A Chechen terrorist in the woods (photo taken in summer 2009)

The question of whether Moscow is losing the war on terror in the Caucasus appears to have been prompted by the rising number of acts of terrorism and the number of fatalities in these acts in the North Caucasus republics, especially in Dagestan and, recently, in Kabardino-Balkaria. Some of these acts, like the recent suicide attack by three jihadists on the Chechen Parliament, were quite spectacular.

The short answer to the above question is that Moscow cannot lose the war on terror in the North Caucasus because that war simply cannot be won by the opposing side. In Chechnya, the mujahedin, the separatists, the Islamists, or whatever else you might call them, once did win a war against the federal center, and what happened? The separatists could not build a proper state and were only able to exist a few short years as a bandit republic, an assemblage of warlords with their private, clan-based armies engaged in various criminal activities such as hostage-taking, slave-trading, production of counterfeit money, and so on. They were aided and abetted by radical Islamists in other Muslim countries and those forces that viewed instability in the Caucasus as a lever to keep Russia in its place, and still they failed.

Continue reading "Is Moscow Losing the War on Terror in the Caucasus?" »

Posted by Edward Lozansky at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the first time since the tsars' times, a Russian-operated train made its trip from downtown Moscow to the coast of France on September 23, 2010. The trip takes 52 hours, and connects two historically popular destinations. Just like 200 years ago, the Southern Coast of France is overrun with Russia's wealthy and travelers. The Russian Railroads commented that another reason for this route is the fact that the train makes stops at multiple resort destinations popular among common Russian tourists. The rail connection will become an alternative to air travel for passengers afraid of the planes or just romantics. On another note, year 2010 was celebrated as the Year of France in Russia, and the Year of Russia in France. The new railroad operation is a great outcome of the sentiment.

Posted by Yuri Mamchur at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yanukovich's decision to take Ukraine back to the presidential-parliamentary political system is not necessarily a setback for democracy. There are many countries in the world - one (France) that comes to mind immediately - where a strong presidency does not come into conflict with democratic values.

It is true that in 2010 Yanukovich faces roughly the same situation as Putin did in 1999, only in Yanukovich's case the threat of disintegration is much worse.

At the turn of the century some allegedly serious thinkers were playing games with the global chessboard, drawing up plans for Russia's disintegration and division. There was talk of the Ural Republic, the Far Eastern Republic, etc. And real centrifugal tendencies did then exist in Russia, with real political and economic power in the hands of regional feudal lords.

Continue reading "Is Yanukovich Adopting the Putin Model?" »

Posted by Edward Lozansky at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If the pledge by the United States to help Russia's WTO bid is indeed a trade-off for Medvedev's ban on the sale of the S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, and not the product of speculation by foreign affairs pundits, the value of such a deal for Russia appears highly questionable.

First of all, there is still a debate going on in Russia as to whether the WTO will do this country more harm than good.

Secondly, America may not deliver on its promise even if at the moment it truly intends to keep it. Judging from past experience, several other stumbling blocks may emerge, especially after the November elections, when the number of Obama's supporters in Congress will be reduced substantially.

Then there is always the possibility that the erratic Georgian president will try to veto Russia's entry to the WTO, and he has plenty of "we are all Georgians" types in Washington who will gladly encourage him to do that. These folks will always find another excuse, however spurious, to humiliate Russia. For a partial list of these excuses go to the recent Washington Post article by former Assistant Secretary of State David Kramer, as obvious a regurgitation of Cold War cliches and recipes as one might find these days in the most moss-brained circles.

Continue reading "Russia: Iran or WTO?" »

Posted by Edward Lozansky at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)