands of miles
of border that faces over =two billion= Asians who care less of European
Kind or culture.

The world is not going to become a safer place, it's going to become more
dangerous. Non Europeans have exploding populations, while Europeans are
actually below replacement level. A number of things, droughts, economic
depression, etc, in the wrong locations could bring about *major
world-wide crises -- that NO gov is prepared to handle.

Generally, it seems Russians have much better survival instincts whereas
western Europeans have become soft, maybe too soft, and are actually
letting non Europeans flood into their countries, especially the U.S. --
and also Canada to a degree. Even now, Vancouver, BC could be called
Newasia, and one can find asians moving into the smaller inland towns
also. A few now but... This may or may not bother you, but it does bother
many people who wish for their Kind and culture to not become extinct.

>I just have a problem crying over Russian soldiers, even though they are victims
>of their country's policies, because I know what they did to the
>completely innocent people of Chechnya. Don't you?

Soldiers should never be held accountable of the actions of, or orders
given by their commanders. Ex u.s. pres. george bush sent "smart bombs"
and not so smart bombs into Baghdad, and killed *many civilians. What say
you on that? Did you scream about it back then? If not, why not?

>If you don't, you're lower than whale shit.

Obviously it's all a matter of perceptions.

>>That post had absolutely NOTHING to do with defending ANY policy of ANY
>>gov.
>Oh, yes, it did. Appealing to compassion for the soldiers of a murderous
>army, however abused they are themselves, and not even mentioning the true
>victims of the war, does just that, yet indirectly. I'm not even saying it
>was intentional.

But you're wrong. The post did not "appeal" to compassion. It 'expressed'
personal compassion for young soldiers caught in a seemingly *Dead-end*
situation. They should be admired for not becoming weak and surrendering.
Even if Chechens fighters had done this, I'd say the same thing.

>>COWARDS Die Many Times___BRAVE Men Die Once! _Old Norseman

>Maybe you should skip this slogan the next time. It kinda sticks out.

I certainly hope so. It does appear to be a simple 'saying' when viewed
quickly, but there's much insight there. For this occasion, I'll attach a
person's name who could very well have uttered those words.
--
COWARDS Die Many Times___BRAVE Men Die Once! _Rurik of Rus
_________________________www.resist.com
_________________________met...@cts.com

Jarmo Ryyti

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:

: Jarmo Niemi (jar...@utu.fi) wrote:
: > In article <4v8fks$r...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:

: > > Finnish troops participated in the siege of Leningrad. I think,

: > > about 1mln died from hunger there.

: > This we get to hear every now and then. Tell me, were there any attempts

: > by the SU leadership to save Leningrad by making separate peace with
: > Finland by, say, returning the areas SU took in 39-40 ? Could one say
: > that the Leningradians starved because Stalin bull-headedly tried to
: > hold on to his conquests ?
: One could say, that if Finns had indeed attacked on Leningrad,
: there very probably would not exist any St. Petersburg today.....

To be precise: The Finns saved StPetersburg and the Russians
should be thankful about it.

The Russians do not understand one thing:

The Commander-in-chief,"white general",Marshal C-G Mannerheim
was himself a StPetersburgian who had no interest to destroy
his own home-town even if the Commies had it in their hands.

Now the children (?) to these very same commies whine about
Mannerheim and spread lies about Mannerheim's army.

Russia should first arrange their own Nurenberg trial and first
then accuse those who saved at least some others for the Commie
dictatorship.

Is it indeed so, that "the reds" managed to kill all so called
"whites" in Russia when even 1990's the Commie fairy-tales
are spreading around about WW2 and Finland's role in it.

Mannerheim was the only "white general" of the Old Russian Army
who beat the Reds, the ones who led Russia later into the disaster.
(which lasts and lasts,because nothing is learned over there)

Respect that at least.

