[zinochka]

What exactly is it about Chechnya that makes its desire for independence any less legitimate than that of Latvia?

Caucasus and including Chechnya was anexed by Tsarist Russia in 1859 after almost 200 years of Islamic raiding. Chechnya is part of Russia like Texas is part of the U.S. Here in California, durring the Recall the Democrat candidate Cruz Bustamente was rejected by the majority of Democrat voters because he use to belong to a radical Chicano group that demanded return of the southwest states (CA,TX, AZ, NM,NV)to "Aztlan"! (A legendary Aztec empire.) I am Mexican by decent but I am an *American* and I do not believe after all these years we should just give back territory we won, even to my own ansestors.
Even if Russia's sovrenty is questioned, remember what happened when Chechnya got it's own autonomy in the mid 90,s. The Wahabbi jihadists came in from everywhere, began murdering Sufi leaders, kidnapping, and even invaded Dagestan. They proudly claim loyalty to Bin Laden on their own web sites and say "no negotiations are possible, only Jihad!"
That's one difference between Chechnya and Baltics, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belorus, and other former Soviet republics which gained independence.

[Restorer]

Caucasus and including Chechnya was anexed by Tsarist Russia in 1859 after almost 200 years of Islamic raiding.

Agreed, although the raiding goes back much farther than that.

However, you do not mention why the aspirations for independence of "nations" such as Latvia and Estonia, which were never really independent prior to their conquest by Russia, but were instead ruled by Poland, Sweden, etc., are legitimate while "nations" such as Chechnya which were conquered much more recently are not.