That seems to be a very high bar if we compare it with USA/NATO/EU/Chinese endeavours in any of Muslim regions.
The grandparent made it sound like the devastation were ongoing, which it's not. Stopping the violence is a good thing. If you don't acknowledge it, you can't even tell failure from success and all of your (Xinjiang and otherwise) efforts would be misguided.
Not starting that war in the first place would be even better.
> Stopping the violence is a good thing.
Not committing it in the first place is even better.
So even comparing it to Xinjiang, which China could plausible give away, Russia could not get rid of Chechnya even of it wanted.
What other outcome would you expect? But, that has ended 15 years ago, by now.
You're pivoting constantly and not defending your arguments. Why should anyone take your own words more seriously than you do?
"treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia" is pure BS FUD accusations. Chechens are mostly treating themselves in the last 15 years. And it turns out relatively benign, compared to stuff like ISIS, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, Lybia, Israel, Yemen.
And that's the context of early XXI century, there's really no other one. You're not the World Police to judge others, likely you are a much worse perpetrator yourself.
And he's right. Grozny was demolished, no civil society left, horrendous human rights violations, no justice for survivors, just appeals to the corrupt, absolute power of Kadyrov. To say that sort-of-works is disingenuous and lets Russia off the hook for its part in backing him.
You don't have to be the world police to condemn atrocities. Just like you don't have to defend Russia in order to criticise other powers.
"No civil society left, horrendous human rights violations" is what there were before the Second Chechen war - there was an alpha version of ISIS there, with slave markets and kidnappings for ransom. Was it worth it fighting ISIS? Absolutely. Was it worth it fighting Ichkeria? Absolutely-ish.
I don't really like Kadyrov, but we are talking about a Muslim region and not yours and mine personal preferences. You seem to assume that any Muslim region would want, and implement, a liberal democratic power structure. Well, tough luck finding that between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or in Russia for that matter.
I just don't feel that it's an atrocity. The fate of Afghanistan is an atrocity. Chechnya, not so much, it's just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities.
"Chechnya is just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities."
First, Russia is in charge, but somehow it's on Chechens and Muslims for failing to turn their country around and implement liberal reforms. How does that work? Why are you so keen to fight off criticism of Russia and its obvious, self-evident record of political wasteland wherever it treads? And don't whatabout America/China/X this time.
Second, your arguments drip with the bigotry of low expectations - seeing Chechens and Muslims as people essentially capable of only primitive political organisation. You just ignore every tortured journalist, every silenced student or professor so you can reduce the lack of political development to something essential to the people themselves. Every large group contains people wanting peace, freedom, justice etc.
And I don't make any assumptions about what 'all Muslims' or 'all Chechens' want, my argument doesn't need to. I can ask 100 of them and accept as many answers, but your argument can't do that. And you confuse what they want with what they have while glossing over the many things that can go wrong when trying to turn the first into the second. But sure, let's blame their genes/culture/whatever, just not Mother Russia.
Just in case you're confused about all the down votes.
Where are all of those Muslim countries which were turned around by courts and institutions ex machina? Even Dubai struggles with essentially the same problems as modern Chechnya.
I'm not wondering about the down votes from the people who can't take blame for ISIS and Afghanistan along other things. It's a bad but unsurprising thing that you are not smarter than that.
Not that it's relevant, since the Russian government isn't Muslim but Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran have all had governments that at some point implemented liberal reforms using state institutions. And they obviously imposed that on their provinces, just as Russia could - since Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya, not its 'Muslim' vassalage. How long those reforms held up is irrelevant to the effort put in, which Russia doesn't even attempt because its government hates liberalism.
You've never spoken to anyone more critical or Daesh or of the instability the sudden US pullout will create in Afghanistan. And you've ignored my central argument. Dubai/Chechnya? It's pretty clear why you're deflecting.
Just be upfront that your stance is pro-Putin and your bigotry anti-Muslim and save everyone the time.
Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya.
Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya.
Egypt. Had a pointless coup which removed existing corrupt autocratic government and installed a new corrupt autocratic government, with a spark of terrorism in between. Large country which is punching under its weight. Worse outcome than Chechnya.
Iraq. I'm not really sure what to say. Let's pretend you didn't suggest it.
Iran. Had a lot of time to normalize relations with the West and failed to do so. In some respects a worse theocracy than Chechnya. Unlike Chechnya, which enjoys freedom of movement within Russia, you have nowhere to hide from the deeply islamist regime of Iran short of emigration. The largest outcast state (at least before Feb 24, 2022). Worse than Chechnya.
