14 March 1711 in Russian History is marked as a day of Kabarda’s voluntary joining Russia

From: Eagle_wng
14 March 1711 in Russian History is marked as a day of Kabarda’s voluntary joining Russia
PRAGUE, 14 March, Caucasus Times. In Russian official historiography 14 March 1711 is interpreted as a day of Kabarda’s voluntary joining Russia. Thus, according to Soviet historiography, on 14 March 1711 Russian Emperor Peter I in response to a request by Kabardinian princes issued a decree to Kabardinian people stating that Russia agrees to accept them into Russian citizenship and to protect them from the external enemies.

Results of the earlier Kabardinian embassy to Russia in 1557 were interpreted in historiography as voluntary and peaceful Kabarda’s joining Russia, although in pre-Soviet historiography 1557 treaty was considered as a creation of a political and military union.

After that during several centuries Kabarda was independnet from Russia not only in the internal, but also in the external affairs. Among feudal elite of Kabarda there were both supporters and opponents of Russia, mostly pro-Crimea and pro-Turkey oriented circles. Thus, princes of Big Kabarda initiated the process of joining Russia while princes of Small Kabarda opposed pro-Russian orientation and at times attacked Russian fortifications, Cossack villages and even settlements of Big Kabarda. Later on, princes of Small Kabarda took part in the war against Tsarist Russia in the army of Sheih Shamil.

According to contemporary Historians, taking into account all those circumstances, it is hard to speak about Kabarda’s voluntary joining Russia in the middle of XVI century.

Context of Russia’s foreign policy in the region in XVI-XVIII centuries allows to consider 1557 treaty as one of the earliest Russia’s successes in developing union and vassal relations with the peoples of the North Caucasus.
Islam Tekushev, Caucasus Times, Prague

Share Button

Adygeanatpress:Moslem Coordination Center Of North Caucasus Will Be In Nalchik

Share Button

Muslim opposition problem farmed out to law enforcement agencies – Dorogova

From: Eagle_wng

Muslim opposition problem farmed out to law enforcement agencies – Dorogova

Larissa Dorogova has been a member of the Kabardino-Balkar Bar since 1980. She represents the Muslim oppositional in Kabardino-Balkaria and the mothers and widows of those killed on 13 October.

Larissa Dorogova is Muslim and she wears a hijab. In 2002, she performed hajj.

Before the 13 October 2005 events in Nalchik, Larissa Dorogova had also defended Muslims and applied to various jurisdictions with statements of their groundless persecution. In particular, in behalf of 400 Muslims she had prepared an application to the government for permission to emigrate from Russia.

Later, together with lawyers Irina Komisarova and Inna Golitsyna, she was removed from defence of those detained on suspicion of attacking law enforcement and security agencies in the republic, as ordered by the investigation. The lawyers appealed this decision in a court of law, but the court sustained it.

Larissa Dorogova agreed to answer several questions in an interview for Caucasian Knot.

Caucasian Knot: How can you describe the situation in Kabardino-Balkaria presently?

Larissa Dorogova: To my mind, the situation remains strained. The information verbalised at a recent meeting of the Board of Kabardino-Balkaria’s Internal Affairs Ministry seems to prove that. I mean the intention of law enforcement agencies to continue to use repressive mechanisms for solving the Muslim problem. I believe the situation is being deliberately escalated when statements are made about preparations for terrorist acts against civilians and this is linked to Islam.

CK: Do you think there is no such threat?

L.D.: I think that as long as there are forces willing to destabilise the situation in the North Caucasus, there is always such a threat. And it is quite another matter that measures should be taken not to provide such a ground inside, which means that dialogue should be established with Muslims in Kabardino-Balkaria and the problem of oppositional jamaats (societies — Caucasian Knot) should be solved in a political way, by means of constructive dialogue, not with fire and sword. After all, these are live people, they have families, children. Why, they are our people!

So far, the problem has been farmed out to law enforcement and security agencies and they have only one method — brute force.

In the opinion of the Muslims whom I represent, the reason for what happened on 13 October is that for a long time they had been subject to groundless persecution, physical and moral humiliation, and sophisticated and cynical torture in a form which not every man, less so a highlander, can speak about out loud.

Unfortunately, nothing has improved in the attitude towards Muslims in the republic in spite of the tragedy that happened.

