| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| 40 dead in Moscow subway boom |
| 2004-02-06 |
| EFL-And The Link is to The BBC, Better Graphics and Decent Map of Moscow Subway. Initial Reports indicate a Female suicide bomber. About 40 people have died and more than 100 were injured in a suspected suicide attack on a packed Moscow subway train. The blast happened at the height of rush hour in the second carriage of the train as it entered a tunnel from -station. As a linking Station, most people who have been to Moscow will be familiar with Paveletskaya. Smoke filled the tunnel, Interfax reported, and hundreds of passengers have been evacuated. If the explosion is confirmed as a bomb attack, suspicion is likely to fall on separatist militants from Chechnya. Russian police told French news agency AFP that the blast was "probably" caused by a suicide bomber. As previously noted, probably female, as now being reported. Women are seeming to become the Bomb Vehicle of Choice...Sigh. They simply attract less attention. Up to 350 were reported injured in the incident, many suffering from broken bones, smoke inhalation and burns, Russian radio reported. BBC correspondent Sarah Rainsford in Moscow says there were scenes of panic and confusion as people fled the powerful explosion. Scores of dazed commuters, many with faces bloodied by injuries and blackened with smoke, poured into the city streets to escape the flames. The train had left the Paveletskaya station, on the metro system’s green line, and was travelling south from the city centre to the Avtozavodskaya station through a tunnel when the blast occurred. Wounded passengers were guided to safety through the tunnel by emergency services, while fire officials attempted to put out a large fire caused by the explosion. More than 50 ambulances arrived at the scene and police sealed off the surrounding streets. The train was severely damaged in the blast, which occurred as many commuters were travelling to local offices and factories. Rush Hour in Moscow. And now a little commentary. I have previously written here that I’d like to see the Chechnyian Conflict as maybe a template for a more agressive War against Militant Islam...but it does not seem to be going well for the Russians, and they certainly don’t have some of the tough Rules of Engagement that are inflicted on American troops...and it still doesn’t seem to be going well. Grozny is in shambles, looking to my eyes as bad as many WWII cities...and yet it still doesn’t seem to go well for the Russians. At the time I made this argument many people said Russian soldiers are bad conscripts, ect., ect, ect, and not the equal of American soldiers. But I didn’t buy that argument then, and I don’t believe it now. They are soldiers, subject to the same boredom and stress and terrors as is so with all soldiers...and they want to stay alive...as do all soldiers. So this raises two questions: Since the Russians have been unsuccessful, can America afford to be more aggressive in its war in Iraq or Afghanastan...or wherever? Or is it just better, even militarily better, to just suck up the casualites that we seem to be suffering, and just soldier on? This presumes that we wish to avoid a war of civilizations with maybe one to two hundred million muslims being slaughtered, with the balance being force converted to Christianity. (In the end, this may be an option forced on us...I’m just thinking the unthinkable.) The second question is...Why isn’t this happening here? I’m sorry but I don’t think that Tom Ridge and Homeland Security is doing even a competent job on our borders, either north and south. If someone wanted to be smuggled in with 25 lbs of simtex or C4, I think it is easily doable. To answer my own question...it is possible that the various WOT’s have more to do with local factors than with any real and express threat to the United States. Iraq is confined to Iraq, Afghanistan to Afghanistan, and Chechnya to there and Russia. I don’t like the way things are going in Iraq, but maybe it is really the best we can do or hope for and continue to hope to avoid importing the war into our shopping malls or subways. Just some thoughts. |
| Posted by:Traveller |
| #27 Come on, Aris, don't pull your punches now, How do you really feel about Chechen Conflict? Which side are you on...lol I suppose that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this...There have been too many booms all over Russia, in parks and cars, trains and rock concerts and subways and entire apartment houses...The Russians could kill every man woman and child in Chechnya and I would turn a blind eye to the event. The practical question of the thread was...how to pacify an entire country side...at least in reference to Chechnya, no one really seems to have an answer. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-7 12:50:57 AM |
