I have my concerns too. I doubt the old days of Russian dominance in the area has been forgotten by the power elite, and could see how terrorism could be used as an excuse to re-establish the old regime.
It would be a shame if one form of oppression was replaced with another.
The Cold War was largely about Russia pushing marxist policy on other countries, not so much about the internal affairs of the USSR. I think Putin has to assume the role that Abe Lincoln faced-- a southern culture of rebellion, only Chechnia is not based on a Confederacy, rather it's based on Islamic nutjobs.
Putin tightens grip on power
The Age ^ | September 15, 2004 | Julius Strauss
Posted on 09/14/2004 9:47:41 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1215689/posts
"said US State Department spokesman "
Sorry, that's not part of the US.
Bush didn't say anything, Cheney didn't say anything, Rumsfled didn't say anything, need I go on?
The State Department is on the side of the terrorists. There needs to be a wholesale purge after the election.
Comments?
Communism is back on the table again in Russia.
Bill Clinton would have loved to have that power.
Proposed Putin's reforms have nothing to do with democracy or authoritarianism.
Putin wants to abolish Russian federalism and turn Russia once again into a unitary state without explicitly breaking Russian Constitution.
While such a big country probably would have been better off as a federation, historically Russia was unitary state. Current Russian federalism is thus a historic abnormality.
(Note that federal state and unitary state do not stand for democratic or authoritarian. France and Britain are unitary states, Germany and the US are federal states, all four are democracies)
Moreover, Putin seems to think that federalism in current form makes Russian state weaker and Russian regions more corrupt.
And neither corruption nor weakness can be tolerated when Russia is at war.
ping