No one wants to undertake problem solution. Muslims and the Internal Affairs Ministry continue to face each other like two enemies.

CK: What about giving out the killed men’s bodies?

L.D.: Relatives of those killed have applied to all possible jurisdictions with a request of giving out the bodies for burial, but it appears that no one hears or wants to hear them. The formal answers addressed to the relatives read that the issue of giving out the bodies will be decided on when the investigation is over and the involvement of each of them is established.

As a lawyer, I understand that there is a law on terrorism, but, firstly, the article about not giving out terrorists’ bodies contradicts the nation’s Constitution and, secondly, is it really worthwhile appealing to this law which I believe needs more consideration when stability and peace in the republic are much more important? After all, laws are violated here, there and everywhere when the government wants that.

CK: What are the relatives of the killed men and you as a lawyer going to do in the future?

L.D.: The relatives of the killed men have lost confidence in everything. They do not believe that they can prove anything. They are also subject to repressions. Here is one fact, for example. The children of the killed Muslims have been denied survivors pensions. I would like to ask: what is there to blame on the children? And how should they live?

Considering all this, a group of relatives have decided to leave the country and emigrate to any part of the world where personal and human rights and liberties are respected at least a little bit and where they will be received. This is a very sad fact, but they see no other way out. They understand that their children and grandchildren will never be full citizens. I support them in this decision and I will help them in putting this plan into practice as much as I can.


Share Button

Eye On Eurasia: Future Of Caucasus

From: MSN NicknameEagle_wng  (Original Message)    Sent: 4/18/2006 7:33 AM

Eye on Eurasia: Future of Caucasus

TALLINN, Estonia — Moscow no longer has any “rational basis” for keeping the non-Russian republics of the Northern Caucasus within the Russian Federation, according to a Moscow commentator, but “neither the Russian government nor Russian public opinion is yet prepared” to allow them to become independent.

That time will come, Boris Sokolov has argued on the prognosis.ru web site, when Russians finally recognize that “the North Caucasus republics have completely lost their strategic importance” and that raising the standard of living there sufficiently to integrate them into Russian society would be prohibitively expensive.

Two hundred years ago, Sokolov notes, controlling the northern Caucasus was a strategic necessity for the Russian Empire. Having gained control of what is now Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the tsars needed to control the land bridge between Russia proper and these new territories, especially since the Russian fleet was so weak.

And because of the strategic importance of the North Caucasus in this regard, both the tsarist regime and the Soviet one that succeeded it were prepared to use force on a regular basis to put down the revolts by one or another group that have flared up on a regular basis in this most unsettled region.

But Sokolov continues, “with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical situation changed completely.” On the one hand, the three countries of the southern Caucasus became independent and Turkey ceased to be “a potential opponent” of Russia. And on the other, Russia is in a position to supply its remaining bases in Armenia by air.

In addition, the republics of the North Caucasus “from an economic point of view” are more a burden than an asset to Moscow: “the reserves of oil there are not great and do not play any role in Russia’s exports, there are few useful natural resources, the land is not that fertile, and agricultural production at best is sufficient only for internal consumption.”

They are all extremely poor, with unemployment rates approaching 70 percent or in some localities even more. In other respects to, these republics “were and remain internal colonies” in precisely the way Lenin defined that term. Moreover, the nominally democratic institutions there are a cover for what in fact are corrupt patron-client relations.

Because of the events of the last 15 years, virtually all Russians have left. Indeed, Sokolov continues, “it is impossible to imagine a Russian who would risk moving there to settle on a permanent basis.” Changing that or the economic situation would require an amount of money “that no Stabilization Fund could have.”

Consequently, just as President Charles de Gaulle decided to grant Algeria independence rather than continue a disastrous war or spend enormous sums in order to keep that North African area under French control, so too, Sokolov insists, some future Russian leader will draw the same conclusion and allow the North Caucasus republics to leave.

But such a decision is unlikely anytime soon. At present, Russians who oppose independence for these republics advance two arguments, he says. First, they point to “the memory of a great empire and hopes for its revival. And second, they suggest that there would be a domino effect elsewhere in the Russian Federation.

The first of these arguments is at best a distant dream, and the second is simply not true, Sokolov says. “Today separatist inclinations behind the borders of the North Caucasus are not to be observed,” noting that the Middle Volga republics are not seeking independence and that others can’t because of size, location, or the dominance of the Russian community.

