Europe
Russia
The Chechnya Morass
The capture of Grozny by Russian forces after a month-long assault was a Pyrrhic victory, according to widespread commentary in the Russian press.
The capital of the republic of Chechnya was virtually destroyed, and most of the rebels had already fled to the mountains to fight the federal forces from there. In addition, the detention of Andrei Babitsky, a Russian reporter working for a U.S.-funded radio station—and his mysterious transfer to Chechen fighters in exchange for two Russian prisoners—stirred a new wave of criticism in the Russian media.
Commentators are increasingly questioning Moscow’s conduct of the war. “The fact that the battle for the ruins of Grozny was pointless even in terms of symbolism was obvious to both sides,” writes Vadim Dubnov in the liberal weekly Novoye Vremya (Feb. 13). A top Russian general declared that the capture of Grozny will permit the pullout of a “significant portion of the troops deployed” in Chechnya. But Viktor Litovkin, a prominent military commentator, estimates in the liberal weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (Feb. 10) that 23,000 men—more than half of the original deployment—will have to remain to fight the rebel groups holed up in the mountains.
If Moscow wants to limit casualties, government forces have to destroy the rebel bases with methodical air and artillery strikes before the wooded terrain becomes covered with leaves in the spring and summer, writes Litovkin. Winter also works to the Russians’ advantage, because the rebels’ tracks in the snow, as well as their campfires, can give away their whereabouts. The alternative would be a quicker—but more costly—ground assault. Such an offensive usually results in 10 times more casualties for the attackers than the defenders, says Litovkin.
The main challenge, however, is to begin to rebuild Chechnya. Moscow wants to prepare for spring planting, says Litovkin, but first “the ground must be cleared of mines and unexploded charges that stud it like a smoked sausage”—which he says will take years. In addition, “thousands of unemployed Chechen men of draft age must be given proper, well-paying jobs.”
The Kremlin also faced a firestorm of criticism over the fate of Babitsky, a reporter for Radio Liberty, which is funded by the U.S. Congress. After Babitsky infuriated Russian authorities with his reports from Grozny, he disappeared in late January. Moscow finally admitted that federal forces had detained him on a possible charge of participating in unauthorized armed units (rebel groups), a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Kremlin officials later said that Babitsky had been turned over to Chechen rebels, but claimed he had consented to the swap.
Vitaly Romanov asserts in the liberal Moscow daily Sevodnya (Feb. 9) that “members of the Defense Ministry who have long had it in for Babitsky decided to settle accounts with him on their own, … clearly not expecting such a… reaction.”
But Aleksandr Ryklin says in the liberal newsmagazine Itogi (Feb. 8) that the swap could have taken place “with the blessing” of Putin. “And if that is the case, then it is a message to everyone trying to cover the Caucasus war: Don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong.”
In the liberal weekly Profil (Feb. 14), Yuri Gladkevich cites press reports that the Kremlin is keeping track of reporters covering “hot” subjects such as Chechnya and official corruption, to find out their sources and put together files on them. “This appears to be a preparation for full-scale ‘preemptive treatment’ of the Russian press,” he says.
Perhaps more ominously, Leonid Gankin and Yuri Chubchenko write in the liberal Kommersant Daily (Feb. 8): “The Babitsky affair again raises the question of who Putin is and how much he depends on the forces in the generals’ corps and military-industrial complex who are prodding Russia onto the path of anti-Westernism and international isolation.”
There were, of course, dissenters. While Vitaly Tretyakov, editor of the middle-of-the-road Nezavisimaya Gazeta, considers the swap of Babitsky “illegal, immoral, and politically irresponsible,” he also criticizes the reporter and Radio Liberty (Feb. 10): “Russian security structures and special services view Babitsky (and they have political and moral grounds, but perhaps not legal ones) as a man who, wittingly or unwittingly, was working for the enemy side on a foreign radio station that broadcasts to Russian territory and from Russian territory.” He adds that the steps taken against Babitsky were aimed primarily at Radio Liberty.
In the lower house of parliament, 90 liberal lawmakers endorsed a proposal to confront Putin about Babitsky’s fate, reports Lena Bereznitskaya in the liberal weekly Vremya MN (Feb. 10). But 215 legislators, all from progovernment or leftist parties, refused to support the measure. A leader of the pro-government Unity bloc said that Babitsky’s case did not merit special attention.
