The information reaching Ukraine’s man in the street via the audio, video, and print media, along with other electronic data transfer networks, despite its having been obviously carefully ladled out and edited, shows that the Russian leadership in its military campaign against Chechnya, under the rhetoric of combating terrorism, actually aims to destroy that people and its very habitat. Suffice it to recall scenes from documentaries and newsreels showing Grozny, laid waste by bombs, shells, and rockets, with practically not a single structure remaining intact. In fact, the Russian side has admitted that what is left of the city cannot be restored and will not be rebuilt. Even previous government-controlled and oriented ORT Russian Public Television programs were permeated with scenes of artillery barrage, mass air raids, and rocket strikes aimed at Chechen towns and villages, making it obvious that the Russian military was least of all concerned about leaving anything intact or anybody alive. The more so that shortly after the campaign started spokesmen of the Russian command (and not only they) stopped mentioning the “localized” and “selective” character of their air and artillery strikes. In other words, they de facto admitted that everything and everybody could be destroyed within the area of hostilities, giving the Russian troops a kind of carte blanche, allowing them to choose their methods of warfare. There is little doubt that the same applies to Russian operations in the Chechnya mountains. Moreover, what information reaches us via foreign and more or less independent Russian media is quite eloquent.
Nothing is known for certain about what has come of tens if not hundreds of thousands of peaceful residents of this republic who failed to escape before intensive hostilities began largely due to the rigid information blockade by the Russian military. Chechen and Western sources claim the civilian death toll reaches thousands upon thousands. There is also information saying Russian troops in the “liberated” areas are transferring local residents to special camps. Nor is there any more or less reliable data concerning the number of towns and villages remaining intact or partially destroyed, especially on the right bank of the Terek River. In any case, even the selective cameras of the loyal ORT journalists allowed entry to Chechnya could spot practically no undamaged buildings.
Now about the reasons Russia is using to justify its actions in Chechnya. They are quite simple: struggle against international terrorism and protection of its territorial integrity. However, the principles of international law (and not only international) say that specific terrorists have to be found and apprehended. For this reason launching a full-scale war against the entire people, using what noted Russian politicians describe as scorched earth tactics, cannot be justified by any arguments about combating terrorism. As for Moscow’s demands for Shamil Basayev’s extradition (he is certainly a radical, yet even the Russian military admits he is a symbol of invincibility to many Chechens), the Chechen side would have never agreed, and everyone knew that from the outset. True, certain countries, particularly the United States and Israel, are known to have resorted to force aimed at targets within other countries which they alleged were supporting international terrorists (in fact, Israel is still doing precisely that), but such actions have always been kept on a strictly limited scale.
Further, Russia is entitled to protect its territorial integrity under international treaties. Chechnya did encroach by claiming independence (although quite recently the Soviet Union was also a state with its territorial integrity, so where is it now?). By starting large-scale hostilities in Chechnya (whose leadership previously more than once voiced a desire to hold peace negotiations with Moscow leaders) Russia actually denounced the right to live in its inherent territory in general and deprive an entire people of that right in particular. Incidentally, the problem of the interrelationship between the right of a polity to territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self- determination is becoming increasingly acute in international politics. Yet, all things considered, the international community is at the start of the road to the development of new conceptual approaches to such controversies.
Will Russia benefit in the end, after “cleansing” Chechnya of the Chechens and their homes, even if for a while? Unlikely. Yes, this scorched land will remain within the borders of the Russian Federation for some time, a land with a totally wrecked economic potential that no one knows how to restore and when. Moscow remains silent on how much has been spent and will have to be spent on this war. Yet it cannot remain silent about the thousands of officers and men killed and wounded. Also, after the international oil companies determined to have Kazakh oil transported via Turkey, Russia’s hopes for dividends from oil transit, primarily across Chechnya, are sure to wither away. So what will Russia have left to its name? Acting President Vladimir Putin’s ratings boosted before the elections? It is perfectly safe to assume that he could have boosted them without risking such damage to Russia’s international image. And so the allegation that the current Chechnya War was started mostly to strengthen Yeltsin’s successor’s position does not seem to make much sense.
Be it as it may, the international community, particularly Ukraine, will have to reckon with the fact that Russia has embarked on a course to resume its superpower status (as evidenced by its stand in the Kosovo conflict, Kremlin statements, Chechnya War, and changes in military doctrine), like the Soviet Union. At the same time, it purports to assert this status separately from the other world leaders. How successful it will be is another question. However, one is amazed to watch the relatively sluggish response of the international community, particularly NATO and OSCE members, to the war. In fact, they have not gone any further than so many statements (albeit harshly worded in some cases), demarches, and superficial CE inspections. True, the International Monetary Fund and several other international financial institutions seem to have suspended loans for Russia. But NATO Secretary General George Robertson’s recent visit to Moscow showed that no one is going to keep Ukraine’s northern neighbor isolated because of Chechnya, much less so because of Ukrainian diplomacy. The latter either pretends that the problem of methods to tame Chechnya (with the attendant inference so far as Ukraine is concerned) is nonexistent, or declares understanding of the Russian stand in that “antiterrorist” operation. In other words, both the international community and Ukraine have actually accepted walk-on roles in a tragedy unfolding before the rest of the world.
One thing is certain, however. Whatever the outcome of the Chechnya War, the current and coming generations of its victims will strive to return to their forefathers’ land and build their life as they see fit.