As a result, he says, “by itself the separation of the North Caucasus republics will not have “a domino effect” elsewhere in the Russian Federation.

What is more important, Sokolov says, is that all of the means Russia has to exert influence on the southern Caucasus “are not connected with Russian control over the North Caucasus republics. The “only thing” Moscow might be concerned about would be the transit of oil and gas, but when independent, these republics would want to help with that.

Despite current opposition to recognizing the independence of these countries, Sokolov argues that eventually Moscow will do so, possibly as a result of a dramatic fall in gas and oil prices will make the burden of retaining them too great. In the meantime, Russia will continue to lose its position there, as the rule of Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya shows.

Paul Goble teaches at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia

Source: Wpherald

2006-04-18 13:01:41


Share Button

Relatives of insurgents killed in Nalchik met with public prosecutor Ketov

From: Eagle_wng
Relatives of insurgents killed in Nalchik  met with public prosecutor Ketov
On the eve relatives of the insurgents killed during the armed attack Kabardino-Balkarian capital met the public prosecutor of republic Jury Ketov. They repeated their request for taking out bodies of their lost sons for funeral about what they repeatedly wrote in the complaints directed to all instance.

Jury Ketov replied that the question of the bodies’ giving out did not depend on his position, and advised the parents to address with the question to the head of the investigatory group of the Office of Public Prosecutor of Russian Federation engaged in investigation of the events on October, 13th.

Meanwhile, in replies to the complaints written by parents of the victims to the State Office of Public Prosecutor and other federal structures it had been spoken that the complaint was sent to the Office of Public Prosecutor of KBR for consideration and undertaking corresponding measures.

Now the parents of the victims discuss the question of their trip to Moscow for meeting with the president of Russia Vladimir Putin.

Earlier the head of the investigatory group Alexey Savrulin said the parents that the problem of delivery of the bodies would be solved after finding out which from among the insurgents were terrorists and which were not.

Caucasus Times


Share Button

Puppet Police Vehicle Attacked in Ingushetia

From: MSN NicknameEagle_wng  (Original Message)    Sent: 8/30/2006 4:09 PM
Puppet Police Vehicle Attacked in Ingushetia
Publication time: 29 August 2006, 05:35

Last night (August 28) a diversion group of Mujahideen attacked with small arms a puppet police vehicle in Nazran, the capital of the Russian-occupied Caucasian Muslim state of Ingushetia. A munafiq (apostate) “policeman” driving the vehicle  was very seriously wounded and was delivered to a resuscitation ward in a local hospital, the Russian invaders reported.


Share Button

Moscow Times: Britain Reviews Russia Ties

From:  Eagle_wng  (Original Message)    Sent: 7/11/2007 5:10 AM
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Britain Reviews Russia Ties

LONDON — Britain condemned Russia’s refusal to extradite the main suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko as “unacceptable” on Tuesday and said it was reviewing cooperation with Moscow.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Russia’s response was “extremely disappointing” and that Britain was unsure that suspect Andrei Lugovoi, a former security services officer, would get a fair trial if it were held in Russia.

“We are reviewing the situation and considering what further steps we can take. We consider this a serious matter,” the spokesman said, adding that all options were being considered.

“Russia is an important partner on many issues, and we continue to seek a constructive relationship with them, but given their refusal to cooperate on this matter, we need to carefully consider our range of cooperation on a range of issues.”

Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, died in a London hospital last November after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210.

British prosecutors confirmed that Moscow had sent a formal refusal to extradite Lugovoi to face trial for the murder of Litvinenko.

A spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office said: “We’ve consistently said that the murder of Mr. Litvinenko is a serious criminal matter. The Russian reply is unacceptable.”

The Crown Prosecution Service said in a statement about the allegations against Lugovoi that, “He committed this extraordinarily grave crime here in our capital city.”

Police found a trail of radiation matching Lugovoi’s movements. But Lugovoi has denied any guilt, saying he believed Litvinenko was killed by British intelligence.

Brown’s spokesman said the government remained convinced that Lugovoi should answer the case against him in a British court.

“We do not have full confidence that a trial in Moscow would meet the standards of impartiality and fairness that would be necessary,” the spokesman said.


Share Button