Half of the whip, a quarter of the gingerbread

Why does the vast majority of Russians unconditionally or with small reservations support the actions of the government in Chechnya and at the same time almost the same majority in Western countries condemns this war? The main, in my opinion, the reason lies in different perceptions of the time in which we live - with us and them. If the case happened a century earlier, against the backdrop of the actions of England, France, Belgium and other colonial powers in Africa, not a single Western country would condemn Russia. The laws of none of the European democracies of that time provided the natives of equal rights with the inhabitants of the metropolis, representative offices for the same norms in parliament and free school education. But those times have passed, Western countries gave independence to almost all colonies, and great -grandchildren of black slaves in the United States have more rights than white ones. A wonderful concept of protecting human rights around the world has become possible in many ways because rich countries at one time were enriched at the expense of their colonial and racist policy. But such injustice is inevitable, to fight it is like fighting with windmills, since historical time dictates those countries that are ahead of the rest of the world. We lost the right to repeat the sins and mistakes of Western countries, because they learned from their mistakes. In Russia today there are many people who do not see the need to observe human rights not only in relation to various minorities, but also to themselves. Therefore, in domestic conversations about the Chechen wars, there are assessments of the type - "gangster people", "take revenge on the black -ass", up to "we must destroy them all." A century ago in Europe and the USA, similar views were also very common (and now in Austria and France, up to a quarter of voters vote for racist parties); Rather, such a rapid spread of racist views in Russia, more than others, which was more distinguished in the past, racial tolerance should be surprised. We are accustomed to the fact that everything that happens in our country has no analogues in the world, and we do not want to see the similarities between the Chechen wars and the wars that France waged in Indochina and Algeria. However, there is a difference. Russia directly borders on Chechnya. A misunderstanding of the essence of the conflict concerns not only the role of Russia in it, but also the nature of the other conflicting side. We say “gangs”, “terrorist detachments”, “gangs of criminals”, etc. But are there any criminal communities of several thousand people with headquarters and military discipline? We say "mercenaries", but will the mercenaries fight in a complete environment, almost without hope to stay alive? However, in order to call the Chechen detachments “fronts” and “brigades”, and their commanders are “divisional” and “brigade generals”, as they call themselves, there is also no reason. The real generals of modern armies do not recruit their brigades in their native aul and do not trade hostages. To understand who we are fighting with, you need to know what the post -Soviet Chechen society is. Currently, it is at the stage of decomposition of the clan system. The division into teips remains power, the elders did not lose influence, but the power over teips gradually passes to the "leaders of the gangs" and their gangs. Some of them control not one, but several teips or even recruit their detachments throughout Chechnya. Of course, the realities of the twentieth century are Kalashnikov assault rifles, grenade launchers, and even more so the Caucasus website, “modernize” the situation, but raids on neighboring territories and the slave trade even more enhance its similarity with the early Middle Ages. However, you should not be too surprised or indignant at this barbarism: in the first half of the 19th century, in much more civilized societies of Russia and the United States, people freely traded people. However, why walk in the last century, today Chechen men and women, detained during stripping and then bought by relatives from filtration camps, are not much different from Russian hostages in Chechen villages. Another idea of the Chechen detachments as a national liberation movement, widespread among the Western intelligentsia and Russian human rights activists, also has the right to exist. Moreover, the folk movements and their leaders rarely looked much better than Chechen militants and their leaders, and the historical Robin Hood is unlikely to significantly differ from Basayev for the better. Some exploits of Khmelnitsky and hounds are such that not only Khattab and Barayev, but Ben Laden himself, in comparison with them, are innocent lambs. E. Hemingway, who actively helped the Spanish Republicans, in his famous novel "on whom the bell calls" describes how one of the folk leaders (field commanders) Pablo after a successful operation coldly shoots his fighters, taking some local scores. In this war, Russia wants to play the role of the humane, by the standards of the 19th century, the colonialist, to bear the heavy burden of a white man, encouraging good and humble "natives" and punishing evil and rebellious. At the same time, of course, it happens that the bombs are pouring on the heads of the "good", but what can you do, the forest is chopped - the chips fly. We are trying to force all power over Chechnya, it seems to be also in order to introduce Chechens to the norms of modern civilization. However, the longer we solve these problems, the further we move away from their solution. In addition to the shameful defeat in the previous war, we have something to take revenge on the Chechens, but their account is much more. It includes not only the destroyed cities and villages, thousands of dead and crippled civilians, hundreds of thousands of refugees, stripping, filtration camps and constant humiliation on the streets of Russian cities, but also the Stalinist deportation that claimed to hundreds of thousands of lives. We rarely remember her: "Yes, it was a matter, we sinned, but what to talk about it now." Or, vice versa: "Correct Stalin, the bandits, exiled to you, is a pity that he did not destroy." Therefore, even if you forget about historical time, and to proceed only from state expediency in the spirit of "realpolitik" (as it is fashionable in the current political life), then the benefits of the Chechen war are very dubious. We must pay tribute to our propaganda, which managed to give out many months of victories for large military victories with the enemy, inferior to our troops five to ten times in manpower and hundreds of times in weapons. However, if you raise the national spirit with the help of a punitive campaign, then we must somehow cope with its consequences. Apparently, the authorities hope that the halves of the whip and the quarter of the gingerbread are enough to peacefulness of the Chechens. The real solution to the problem could be either in a gradual transition to the independence of Chechnya, or, due to geographical circumstances, it has such attributes of independence that flatter the pride of Chechens, but do not threaten Russian security.