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

In article <4v8hv0$4...@kirin.wwa.com>,

Henrietta Thomas <h...@pop.wwa.com> wrote:
>
>[newsgroups and followups trimmed]
>

>In article <4v6mv9$f...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>,

> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>>In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>>Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
>>> Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
>>> and didn't desire to continue.
>>>
>>
>>Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
>>specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
>>Finland being an ally of Germany.
>>

>>Osmo
>>
>
>I am not so sure it is a lie. I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A Country
>Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler "strengthened
>his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says that, after the
>war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and further
>concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion in 1941)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a consequence
>of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact."
>

That does not mean there was any alliance. It is just the old the enemy
of your enemy is your friend.

Osmo

alex

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

In article <4vfpar$v...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu says...
>
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
>]In article <4v84fg$o...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>]Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:

>]>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
>]>]In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>]>]Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>]>]>Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>]>]>
>]>]> Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
>]>]> Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
>]>]> and didn't desire to continue.
>]>]>
>]>]
>]>]Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
>]>]specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
>]>]Finland being an ally of Germany.

>]>
>]> You are being quite hilarious, dude. Check out any reference on WWII,

>]> and stop making fool of yourself. As if anyone cares whether
>]> some Finnish cangaroo court formalized the alliance or not.
>]>
>]
>]I have no interests in checking foreign references as they are full of
>]errors when it comes to Finnish history.
>

> Yes, that's so. One must only rely on The True Finnish Sources,
> as others try to mislead the reader with nasty facts.
>
>]What do you mean with cangaroo [sic] court? Treaties are here ratified by

>]the parliament. No treaty of alliance between Finland and Germany were
>]ratified. The closest thing to a treaty was the Anti-comintern pact to
>]which Finland joined. Germans wanted Finns to make formal treaties and
>]both German and Soviet propaganda emphasized the idea that there was an
>]alliance.
>

> Again, who cares what was ratified by some Finnish cangaroo court ?
> Facts are, finns fought on the side of Hitler.
>
>
>--
>LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
>

Gentlemen, should the above be not be part of a different thread?

Cosidering that this does not pertain to the discussion of, "Freedom for the Chechens".

Excuse any possible annoyance to Mr. Kagalenko and Mr. Ronkanen.

Regards,

alex

Jarmo Niemi BTK

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Michael Kagalenko wrote:

> Stalin, of course, valued lives of his subjects very little. Why
> you think that this somehow exhonerates Finns' participation in starving
> Leningrad is quite beyond me.

The Finnish troops on the Karelian isthmus participated in the
blockade in the same sense that Lake Ladoga participated in it.
These troops were completely passive toward Leningrad by specific
orders of the Finnish military leadership, and there are Russian
historic documents to show that the SU knew of this.

--
Jarmo Niemi jar...@utu.fi http://www.utu.fi/~jarnie/

alex

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

In article <4vebep$4...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, DHawk...@pop.gnn.com says...

You are a blood thirsty idiot.

For one thing, Russians are *not* European or Slavic.
That seems to be *most* important to you, so why don't you
learn something about "Finno-Ugrians" and Mogols which is the main genetic
component of Russians.

More importantly, what does it matter anyway?

Why don't you go to alt.skinheads and masturbate there?

Then you can find a girlfriend and read comic books together
and squeeze each other's pimples.

alex

Jari Partanen

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

h...@pop.wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A Country
>Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler >"strengthened
>his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says that, after
>the war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and further
>concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion in

>1941) in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a

>consequence of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact."

Dear Henrietta,

What does your book tell about, how the Finnish-Soviet wars began?
Can it find any justification for Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939 (as
a result of the Nazi-Soviet Nonagression Pact) ? Do you honestly believe
that Finland should have voluntarily let Soviet-Union take and keep those
parts of Finland Stalin wanted, and a military base near Helsinki? (We
saw what happened to Baltic countries who agreed to similar demands
without a fight.)

Did you ever visit that huge exhibition in Moscow showing the
achievements of the economy of Soviet-Union (Is it still there?). In
there thay had these big statues figuring the nationalities forming the
happy family of Soviet-Union, each person describing one of the
republics. Instead of having 15 of them (one for each republic) they used
to have 16, the 16th being the blonde Finnish-looking lady with the
blue-and-white national dress. This symbolizes well independent Finland's
tight position!

