Diagnostic Department
Scientific Advisory Center "Consciousness"
My Great Web page
6.5.2. Separation conflicts.

Separation conflicts in the NC these are conflict, not simply lead to the disintegration of Russia, and leading to the creation of the newly formed geopolitical divergent parts. Today and even a few years of separation conflict in Russia is impossible. Republics of the NC do not have the capacity, and experience of the Chechen campaign will not allow the Centre to repeat mistakes. However, the ease with which the third force is carried out such operations forces to anticipate such a conflict.

Autonomous units within the RSFSR since 1991 for various reasons, began to accept the Declaration of Sovereignty, adopted a similar Soviet republics. It should be noted that in Russia only a very small circle of people foresaw the extent and value of impending events. The first attempt to return Chechnya by force in the legal field in Russia, undertaken in November 1991 led to the opposite result. Subsequent covert military actions undertaken by federal authorities in Chechnya have contributed to a consolidation of Chechen society on anti-Russian positions, which further reduced the possibility of resolving the crisis by non-military. In scale fighting this internal conflict is unparalleled since the end of the 1920s civil war. The Chechen crisis can be classified as a domestic is not even the conflicts and wars that are based primarily on the one hand lies the desire to carry out secession of the territory and create on its basis a new state, while the other side - represented by advocates and institutions serving the state - to keep its integrity.

The mechanism of escalation of conflict separation situation is well known and quite simple. Typically, a program of separatism is born, and its supporters (as leaders and ordinary members) are mobilized on the basis of doctrine and political practice of ethnic nationalism. Its essence is that every nation, understood not as a territorial community, as well as ethnic group or ethnic nation has a right to self-determination, "his" state. First, the national movement "on behalf of the people" (a form of representation, "the people's will" may be the national congress, the national council, etc.) expressed a desire to secede from the nation's metropolitan government and form their own sovereign nation-state. Metropolitan authorities reject the possibility of independence, citing the "unconstitutionality" of these claims (of course, no constitution of any state does not provide for the possibility of its collapse), the lack of representativeness of the national forum, the impossibility of separation of the territory on geopolitical, political, military and stretegic, economic, cultural, historical and other reasons, etc.

Simultaneously, the executive bodies and state law enforcement agencies are putting pressure on leaders and activists of the national movement, trying to get them to stop supporting separatist slogans. In response, separatists put forward more radical demands and seeking the support of "the people". At this stage in the struggle included the broad masses, it is characterized by mass forms of political forms: demonstrations, rallies, meetings, pickets. And other authorities are trying to stop a mass movement with the use of force (acceleration, bans demonstrations and rallies, etc.) and flood administrative repression (fines, loss of employment, the organization of prosecutions, etc.)

For the protection of national movements in stock form paramilitary guard ("self-defense units," etc.), which becomes the national armed formation. Thus, the conflict was transformed into an armed confrontation stage. Initiative of either party opposition (usually the state more confident in their ability takes the initiative) to resolve the conflict by force leads to the transformation of armed confrontation in an armed conflict. At the same time supporters of the state treat the conflict as "an operation to restore order" (known variant of this trade, "to restore constitutional order"), and supporters of independence - as a "war of national liberation."

For the separation conflict has already spent in NC there are classic main target:

• Influencing the development of nationalist and religious processes in the population, as well as separation and ideological actions ethnoelit by the third countries;

• The level of military power - the weakening of the state and strengthening the Republican. Under the military power of separation of forces means:

- Number of fighters, weapons, equipment and resources;
- The effectiveness and the degree of perfection of weapons and equipment;

- Teamwork, discipline, trained and morale of the rebels, as well as the effectiveness of command and control;

- Ability and willingness of the population support the separation of power.

• Conflicts due to the population outside the country, local settlement in the neighboring territories and regions, the so-called territorial disputes.

Summarizing the material of conflicts in Russia today, the following types of separations are:

1) separation of a classic - the desire for full independence. In full it was presented to the policies and actions of the Republic of Ichkeria. In 1996, the Khasavyurt agreement marked, though temporary, but complete independence of Ichkeria.

2) separation of parity - the desire to be more like the full sovereignty, which, due to external and internal conditions is limited due to the transfer of responsibilities to the federal center (sometimes called shared sovereignty). This type of separation is seen in virtually all republics of the NC seeking to conclude bilateral agreements with public authorities of the Russian Federation; economic separation, in which the main action and declarations of independence is in the economic sphere. The national elite sees this as providing independence movement toward full sovereignty, but because of the republic are now subsidized this way, though more reliable, but difficult. Perhaps, given vector administration policy SKFO and Russia to improve the economic situation in the republics will make separation more feasible;

3) defensive or protective separation in which the ideology and legislative practices prevalent idea of defending the territory, culture, religion, democratic reproduction. This separation is securely formed on the border of North Ossetia and Ingushetia.

Chechnya has become one of the first customers to implement the radical sovereignty in the form of an armed rebellion by a number of objective and subjective circumstances.

First, the Chechens as one of the largest and least assimilated by Russian culture Russian people

have experienced in the recent history of the events that gave rise to a sense of collective dignity trampled and demand, especially among active social elements in the extreme forms of self-affirmation. This has not been able to understand neither the government nor the Russian public. The programs of liberalization and social change had no place even for symbolic action for treatment of deep social trauma. Leaders of the state,

including the president, could not find a compromise approach, and lacking in ambition to manifest forms of behavior and wounded emotion insurgent political of periphery.

