Putin does not intend to "cut off" the Caucasus from Russia
In an interview with the Chechen media, on the contrary, he offered to “cut something off” to those who raise this issue.
In connection with the 60 anniversary of the birth of the first president of the Chechen Republic, Akhmat Kadyrov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the Chechen media, in which he expressed his opinion on corruption, unemployment, Islam and the development of the region.
Corruption, as already universally recognized, has become a real scourge for modern Russia, but in the North Caucasus region, according to Vladimir Putin (with which in this case it’s impossible to disagree), it also becomes a breeding ground for the gangster underground.
“Why is this especially important for the North Caucasus and Chechnya? - said Vladimir Putin. “Because it’s just this negative that creates fertile soil for the very same radicals who come to simple and sometimes offended people and say:“ But if we were in power, we would have done better! ”. However, with regard to the validity of this argument, Putin immediately made a reservation: “We would not have done anything better. We already saw what they were trying to do in the middle of 1990's or at the beginning of 2000's. ”
It is clear that in this case, the Prime Minister refers to historical the experience of the existence of the so-called practically independent of Moscow Ichkeria under Dudaev in 1991-1994 and under Maskhadov in 1996-1999. And in this case, he is also right: corruption in “free Ichkeria” was off-scale, but it was also supplemented by total banditry, paralysis of power structures, constant hostage-taking and the slave trade.
Probably, the memory of what the “independent” powers in the North Caucasus can be of, and prompted Putin to take another sharp statement. Responding to a request to comment on the proposals made in various circles that the Caucasus should be “cut off” from Russia, Putin said: “Those who say so need something to cut off themselves, because they do not understand what they are saying. They just do not give themselves an account of what they say! ” According to the prime minister, as soon as some country begins to reject various, “even problematic” territories from itself, this is “the beginning of the end” for it.
As a matter of fact, something of the kind we have already passed 20 years ago, in the last years of the Union, as various hot spots exploded on its outskirts. At that time, various “democratic” publicists and other “flagships of perestroika” equally strongly urged Russia to separate itself from the problem republics of the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. They say there is no special income from them, they are financed by the Allied (and, therefore, Russian) subsidies, and they also cut each other constantly, and our soldiers must separate them and shed their blood ... Then they bought these narrow-minded arguments many. As a result, the Declaration of Sovereignty of the RSFSR appeared, supported by the majority of the people, but with which the real collapse of the Union went, and then the complete indifference of both the people and the political elite of Russia to the declaration of independence by the union republics ... And all this was completed by the liquidation of the USSR.
However, as time has quickly shown, Russia, although it has become “independent” from Central Asia and Transcaucasia, has not gotten rid of any of the problems associated with them. Only now to intervene in order to somehow resolve them, it cannot: after all, this is independent and internationally recognized states, and any intervention will be qualified as aggression. We will not speak about such “trifles” as the Russian people for generations living in the republics from which Russia became “independent”. Actually, the Russian elite are not particularly worried about them ... But still, even when our foreign ministry pro forma publishes timid protests about the oppression of Russians in these “sovereign powers,” it immediately receives a complete failure at the international level, and accompanied by noisy campaigns in the global mass media about the “imperial ambitions of Russia”. You do not need to be a prophet to predict that if any “independent” state formation appears in the North Caucasus, then the situation with it will be exactly the same.
Putin rightly pointed out the fact (and referred to the similar opinion of the late Ahmad-Khadzhi) that the republics of the North Caucasus cannot exist as independent states, and they “will almost immediately be spiritually and economically occupied by some forces from near or far abroad ", After which they will be used" as a tool to further rock the same Russia. " There is no doubt about this either: remember, again, the experience of “independent Ichkeria”, where the representatives of the special services of Turkey are. Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Taliban Afghanistan and others behaved more freely than in their own countries. Moreover, they were interested in minimum issues of arranging Ichkeria itself: Ichkeria was supposed to become a springboard for capturing the first North Caucasian region in the first stage, approximately along the Taganrog - Astrakhan line. Well, in the future, subversive actions for the collapse of Russia were supposed to be transferred to the Volga republics and beyond the Urals. Moreover, these plans were not particularly hidden and were published (with appropriate maps) even in the Russian press.
Without a doubt, Putin did not forget about it, and therefore quite reasonably raised the question: “And what will be the situation in Russia itself in this regard? Nothing good - only trouble and tragedy. ”
However, if one cannot but agree with Putin on this issue, the main issue he posed is about the fight against corruption, there is no clarity. Yes, the prime minister reasonably remarked: “For the whole of Russia, not only for the North Caucasus and Chechnya, there are a number of very important and very acute problems; talking about them is not very pleasant, but necessary if we want to live better. One of them is corruption and ensuring justice for the average citizen in Russia, wherever he lives, whatever religion he professes and whatever nationality he is. ” This, of course, is true, but it is not clear what practical conclusions follow from this. Especially for the republics of the North Caucasus, where the authorities are traditionally formed on the basis of tribal and clan ties.
In addition, Putin rightly formulated the task of the Russian state: "It is necessary, regardless of religion and nationality, to ensure the execution of the law by every citizen, whoever he is - Christian, Muslim, Russian, Chechen, Tatar, Bashkir, anyway." However, how to put all this into practice, from the entire lengthy interview, which was fully published on the Prime Minister’s official website, remains unclear.
Information