Why does the vast majority of Russians unconditionally or with small reservations support the actions of the government in Chechnya and at the same time almost the same majority in Western countries condemns this war?

The main, in my opinion, the reason lies in different perceptions of the time in which we live - with us and them. If the case happened a century earlier, against the backdrop of the actions of England, France, Belgium and other colonial powers in Africa, not a single Western country would condemn Russia. The laws of none of the European democracies of that time provided the natives of equal rights with the inhabitants of the metropolis, representative offices for the same norms in parliament and free school education. But those times have passed, Western countries gave independence to almost all colonies, and great -grandchildren of black slaves in the United States have more rights than white ones.

A wonderful concept of protecting human rights around the world has become possible in many ways because rich countries at one time were enriched at the expense of their colonial and racist policy. But such injustice is inevitable, to fight it is like fighting with windmills, since historical time dictates those countries that are ahead of the rest of the world. We lost the right to repeat the sins and mistakes of Western countries, because they learned from their mistakes.

In Russia today there are many people who do not see the need to observe human rights not only in relation to various minorities, but also to themselves. Therefore, in domestic conversations about the Chechen wars, there are assessments of the type - "gangster people", "take revenge on the black -ass", up to "we must destroy them all." A century ago in Europe and the USA, similar views were also very common (and now in Austria and France, up to a quarter of voters vote for racist parties); Rather, such a rapid spread of racist views in Russia, more than others, which was more distinguished in the past, racial tolerance should be surprised.

We are accustomed to the fact that everything that happens in our country has no analogues in the world, and we do not want to see the similarities between the Chechen wars and the wars that France waged in Indochina and Algeria. However, there is a difference. Russia directly borders on Chechnya.

A misunderstanding of the essence of the conflict concerns not only the role of Russia in it, but also the nature of the other conflicting side. We say “gangs”, “terrorist detachments”, “gangs of criminals”, etc. But are there any criminal communities of several thousand people with headquarters and military discipline? We say "mercenaries", but will the mercenaries fight in a complete environment, almost without hope to stay alive? However, in order to call the Chechen detachments “fronts” and “brigades”, and their commanders are “divisional” and “brigade generals”, as they call themselves, there is also no reason. The real generals of modern armies do not recruit their brigades in their native aul and do not trade hostages.

To understand who we are fighting with, you need to know what the post -Soviet Chechen society is. Currently, it is at the stage of decomposition of the clan system. The division into teips remains power, the elders did not lose influence, but the power over teips gradually passes to the "leaders of the gangs" and their gangs. Some of them control not one, but several teips or even recruit their detachments throughout Chechnya. Of course, the realities of the twentieth century are Kalashnikov assault rifles, grenade launchers, and even more so the Caucasus website, “modernize” the situation, but raids on neighboring territories and the slave trade even more enhance its similarity with the early Middle Ages.

However, you should not be too surprised or indignant at this barbarism: in the first half of the 19th century, in much more civilized societies of Russia and the United States, people freely traded people. However, why walk in the last century, today Chechen men and women, detained during stripping and then bought by relatives from filtration camps, are not much different from Russian hostages in Chechen villages.

Another idea of the Chechen detachments as a national liberation movement, widespread among the Western intelligentsia and Russian human rights activists, also has the right to exist. Moreover, the folk movements and their leaders rarely looked much better than Chechen militants and their leaders, and the historical Robin Hood is unlikely to significantly differ from Basayev for the better. Some exploits of Khmelnitsky and hounds are such that not only Khattab and Barayev, but Ben Laden himself, in comparison with them, are innocent lambs. E. Hemingway, who actively helped the Spanish Republicans, in his famous novel "on whom the bell calls" describes how one of the folk leaders (field commanders) Pablo after a successful operation coldly shoots his fighters, taking some local scores.

In this war, Russia wants to play the role of the humane, by the standards of the 19th century, the colonialist, to bear the heavy burden of a white man, encouraging good and humble "natives" and punishing evil and rebellious. At the same time, of course, it happens that the bombs are pouring on the heads of the "good", but what can you do, the forest is chopped - the chips fly. We are trying to force all power over Chechnya, it seems to be also in order to introduce Chechens to the norms of modern civilization. However, the longer we solve these problems, the further we move away from their solution.

In addition to the shameful defeat in the previous war, we have something to take revenge on the Chechens, but their account is much more. It includes not only the destroyed cities and villages, thousands of dead and crippled civilians, hundreds of thousands of refugees, stripping, filtration camps and constant humiliation on the streets of Russian cities, but also the Stalinist deportation that claimed to hundreds of thousands of lives. We rarely remember her: "Yes, it was a matter, we sinned, but what to talk about it now." Or, vice versa: "Correct Stalin, the bandits, exiled to you, is a pity that he did not destroy."

Therefore, even if you forget about historical time, and to proceed only from state expediency in the spirit of "realpolitik" (as it is fashionable in the current political life), then the benefits of the Chechen war are very dubious. We must pay tribute to our propaganda, which managed to give out many months of victories for large military victories with the enemy, inferior to our troops five to ten times in manpower and hundreds of times in weapons. However, if you raise the national spirit with the help of a punitive campaign, then we must somehow cope with its consequences.

Apparently, the authorities hope that the halves of the whip and the quarter of the gingerbread are enough to peacefulness of the Chechens. The real solution to the problem could be either in a gradual transition to the independence of Chechnya, or, due to geographical circumstances, it has such attributes of independence that flatter the pride of Chechens, but do not threaten Russian security.