| #26 Aris, well said. Shit does still smell like shit. Russia has some serious weirdness! So in the context of the WoT. What? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-7 12:10:39 AM |
| #25 Oh, I see: Russians killing 250.000 Chechen civilians -- deplorable, but hey it was Chechens that chose the battleground. Chechens killing 100 Russian civilians -- an example of Chechen barbarity. Yeah, whatever. Why not have Russian artillery bomb Moscow instead, since it seems that murdering hundreds and thousands of innocents is not criminal once the "battlefield" is chosen. There were *some* atrocities? *Some* atrocities? One *QUARTER* of the Chechen population was murdered. If the Hitler examples don't suit you, then think of this: Putin is Saddam Hussein, and the Chechen are the Kurds under Saddam's rule. Except that even more Chechens were murdered by Putin than Kurds were murdered by Saddam. Is there any *actual* difference between the dead Kurds by Saddam's chemical weapons versus the dead Chechen by Putin's non-WMD artillery? And don't give me that crap about war crimes trials in Russia. Yes, we've seen war crimes trials in Russia where for the witnessed rape and murder of 18-year-old girls the state prosecutors side with the defense lawyers and ask for the acquittal of the rapist-murderer. And frankly, *even* if Chechenya became Jihadi paradise and a new Afghanistan that would *still( be nowhere near the level of oppression and murder that Russia has inflicted on it. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-6 11:30:46 PM |
| #24 Dear Badanov: Thanks for the imformation. This was my sense of the situation in Chechnya. I was aware of the criminal prosecution for war crimes...though to be honest, I am generally opposed to war crimes trials...maybe in all instances. War is just far to messy a business to prosecute individual soldiers at the grunt level. Such incidents should be taken care of at the brigade or divisonal level...as conduct unbecoming a soldier. On the other hand, superior officers that make it unit policy to commit atrocities...that is another matter, but still something to be delt with by the individual country involved, as apparently is being done by Russia. All in all, I wish Russia ever success in Chechnya. The Moscow subway bombing however still seem to me to be an example of Chechen barbarity. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-6 10:32:23 PM |
| #23 This may cause some folk to laugh, but here are some remarks from a Russophile from way back, who has been observing the Russian Army for a long, long time, albeit as an amatuer. The current War in Chechnya has been to date an outstanding strategic victory for the Russian Army after the pounding they took in Grozny in 1995. Sometime around 1998, the Russian general staff managed to convince the government that Chechnya was so important that a seperate MOD level department was established for the Transcaucusus. The result a year later was unmistakable as the Chechens tried to expand their jihad into neighboring Dagesstan. From that point in 1999 until 2003, the Russian Army has managed to successfully engage the Chechens in battle at nearly every turn primarily through use of the only military asset they claim dominance in: artillery. Yes, Grozny was leveled and yes there were some atrocities, but what the press here doesn't want you to know is that the Russian Army have vigorously prosecuted war crimes including officers of rather high rank. The leveling of Grozny was deplorable, but then the Chechens chose the battlefield. This will eventually be to their everlasting credit and benefit. Also, the Russian reduction and elimination of the Chechen resistance, at least on the strategic level, will be something military historians will write about for some time to come, in my opinion. Now, the Chechen rebels have shifted their operations into terrorist operations, use of ambushes and terrorism bombings primarily, but the fact remains that the Chechens have been renedered impotant in conducting any large scale operations in Chechnya, and this is a critical shift. It has been a bloody and painful road since this strategic shift by the Chechens but eventually, the underground will be liquidated and bombings will eventually become fewer and far less deadly. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-2-6 9:17:43 PM |
| #22 Like to see NMM get up close and personel with some of those"Sons of Geromino". |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-6 5:07:49 PM |
| #21 BTW, Super Hose, thanks so much for reformating my message. I did want to say this before this thread disapeared. As a combat vet, the phrase "Hearts and Minds," does throw me a bit. Be that as it may, I did think that being an occupying power in Iraq would be easier, whould have gone better than it seems to have. Rights and Wrongs to my eye seem easy to me in this case (hence no real need for hearts and minds)...but then I have never been to Iraq, so what do I know? I have a friend that travels back and forth to Iraq and he laughingly tells me that for all my reading and whatnot, my level of ignorance on local conditions in Iraq astounds him...lol. On Chechnya, I am sure that I am far worse. Gotta run.. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-6 4:52:33 PM |