Before the WWII the Finnish politicians (Finland had, of course, a free
and democratic multi-party system), though mainly anti-communists, were
naive enough (in Finland people were used to trust everybody) to believe,
that Soviet-Union would respect the non-agression pact of Finland and
Soviet-Union, and neglected the development of the Finnish army
(a mistake which has not been made again). Incredible, if there are still
hard-core stalinists, who defend the aggression policy of Stalin towards
Finland.

Best regards,
Jari P.

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:

> ]Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> ]> Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:

> ]> ]If a nation has fight for her freedom already 150 years
> ]> ]it tells us that there are exactly 3 choices.
> ]> ]a) Russians have to kill all the 1-2 million Chechens
> ]> ] in Chechenya and abroad.
> ]> That is quite wrong. Not all chechens support Maskhadov and his ilk.
> ]Right in a way, but let me say it in other words:
> ]Not all the Chechens did support Dudayev in 1994. After Russian
> ]invasion and all these mass murders of civilians almost all do.
> I see that Finnish media is good at brainwashing. (no, they
> don't )

Finnish media? Why you assume, that I would follow *only* Finnish
media?

> ]Most of the local Russians *do not* support Yeltsin kind of
> ]invasion politics in Chechenya.
> There is virtually no "local Russians" in Chechnya nowadays,
> thanks to Dudaev's gung. Check the statistics for the
> number of Russian refugees from Chechnya before the start of
> the war.

Well for Russians Grozny is not a good place when their own
"friendly fire", Russian bombs kill them.
After the maasive invasion of Russian army in 1994 it came out that
most of the dead (killed by these Russian forces) were Russian...

As "local" I meant Russians who live in Russia.

> ]That's why Lebed is a hero.
> It is by far too early to say who Lebed is.

Yes. I meant now.

> ]> Neither it is correct to say that they were "fighting for her
> ]> independence" during those 150 years.
> ]Why?
> Because they weren't (glad I can clear this up for you).

Then be free to clear it. There's no reason to be shamed on internet.
"weren't" sounds a bit short proof:)

> ]Germans are not under the power of Russia like Chechens.
> (for that, they ought to thank the benevolence of Gorbachev)

You mean, that without Gorbachev we could have another
"chechenya" in DDR?

> ]Germans wanted to conquer Russia, Chechens don't want.
> ]Germans and Russians are like brothers, in many ways...
> ]Germany and Russia (SU in that time) were allies, when Stalin
> ]attacked on Finland in 1939.
> Non-aggression treaty is not the same as alliance. By your
> measure, Britain and Germany were allies at the same time because of Munich
> treaty.

It was not *only* non-aggression treaty. In that pact Germany and
SU also divided part of Europe. Germany eg. promised that Stalin
can take Finland.

> ]> ]c) Chechens get finally their independence.
> ]> That isn't practical possibility.
> ]Yes. It is indeed a big problem. Almost comparable with Kurdistan.
> ]If Chechenya will get her independence, the process might continue.
> ]And Russia might become as big as Germany.
> That is not the only problem. Those who have military power in
> Chechenya are ruthless bandits.

Why do you think so?

> If they are allowed to have their
> way, another Lybia will be created, only more reckless
> and closer to Europe.

Hmmm... but it is still more far than Moscow.........:)

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Henrietta Thomas (h...@pop.wwa.com) wrote:
> I am not so sure it is a lie. I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A Country

> Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler "strengthened
> his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says that, after the
> war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and further
> concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion in 1941)

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Naturally you are right, but let me specify a bit.

1. In 1939 SU and Hitler were secret allies via Molotov-Ribbentrop
pact. SU promised for Hitler most of Poland and Hitler "gave" for
SU part of Poland, baltic states and Finland.
2. It was a good deal for both even though they were also "secret"
enemies. The only what failed was Finland: SU couldn't take her "gift".
3. So SU attacked on Finland (who was alone) in 1939, but couldn't
conquer her. The war lasted 100 days and in peace Finland had to
give Carelia for Carelia.
4. After this Winter War Finland tried to find support from Germany
as Germany was the *only* one who promised help against the possible
second attack of SU.
5. When Germany then started *her* invasion, it was no wonder, that
Finns wanted Carelia back.
6. And now we come to the difficult point. In Finland there were different
political opinions how far we should know and in east Finns really
went over the old border and continued to East Carelia.
Ther are many who said, that it was not a good idea.
Perhaps not.
It was much because of national reasons for during that time also
people in East Carelia were familiar to Finns, Carelians.
There were not many Russians.
Perhaps some thought, that if Stalin thought he has right
to take part of Finland in 39-40, why we "couldn't make the same?".
Or you can see East Carelia like Bosnia. In Finland many knew about
ethnic cleaning in Carelia and Finns wanted to go and
make stop for it. Like NATO in Bosnia.

