Martin William Smith wrote:

>> Last time Russia state used military force in Chechnya it was Russian
>> public opinion that forced them out.
>
>I thought it had as much to do with losing.

Did you indeed?

What exactly did they lose? Did the Chechens force them out might and main,
or did they just inflict heavy casualties? Why would the Russian state be
intimidated by mere heavy casualties - they have a conscript army and a
large population? Please pay attention Martin, if few thousand casualties
is not "losing" to the Russians - they suffered casualties in the millions
in the second world war and were victorious, in fact the hgistory of Russia
is almost a bloody litany of outrageous casualties that makes their losses
in Chechnya pale not only into insignificance, but make Chechnya seem like
a stunning victory!

There must be factors other than mere military ones at work here, surely?


>> Russia is not saying it wants to bomb Chechens, it is saying it is
>> bombing terrorists. The Russian people want the terrorists dealt
>> with. Bombing the bombers sounds like reasonable
>> self-defense. Bombing people who bomb you is not necessarily immoral
>> in most people's eyes.
>
>NATO said it didn't want to bomb Serbs.  It said it wanted to destroy
>the Serb military, which was oppressing the Kosovars.  Bombing the
>military sounded like a reasonable way to do that.

Exactly, you seem to agree that military action must be accompanied by
political support if it is to succeed. That was my point re Chechnya - the
Russians didn't enjoy such political support when the earlier sent the
troops into Chechnya. Thus they failed, not because they didn't have the
military force, of course they did, but because the Russian people didn't
support the adventure.

But to interpret that as a purely military failure, an indication that the
Chechens can defeat the Russian military under different political
circumstances, would be a big mistake. As big a mnistake as believing that
the US defeat in Vietnam means that any third-world country can defeat the
US militarily by force of arms alone.

The politcal terrain is crucial, the moral "high ground" confers a
significant strategic advantage.

[...]

>So the Russian PR campaign is successful.  The Russian people think
>that such a high percentage of Chechens are terrorists that it makes
>sense to bomb them.  They have even forgotten the fact that the
>terrorist bombers aren't even in Chechnya to be bombed.  They're in
>Russia blowing up buildings.

You reckon the Russian people must be as stupid as Americans? ;-) I mean,
NATO bombed Serbia proper, despite the fact that the people doing the
actual atrocities were in Kosovo at the time - everyone understood that the
idea was to attack the head of the beast.

Seriously, whether the campaign is successful is yet to be decided. I can't
predict that because I don't have much insight into the mood of the Russian
people, let alone what the actual facts are. I'm just discussing the
general strategic implications of politics, not predicting the outcome.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.