| #20 Because of the long term occupying power situation, Northern Ireland might be a better parallel than the current situation in Iraq. I can not see the British trying to win the hearts and minds of the Irish people by shelling Belfast. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-6 4:21:34 PM |
| #19 Traveller, Our WOT seems to be a different animal than the what the Russians are engaged in. We are accused of being an occupier, but most would have to agree that the Russians have no current plans of leaving Chechnya. Regardless, Russia entered into a quagmire in Afghanistan, but we seem to have not fallen into that trap in either Afghanistan or Iraq so far. The real test will come if either newly formed government is overthrown by a popular movement. Intervention at that point might be dicey. If you allowed the population to pick their citizenship and resettle appropriately, those who chose to become Russians would be choosing permanent 2nd class citizenship for their family. The ethnic Russians would treat them with suspicion, thinking that they might be plants, and in some cases the Russians would be right. Living in squalor purpetually would be a poor alternative as well. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-6 4:18:26 PM |
| #18 I feel a little more educuated thanks to this thread. I also have an even greater appreciation for the difficult and at times thankless task the troops are doing in Iraq. America does have the best soldiers in the world...their restrain and professionalism is remarkable. God, you've gotta love 'em. ...as to the forced conversion idea...well, I suppose it was bad. But at some level I think that Islam as an idea must be defeated. Someone here mentioned that Islam is a pathogen...I prefer to think that ideas rule the world, that ideas live in people, people are just carriers. I was trying to replace Islam with something...Christianity sprang to mind. The easy answer is, of course, that Islam undergo a Reformation much as occurred in Christianity in the West. But still I don't know if this is possible....though this may be because of my limited time frame reference. I want change now, not the two to three centuries that such a transformation of Islam would normally take. Dangerous times. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-6 3:26:34 PM |
| #17 ...with the balance being force converted to Christianity. *Shakes head* We don't want 'em: The Conversions would be based on fear, which is the opposite of faith. We have too many hypocrites in the Church already without adding another 750 million plus. They will simply have to accept that there are some things that their religious books dictate that they choose not to do, just as the Jews have to accept that they choose not to stone adulterers, adulteresses, and rebellious teenagers, despite what the Torah says. They can keep their religion, be free to change from it if they don't like it, and otherwise be moderate muslims. Spin Jihad as being spiritual and intellectual warfare ALONE, leave out physical force, and they'll be perfectly acceptable. Of course, nobody will trust them politically, any more than anybody trusts Christians in light of the Middle ages and the Crusades debacles. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-2-6 2:24:08 PM |
| #16 You really had to have lived in Russia, or one of their former communist satellite states, to understand the Russian mind. Russian and American mentality is not the same. It's hard to explain exactly; you have to see both sides yourself. The Russian people can step it up if they have to, as the battle of Stalingrad during WW2 illustrates (picture tanks rolling off factory lines and straight into battle). They don't call it the Great Patriotic War for nothing. Post-soviet Russia is a weird animal though. It's an attempt at blending western attributes with typical Russian ones. And the result is Chechnya. During communist rule, the Russians would have no qualms about rolling regular army tanks and troops onto their own streets and in their own cities, to prevent a revolt or calm down the population. This was done in Czechoslovakia and was about to be done in Poland in the 80s, and as recently as the 90s during a failed coup attempt in Moscow (remember the shootout with the parliament building?). Yet in Chechnya, the forces doing the fighting are called Federal Troops, Federal Police, Interior Ministry Troops, Security Forces, or whatever, because Chechnya is seen as a domestic issue, or as a matter for the police (albeit a slightly better armed "police"). It wouldn't have been treated as such during the soviet times. I confess that I have a soft spot in my heart for Russia and the Russians and tend to give them the benifit of the doubt. So do I. And I really hope that the mistrust of the past is put away for good, and both sides work for a better relationship. There shouldn't be a reason for any antagonism between us and them. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-6 2:15:50 PM |
