Archivi tag: Russian Federation

“Russia has never been a member of the UN” – Dr. Ikhvan Gerikhanov on Russia’s legitimacy in the Security Council

On Saturday 1 April, Russia assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. As an aggressor country in the war in Ukraine, there are many questions about the role that Russia can have in supervising a body created to maintain international peace and security.

Francesco Benedetti interviewed the former President of the Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Ikhvan Gerikhanov, doctor of law and specialist in international law.

This interview begins many years before the invasion of Ukraine. And precisely in 1945, when the Charter of the United Nations was officially adopted…

We begin with a preamble, that is, with the history of the birth of this organization, designated as the United Nations Organization. Firstly, the UN was established after the end of the Second World War, to replace the League of Nations, and with the same aim of preventing future conflicts. In this sense, the UN is practically its legal successor. It is interesting to note that the initiative came mainly from the representatives of the military coalition which had fought against fascism. In the euphoria of victory, its organization was not discussed by anyone, since the primacy in the victorious war belonged to the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France. The statute of the organization was drawn up between April and October 1944, before the capitulation of the fascist regime, and only China, the Soviet Union and the United States participated. I believe that the dictation of conditions was mainly elaborated by these last two states. From this point of view, it is easy to recognize impositions such as the right of veto, applicable by the so-called “permanent members of the Security Council”. In this very important body, the three signatories of the statute were determined as permanent members together with Great Britain and France. Finally, the Charter of the United Nations was proposed to another fifty states, who signed it on June 26 of the same year.

The system was very similar to the one with which the League of Nations had been established. In 1919, immediately after the end of the First World War, it was established to prevent new local and global conflicts. The initiators of this organization were the winners of that war. The UN, like the League of Nations before it, was formed to safeguard world peace.

The League of Nations

Article 23, Chapter V of the United Nations Charter reads: The Security Council should be composed of fifteen members of the United Nations. The Republic of China , the French Republic , the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics , the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will be permanent members of the Security Council”. Where is the Russian Federation in this document?

The Charter of the United Nations, as I indicated above, was created and adopted in 1944, the USSR existed then, and it was the superpower that defeated fascism. Under Article 4 of the UN Charter there is a procedure for accepting new members. No one has ever changed it, or deleted it. According to this procedure, the admission of new members “is carried out by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council”. This procedure has been followed to date for 192 states, but not for the Russian Federation, as a subject of international law.

Therefore, proceeding from the UN Charter procedure, the Russian Federation cannot be a member of the United Nations, much less the Security Council as a permanent member. There is only one answer to your question : the Russian Federation is not included in the Charter of the United Nations, because its admission to the UN has not been discussed as required by the Charter, and its admission has never been accepted.

The day before the resignation of President MS Gorbachev, the USSR Ambassador Yu Vorontsov sent a letter to the UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar from the President of the RSFSR BN Yeltsin, which states: on joining the Union Soviet Socialist republics in the UN, including the Security Council and all other bodies and organizations of the UN system, continue from the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this regard, I ask you to use the name “Russian Federation” in the United Nations instead of the name “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. The Russian Federation bears full responsibility for all rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including financial obligations. Do you think this is “legal succession”?

I have already referred to the requirement of art. 4 of the UN Charter, adopted with the participation of the USSR, and this legal provision is no exception to any of the world powers. Succession is the transfer of rights and duties from the predecessor to the successor in an identical manner, with only the change of name. In our case, the “succession” arose through a violent change of state power and its membership was not discussed, as required by the UN Charter itself when accepting a new member into its composition. Russia is not the USSR, neither in status, nor in territory, nor in the content of its Constitution. And if we add to this the fact that the Russian Federation arose through the violent overthrow of the legitimate power of the USSR, it would be wrong to say that it is a subject of international law.

The letter you indicated, in accordance with the requirements of the UN Charter, should have been examined by the UN General Assembly and, based on the results of the vote, possibly accepted. Which was not done. Which means that the Russian Federation was an illegitimate member of the United Nations, if the rules of the organization are followed to the letter and in spirit.

Also the letter you mention was sent by a person. Even if this person was the President of the Federation, his intervention could not have resolved the matter by itself, without going through the relevant procedure. Going further, the letter refers to the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and not to the Russian Federation.

Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in Yalta (1945)

However, Yeltsin’s letter, sent by the then UN Secretary to the tables of the other members of the Security Council, was tacitly approved by all. Why, in your opinion?

I don’t know the real reason, but in my opinion everyone was satisfied with the collapse of a world power like the USSR and were glad that the main and most influential rival in world politics no longer exists on the world map. The UN members themselves should have put the matter to the UN General Assembly, especially to the members of the Security Council, noting that a new state had arisen and that the procedure for admitting a new member had to be followed at the UN. Not only was this issue not raised, but on the contrary, they granted the right to participate in UN meetings to a person not designated in their Charter, and even accepted from him the right of veto on questions of peace and war!

Moreover, against the background of the war in Ukraine which has lasted for more than a year, not a single state has deigned to raise the question of the legality of the stay of the Russian Federation in the UN and its permanent membership in the Security Council ! And this is based on the requirements of Article 2, Clause 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, where it is firmly stated that “all members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or the political independence of any state, or any or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

As an academic lawyer and specialist in international law, I do not understand the position of 192 states of the world regarding the fact that a separate state can participate in the establishment of world order by unleashing wars and exclusively in its own interests. Here reside other interests: political, economic and territorial, which go against the fundamental principles and norms of international law. The UN has fulfilled its task and it is necessary to move to a new world order and with the creation of a different international structure, as was done with the transition from the League of Nations, which lasted 26 years, to the creation of the UN, which has been pursuing the fulfillment of its tasks for more than 78 years.

IV If the Russian Federation had been born “by exclusion”, ie as a consequence of the abandonment of the USSR by all the states that made it up except the RSFSR, would the succession of Russia to the Security Council have been legitimate?

Above, I partially mentioned the lack of legal basis for a succession of Russia! the USSR could not authorize Russia to succeed even from the League of Nations to the newly created UN structure, as the USSR was not a member of the League of Nations when the UN Charter was approved. Similarly, the forced seizure of power does not give rise to succession, rather it excludes this right on the basis of the modalities and means of this transfer of rights and obligations from the entitled party to the successor. On this occasion, many Russian diplomats and jurists deliberately keep silent about the fact that the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14, 1939 at the 20th session of the Assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva, due to the invasion of the sovereign state of Finland . By the way, even then the USSR was a permanent member of the Council of the League of Nations.

And now the answer to the question:

First, illegally considering itself the legal successor of the League of Nations, the USSR, as the winner of fascism, dictated the conditions for the creation of the UN Charter and practically imposed itself and the members of the anti-fascist coalition as permanent members of the Security Council. It is like in legal practice, when a legal structure is created, there must be a constituent assembly, whose organizers remain on a permanent basis. But this does not mean that by moving to a new legal structure such as the (UN) Association, they can violate the adopted Charter with impunity and sanctions cannot be applied to them. Secondly, we must not forget that the Russian Federation arose on the world map from the violent overthrow of state power of the USSR and has long violated the international obligations of the USSR and defiantly ignores the requirements of the UN Charter and the international obligations assumed by its predecessor, the USSR.

Logo of the Security Council of the UN

Professor Rein Mullerson , Professor and Chair of International Law at King’s College London, stated that the succession was legitimate, identifying three reasons : “Firstly, after the dissolution, Russia is [ sic ] still remains one of the most largest in the world geographically and demographically.Secondly, Soviet Russia after 1917 and especially the Soviet Union after 1922 was treated as a continuation of the same state that existed under the Russian Empire.These are objective factors to show that Russia is the continuation of the Soviet Union.The third reason that constitutes the subjective factor is the behavior of the state and the recognition of continuity by third states.” What do you think of this statement?

It is difficult for me to evaluate such a statement, although I am a professor . He confuses practice and opportunity with legal provisions, without which no legal structure, regardless of its status, can exist. No one disputes that Russia is a huge country and has incalculable wealth in its assets and human resources reach more than 150 million. However , from a legal point of view, the USSR cannot be considered a continuation of the Russian empire, as the tsarist autocracy was swept away by those who built the “new world” and destroyed the empire to its foundations. Thirdly, I do not see confirmation of the professor’s words that third states recognized the succession of Russia from the Soviet Union. If there is a claim , then there must be legal documents or justification for that claim. Any statement, if it is not empty talk, must be based on facts and documents relating to that succession. In addition to objective and subjective factors, there must be specific actions that comply with the legal provisions of the subject itself!