But what ever the motivs war .. legally Finns made wrong.
And so did Stalin, but that's another thing.

But before I end I still like to remind about 2 things:
a) Finns didn't take orders from Germans.
b) in south Finns never passed the old border =>
Finns never attacked on Leningrad.

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Jorma Kypp|

unread,

Aug 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/22/96

to

Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> Stalin, of course, valued lives of his subjects very little. Why
> you think that this somehow exhonerates Finns' participation in starving
> Leningrad is quite beyond me.

- Finns never attacked on Leningrad.
- Finns didn't bomb Leningrad.
- Finns didn't cross the border between Finland and SU
near Leningrad, but stayed only on Finnish side of border.
- If Stalin had stayed in 1939 on Soviet side of border, Finland
would have been like Sweden, not enemy.
- Finns didn't let Germans to bomb Leningrad by planes from
Finland. Germans had to use Estonia, that they had conquered.
- People of Leningrad were not totally isolated. They had one
tiny path over the Lake Ladoga ice to get food etc.., the
last "blood vessel". This path was so near the Finnish troops,
that Finns could have cut that vessel very easily. They didn't.

Summa summarum: Finns saved Leningrad.

If Leningrad had fallen down, Germany could have released many divisions
to attack to Moscow and more east. Germany would probably have won the
war. Finns saved Soviet Union.

Finns saved Russians by not attacking on the town, that was established
just a little more than 200 years ago by Peter the Great, in the centre
of Finnish (Ingrian) villages. During the time, when there were not
living Russians around the Finnish Gulf.

That Finns saved Leningrad had a strong effect on Soviet-Finnish
relations after the war. Russians started to trust more on Finns.
This peace could have been even better if also Finns could trust
more on Russians. But it needs sacrifices, mean to proof, that
you are trustable. The Moscow politics in Chechenya absolutely
prove just the opposite....

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Aug 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/22/96

to

[newsgroups and followups revised to add soc.history and
talk.politics.soviet]

In article <4veduj$9...@castor.utu.fi>,
Jari Partanen <jari.p...@utu.fi> wrote:

>h...@pop.wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A Country
>>Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler
>>"strengthened his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says
>>that, after the war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and
>>further concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion

>>in 1941) in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a
>>consequence of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact."
>
>Dear Henrietta,
>
>What does your book tell about, how the Finnish-Soviet wars began?

The World Almanac of the Soviet Union tells a little more of the story than
the Country Study does:

"In October 1939, anticipating war with Germany, Stalin and Molotov
demanded that Finnish territory in the Leningrad area be ceded for the
defense of the Soviet Union. But the Soviet-Finnish talks broke down,
since the Finnish Parliament would not trust its emissaries to deal with
the Soviets. In November, after declaring that Finland was threatening
them, the Soviet Union bombed Helsinki and invaded Finland."

>Can it find any justification for Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939 (as
>a result of the Nazi-Soviet Nonagression Pact) ?

So far as I know, the attack on Finland had nothing to do with the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

>Do you honestly believe that Finland should have voluntarily let
>Soviet-Union take and keep those parts of Finland Stalin wanted, and a
>military base near Helsinki? (We saw what happened to Baltic countries
>who agreed to similar demands without a fight.)

I do not recall saying what I believed. You have read quite a bit into my
small attempt to indicate that something was going on between Germany and
Finland.