So let's see, it looks that from your list, Chechnya gets silver medal. I think that's quite good. You think that's not enough. Do you agree on the analysis?
"Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya" sounds like you expect imperialism to not have any alternatives. So you are saying that Russia can override whatever pre-existing culture there is and "install" liberal democracy? Did it work for you in Iraq?
I'm not even sure what's your central argument.
Speaking of which, let's return to the original form: "treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia". I think that being the virtual #2 of our successful Muslim states list an OK-ish "treatment". But it works a different way for you:
> pro-Putin
We don't like Putin -> We don't like Russia -> Let's say something mean about it.
This is something I would expect from YouTube comments section, but on HN it's pure disappointment.
As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance.
I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country.
Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry.
We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for?
I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.
No one says liberal democracies necessarily become permanently stable. You know nothing about political development if you believe this. In many ways it's considered the opposite in its early stages, fragile, needing constant work and refinements to build on incremental improvements. In these stages any ham-fisted strongman or warlord has a good chance to destroy the gains that have been made before informal institutions gain real authority. And when there is momentum behind old tribal, religious and feudal systems, this is a long, slow, vulnerable process.
And during that time you'll observe gains and losses over literally decades. Which is why you'll see liberal reforms make small gains, then fail for a while before they can resume. But they build slowly and that's what people die for. This has been the case for every developed country in existence. You're happy to give Europe 300 years of ugly fighting to get to this stage but if Muslim countries can't succeed within 50 you'll call the end of the game now to reinforce your biased conclusions. But sure, keep using your myopia and lack of education to keep hating on the Muslims.
The issue with Putin is he doesn't even try, because, like every autocratic asshole, he can make more power for himself and his friends this way than through real development. And he can count on weak-minded bigots with poor political and historical context to unquestioningly back his cynical aims.
But forgetting about terminology, and without whatabouting your way out of it, explain how you can excuse a leader who who effectively makes himself president for life, poisons his opponents, secretly enriches himself, murders critical journalists, backs corrupt friends and jails protesters after show trials. Isn't the fact that he doesn't do just ONE fewer of these things enough to criticise him?
Your argument by anecdote assumes political oppression and development should both be equally visible, ignoring clear statistical evidence on police use of torture, corruption and violence against journalists and activists. Lucky the Tatars immediately around you like what Russia has done to their land - because they have no choice or voice if they don't. Just see what happens to people who say otherwise, like Asan Akhtemov, Nariman Ametov and see what anti-insurgent animals did to Reshat Ametov. Maybe for your next holiday you can travel further south and ask some Tatars in Crimea how they are feeling about the totally not-corrupt, shining beacon of political enlightenment that is Russia right now. Since they're so free to give honest answers, just imagine how qualified to discuss you'll be then.
Your baseless, paper-thin arguments blow over each time and all you can do is repeat them, ignore the criticism and latch onto tangential issues. It's getting kinda boring.
So you're saying that liberal democracy is a cult, that makes its followers feel good. Okay.
The rest of your message pivots into discussion of Putin's personality, of whom I am not a fan and which is also irrelevant to answer whether Tatarstan is a "dumpster fire" or not.
You're coming off as grasping for any straw you can now.
Putin is the subject of only 2 out of 7 paragraphs above, you confuse personality traits with political methods, when such methods are directly relevant to the state of political freedom in Tatarstan, your anecdotally chosen example which doesn't invalidate anything since it's just one province in a repressed country... Just weak.
The state of political freedom in Tatarstan is pretty bad. It's "just" bad in Russia and somewhat worse in Tatarstan. Nobody is denying that.
But at the same time it is absolutely not a "dumpster fire". It is a thriving, economically developed region with somewhat high quality of life.
You seem see Russia as an concentration camp where people drag out their grey lives waiting for some miracle to happen and save them. That's not how they see it. People are just living their lives, seizing their day and trying to be happy, have some capital, etc, etc. They often have enough means for it even if the political regime leaves a lot to be desired. They would likely not want to bet all that stuff to get a breath of "Muslim democracy" such as the one Arab spring brought. They would like the real democracy if they're confident their medium-term quality of life will not suffer.
Russia should stop destroying everything around it.
Try to secede Idaho and see what happens.
Meanwhile, Abkhazia is absolutely a country, with a history of statehood and real state border, which you fail to recognize. Would you make Georgia stop ruining everything around it? When it recognizes Abkhazia, we can talk.