Second, in Chechnya, there are a lot of social problems, including a surplus of labor and the unemployed, a relatively low standard of living, lack of modernization of the general population, accounting

for the human material for mass political manipulation statements extralegal anarchy and criminal activities, and later - put a sufficient number of recruits to the ranks of professional fighters and armed militias. Ethnic factor in Chechnya appeared as a line of confrontation, as in the country and even in the whole country in a

situation where the existing social, political and cultural inequalities and injustices of the past along ethnic lines, or seemed so.
Third, in 1960-1980's, part of the Chechens, especially urban, was accelerated path of modernization,

has received higher education, brought forward from their ranks of major business executives, military personnel, politicians and scientists. With the collapse of the unitary system and the weakening of the party nomenclature, this new elite has made a claim of "the people" in the redistribution of power in their favor and priority access to resources. Independence from the federal government and national (i.e. Chechnya) sovereignty promised the leaders of this possibility, but not promised national prosperity with limited resources, the nature of economic relations and even geographic location. However, the most ambitious

leaders with the direct support of the politicians in the center, as well as the diaspora were able to mobilize the population around the slogan of the struggle against communism and the idea of independence. The coming to power D. Dudayev was launched as an option by the Center for decommunisation, in the form and rhetoric of "people's revolution" and completed in the form of political rebellion.

Fourth, the decisive factor in implementing the de-facto version of separatism by the authorities of the Chechen Republic was the transfer of weapons from the arsenals of the Russian army, which provided D.

Dudayev opportunity to support the declaration of independence by force arguments, and then organize the stubborn and successful resistance to federal forces.
The Chechen crisis could be resolved without the use of the army in various ways and means, the possibility that continued until December 1994 cannot agree with the Russian president that "all peaceful ways have been exhausted". Much was not done since the fall of 1991, which was to be made by public authority in a situation of this internal conflict.

First of all, at all times of crisis anyone of the highest state officials did not come into contact with President Dudayev, to hear and discuss its position and offer conditions for resolution of conflict. Emotional ambition and lack of a culture of political compromise and self-restraint in the two main leaders of the warring parties and other post-Soviet politicians have become the most tragic, the subjective-personal. Not adopted a set of necessary measures in the field of economy, control of borders and airspace, which are usually taken by States in case of breakaway regions to demonstrate the impossibility of power options of separatism.

Finally, there has been an unacceptable political duplicity with regard to separatism, including the part of the Russian armed forces in the period of involvement in similar events in Georgia, where they are permitted to attend the so-called "Chechen battalion" (Russian citizens) on the side of government of Vladislav Ardzinba.

All of these major flaws and errors in the policy towards Chechnya is partly can be explained by the complexity of the overall situation in Russia, as well as insufficient experience of the new generation of Russian politicians. Yet the war in Chechnya was not preordained by existing situation. The crisis could still continue at a much lower level of confrontation and with change the situation in Chechnya could be resolved even at internal Chechen level.

The result of armed conflict may be a victory for the separatist movement - and then going on the actual separation of certain ethnic territory of the State and metropolitan formed an independent nation state with all attributes of sovereignty, as happened, for example, in Abkhazia, South Ossetia. Or victory for the forces of the state and the suppression of the separatist movement - in this case, the separatists go underground and continue to fight terrorist and guerrilla methods as the situation in Ichkeria - the Caucasus Emirate.

Thus, the source of the full-scale bloody separatism in Chechnya was not only nationalist or religious ideas, but a clumsy and ill-resistance, which had a center. It should be noted that a direct link between the repressive actions of the state and the manifestation of ethnic and religious extremism is not the reverse: for example, the weakening of state repression or abolition of discriminatory acts more often than not lead to the disappearance of extremist movements. Extremism has great inertia force.

Without considering the cases where inter-ethnic conflicts were caused by territorial conflicts between the neighboring nations (the Ossetian-Ingush conflict), it should be noted that the Chechen conflict has been linked with an attempt of the nation "to exercise their right to self-determination" and he cannot be attributed to the "Ethnic" although this situation often characterized as a conflict between Russian and Chechens. In fact, parties to the conflict were not two nations, a nation that strives for a state-political self-organization, and the state one way or another preventing this desire. Of course, the aggravation of interethnic relations between the Russian (most states) and subsequently acquired by Chechens global form, but still it was minor, and adverse events. The main content of the conflict in question still remains - the confrontation of nation and state.

Recently, the Centre has made reducing the destructive processes and the relative stabilization of inter-ethnic situation in Russia, but they can break at a weak central government. The conflict, which is based on history, easily excited and controlled by primitive nationalist slogans and public relations. In such circumstances, the modern state should become national policy as never before, the national-regional, which takes into account the specificities of each republic of the NC.
In 2011, if look at the situation in the republics surface, it is unlikely that you will notice the classic symptoms of the separation movement. At least, the economic factor is taken as the basic vector and SKFO program is more focused on financial and economic side. Centre plays down the importance of religion in the separation factor movements of the NC. He draws attention, for example, the corruption, cronyism, a different culture the past is not a peaceful coexistence and cast aside the religious factor.

Thousand years of history prove that religion is not the "small difference" and, perhaps, the most profound difference, which only exists among nations. Repeatability, scale and ferocity of war greatly increased the belief in different gods. Focusing exclusively on the work of law enforcement on methods of force will not solve the problem of separation on national or religious grounds. It’s necessary to take measures national scale: the political, socio-psychological sphere, in education, culture and media.
USA/UK 2007-2012  © FALCOGROUP