>Did you ever visit that huge exhibition in Moscow showing the
>achievements of the economy of Soviet-Union (Is it still there?). In
>there thay had these big statues figuring the nationalities forming the
>happy family of Soviet-Union, each person describing one of the
>republics. Instead of having 15 of them (one for each republic) they used
>to have 16, the 16th being the blonde Finnish-looking lady with the
>blue-and-white national dress. This symbolizes well independent Finland's
>tight position!

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never been to Russia.
Or the Soviet Union, either, in case you're wondering.

>Before the WWII the Finnish politicians (Finland had, of course, a free
>and democratic multi-party system), though mainly anti-communists, were
>naive enough (in Finland people were used to trust everybody) to believe,
>that Soviet-Union would respect the non-agression pact of Finland and
>Soviet-Union, and neglected the development of the Finnish army
>(a mistake which has not been made again). Incredible, if there are still
>hard-core stalinists, who defend the aggression policy of Stalin towards
>Finland.

Neither of the books I have at hand talk of a Soviet-Finnish Nonaggression
Pact prior to World War II. They only talk of the 1920 peace treaty between
Finland and Russia. (The Soviet Union was not created until 1922).

As I say in another message, I will think about doing some research when
I go to the library Saturday. I don't guarantee that I will come back with
anything substantive though.

Henrietta

--
**************************************************************************

Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
---Marie Curie

**************************************************************************

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Aug 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/22/96

to

[newsgroups and followups revised to add soc.history and
talk.politics.soviet]

In article <4veket$k...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>,

ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>In article <4v8hv0$4...@kirin.wwa.com>,
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@pop.wwa.com> wrote:
>>
>>[newsgroups and followups trimmed]
>>
>>In article <4v6mv9$f...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>,

>> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>>>In article <4v0n05$h...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,

>>>Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>Jorma Kypp| (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>>>>

>>>> Are you sure there's enough Chechens to fight Russia for 150 years ?
>>>> Germans, the former allies of Finland, tried it for just 4 years,
>>>> and didn't desire to continue.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again, specify the year and the number in Finnish law collection that
>>>specifies that alliance. If you can't then please retract that lie about
>>>Finland being an ally of Germany.
>>>

>>>Osmo
>>>
>>
>>I am not so sure it is a lie. I have a book here ("Soviet Union: A

>>Country Study") which says that, just prior to invading USSR, Hitler
>>"strengthened his ties with Finland." Later on, this same book also says
>>that, after the war, "The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and
>>further concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>in 1941) in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a
>>consequence of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact."
>>
>

>That does not mean there was any alliance. It is just the old the enemy
>of your enemy is your friend.

Well then, try this from the 1991 World Almanac of the Soviet Union:

"Following the German attack on Russia [their error, not mine--Russia did
not exist at the time], on June 25, 1941, Finland declared war on the
Soviet Union and its troops advanced to the old 1939 frontier on the
Karelian Isthmus and to the Svir River between Lakes Ladoga and Onega,
where the line stayed until 1944. .... In December [I assume 1941] Britain
declared itself at war with Finland after long diplomatic attempts to
persuade Finland not to align with Germany."

Sorry I do not have a "good" history of the Soviet-Finnish conflicts before
me. I will think about doing some research when I go to the library
Saturday, but I doubt it will matter very much. I understand that Western
books are woefully inadequate in regard to the events under discussion
here.

Pekka Riiali

unread,

Aug 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/22/96

to

h...@pop.wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:

> Neither of the books I have at hand talk of a Soviet-Finnish Nonaggression
> Pact prior to World War II. They only talk of the 1920 peace treaty between
> Finland and Russia. (The Soviet Union was not created until 1922).

The Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviet Union and Finland was
signed January 21, 1932, and a protocol of prolongation of the pact up
to 1945, was concluded on April 7, 1934.

//Beke
--
+ rii...@lut.fi rii...@harpoon.lnet.lut.fi ++ Pekka Riiali +
+ WWW: http://www.lut.fi/~riiali ++ Laserkatu 2 D 12 +
+ irc: Beke ham: OH5LUQ ++ FIN-53850 LPR FINLAND +
+ pgp public key: finger -l rii...@lut.fi ++ Tel: +358 (9)40 5431128 +