| #15 If Russia is forced out you'll have another Afganistan post Soviets. It wont be long until all the new OBLs of the world would flock there. Traveller's lamentation, which I lament to also, about a serious blood bath might be just posponed by a Russian retreat now. A lot of positive things so far in the WoT but until the Iran problem and the Saudi problem are crushed, then what? Untill a serious targeting of those with the wealth and ability to fund terrorism, is carried out to it's conclusion, even if some innocents die, the fire just smolders and flares up here and there. "Wars and rumors of war." What does victory in this war mean what does it look like? Tribalism, clanish, thugery or what we as a western culture have been striving for. Freedom from that shit. I for one do not want a nuclear answer. But this war will not be over because Afganistan and Iraq have been liberated. Those are mere formalities to what needs to be done and done soon. Mike, Gip tinla. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-6 1:05:33 PM |
| #14 Thanks for the correction about the Apache language. I thought nobody spoke it any more. I'll have to come up with a better example. Suggestions welcome. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-2-6 12:34:41 PM |
| #13 Mike S,I have the San Carlos Apaches on my east flank,and White Mountain Apaches on my north flank.Not a good example of a dead lanquage. TW,you mentioned living in Phoenix,I live about 5 miles from Roosevelt Lake.Shoot me an e-mail |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-6 10:39:16 AM |
| #12 Raptor right off hand I'd say your flanks are safe from the Utes and Texans. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-6 10:37:15 AM |
| #11 Mike S,I have the San Carlos Apaches on my east flank,and White Mountain Apaches on my north flank.Not a good example of a dead lanquage. TW,you mentioned living in Phoenix,I live about 5 miles from Roosevelt Lake.Shoot me an e-mail. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-6 10:27:29 AM |
| #10 interesting comments. It seems not unlike the Paleo situation. Even though it would be a mobsters paradise, thus a hell-hole, it seems that the Russians should take a note from the Paleo situation and work toward sealing them off now..instead of fighting for 20 years and then trying to do it. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-6 10:26:27 AM |
| #9 short answer - yes - there IS a limit to force. pace the far right, A carrot is a huge leverager of a stick. and pace the left, vice versa. Hearts and minds ARE necessary - grabbing them by the nether parts isnt enough. The US Marine Corps knows this. The Russians, apparently, do not. But it takes patience and an amazing degree of emotional self denial - why should we provide carrots to Iraqis in the Sunni Triangle, who cheer when our troops are killed, who take ingratitude to an extreme - crush em down is a NATURAL response - do we have the maturity to soldier on? I dont know. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-6 10:09:15 AM |
| #8 I meant to write ... "have made reconciliation and integration impossible." |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-2-6 8:19:02 AM |
| #7 Russia's deportation of the entire Chechen nation during World War Two, its subsequent failure to compensate that crime, and its recent devastation of Chechnya have made reconciliation and integration possible. Chechnya lies along the border, so Russia could and should simply carve it off and seal the borders. Chechens currently living in Russia would have to choose Russian or Chechnyan citizenship and adjust their living locations accordingly. That said, an independent and isolated Chechnya would be a social and economic hellhole. Criminality pervades the society to an extraordinary extent, and now the growth of Moslem radicalism will combine with that criminality to make the society absolutely barbaric, even savage. In two generations the Chechen language will be as dead as the Apache language is now. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-2-6 8:17:37 AM |
| #6 Russia is really a patchwork of nationalities, with the ethnic Russians simply the dominant group. There is very little seperatism amongst the other ethnic groups in Russia, even amongst the Muslim Tartars etc. The difference is that those other groups feel somewhat Russian, or at least don't feel different enough that they will fight to enforce their non-Russianess. In contrast, the Chechens have always been opposed to Russian rule, probably from a wide variety of social and historical reasons. After the devastation committed by the Russian state in the first war, followed by even worse devastation in the second, I get the sense that a significant part of the population will never accept being Russian. Just losing a child or spouse in a war can be devastating to a family, but in Chechnya where Clans are so important, the ramifications go far further. I get the impression that even if the current insurgents (which are little more than bandits and fanatics really) are destroyed, they will still be a separatist movement for decades to come. And if the predictions of the demographic catastrophe in Russia prove true, the Chechens might just have to wait 50 or 60 years and there won't be enought Russians left to make another war worthwhile for them, unless the Russkies just use their nukes. But if you have to use nuclear weapons on your own people, it brings up moral questions of just how important to maintain territorial integrity. But that's just my opinion, maybe the Chechens will become sick enough of war that they will come to accept Russian rule, and just content themselves with cheering against Russia in the World Cup. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2004-2-6 7:26:20 AM |
| #5 Both Paul Moloney and Gromky make vaid points. But, at some level, aren't we all refugees...myself from a very small farm in Kentucky, to now a very large city? I've moved on, but thinking about this a little more, this seems to be a bad argument...I left voluntarily for a better life. If you're forced out, I suppose that the resentments could linger for generations, especially in a Tribal based culture. And as to Gromky...yes, the manner of war between Baghdad and Grozney is very telling and an astute observation...but should not the Russian brutality have by now not brough the population to heel? Or, as seems to being suggested by both of you, the Russians are doomed to Lose in Chechnya? I just can't see Putin walking away, even after his upcoming re-election. Is the lesson from Chechnya one that says that there is a limit to force? Well, this will be an interesting on to watch as it plays out in blood and broken bones on both sides. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-6 6:03:44 AM |
| #4 Compare the Russian capture of Grozny with the American capture of Baghdad. The circumstances of the fall of Baghdad are well-known. When the Russian army got close to Grozny, it simply placed artillery on the hills next to the city and began firing. To say nothing of the "filtering" operations that went on in the liberated territories. Yes, I think they really were that bad. |
| Posted by: gromky 2004-2-6 5:49:08 AM |
| #3 Killing them on its own is not a solution. It is a solution, just not a very agreeable one by modern standards. And yet this was how Caesar brought Gaul under submission. But as you note, the Carrot is important also. Caesar brought Roman Roads, Roman Civilization and even the promise of possible eventual Roman citizenship. Still, the rebellions in Gaul were not brought to an end until he took an entire tribe and chopped off the right hands of 5,000 surrivors and set them on the road to begging. (One historical source has him lopping off both hands, but I prefer the former version of what happened). In any case, are the Russians REALLY that bad in Chechnya? Or as bad as you say? I confess that I have a soft spot in my heart for Russia and the Russians and tend to give them the benifit of the doubt. I should research this more (and I have been following Chechnya pretty closely)...but here's the problem, there is so much that could be looked into...that if you did everything you wanted...you'd have no life....lol Still, thank's for your take on this. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-6 5:39:30 AM |
| #2 There are actually thousands of people in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are of Chechen descent because they were forced out by the Russians when they first colonised Chechnya in the 19th century. In fact, many of the Arab volunteers in Chechnya, are actually the descendents of Chechen refugees. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2004-2-6 5:38:32 AM |
| #1 I've posted this view before, but it bears repeating. In Chechnya, the people have to choose between an arbitrarily violent kleptocracy and another arbitrarily violent kleptocracy. The Russians are not winning in Chechnya becuase they are not presenting an attractive alternative. Cutting off the sources of funding would help a lot, but at the end of the day you have to persuade them that they want something other than violent Jihad. Killing them on its own is not a solution. You have to have a carrot and a stick. But if you want a radical solution short of killing them all, then ship them by the million to Saudia Arabia. They did a lot to create the problem. Let them fix it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-2-6 4:54:10 AM |