Journalist Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, on the other hand, noted that “one of the five powers enjoying veto prerogatives in the Security Council underwent a fundamental identity change. When the Soviet Union became Russia, its status changed from that of a superpower at the head of the communist camp to that of a society which aspires to join the capitalist world. Russia’s permanent membership of the Security Council is no longer taken for granted. The global ideological struggle that has dominated the international scene for so long is no more and the new realities need to be translated into a different set of global institutions.” What do you think of his words?

I agree with the journalist’s opinion that the organization itself, like the UN, should go out of business, as it does not monitor many violations of the Charter and world order. To be objective, the reaction to the outbreak of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other states should have been the condemnation and exclusion of the United States from the UN as a guilty party. Thus, impunity gives rise to new conflicts, and the fundamental principle of the existence of world order is ignored as a solution of controversial issues exclusively by peaceful means. The UN silently observed the actions of the aggressor during the two Russian-Chechen wars and did not even condemn the military and financial assistance of the United States and other states for the total destruction of the Chechen people on the basis of nationality and ‘ethnicity. And today the UN cannot influence the continuation of Russia’s imperial policy and the violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On the contrary, the UN gives the right to an officially recognized sponsor of terrorism to chair the Security Council! The UN must be reorganized and, taking into account the reality, transferred to a more serious and influential institution, which leverages the behavior of its members.

In the light of all this, does the existence of the veto right in the UN Security Council always make sense to you? Russia , for example, says a veto is necessary for “balanced and sustainable decisions”. However, Russia has used its veto on issues relating to conflicts in which it is directly involved, as have other permanent members. This directly violates Articles 27 and 52 of the United Nations Charter and paralyzes the United Nations system as a whole by undermining its purpose as set out in Article 1, and equally the purpose of the Security Council as set out in Articles 24 and 25. For example, at the outset of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine draft resolution S/2022/155 condemning the invasion and rearticulating Ukrainian sovereignty was vetoed by the Russian Federation on 25 February 2022, while Russia was none other than the chairman of the Security Council, undermining the council’s capabilities regarding the situation.

The right of veto arose in ancient Rome, in the field of the legislative process, when the tribunes of the people could overrule the decision of the Senate. There is another procedure for imposing a veto – this is the refusal of the monarch or the president to sign a law adopted by the legislator. The procedure for vetoing decisions taken by the UN, in my opinion, is meaningless and should not be included in the system of legal methods and procedures of this collective organization. The UN as an international organization was created to establish world order and exclude any conflicts, both regional and international. According to the art. 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, the organization is founded “on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members”. So what kind of equality can we talk about when only one country can impose a veto at its discretion, without disputes and discussions with other members of the organization. Where is the sovereign equality, when five members of the UN Security Council exist on a permanent basis, that is, they are not replaceable, and the other ten are temporary! Many articles of the UN Charter clearly contradict each other and sometimes are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it has long been necessary to replace this establishment with another international institution!

Logo of the League of Nations

After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine , Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN Sergiy Kyslytsya and some members of the US Congress have called for the suspension or expulsion of Russia from the United Nations and its organs and the removal of its veto power, which violated Article 6 of the Charter. In your opinion, Russia should be expelled from the UN?

Russia is not legally a member of the United Nations, but actually participates in its work. Therefore, in practice, Russia should have pointed to the door from the United Nations building even during the first Russo-Chechen War, when my people’s right to self-determination was ignored, making use of the weapons of destruction of mass prohibited by international law. It had to be expelled due to the creation of filter camps on the territory of a sovereign republic, in which torture and humiliation of human dignity were carried out, when destruction of the environment and social sphere of Chechnya , monuments history and culture of his people. How it is that the founders of the UN Charter, represented by the USSR and the USA, did not provide for liability for violation of the Charter and the obligations undertaken, one can only guess – they were the first to begin to ignore and violate statutory obligations and law international!

In the Charter of the League of Nations, in article 16, it is provided that “if a member of the League resorts to war, contrary to the obligations …”, he is considered to have committed an act of war against all members of the League of Nations . I do not understand, as a lawyer, and as a person who has lived a long life, who is still preventing the adoption of a resolution on Russia’s actions against Ukraine today, why such an issue was not put to the vote before the General Assembly of United Nations, even under the current expulsion procedure from the UN and all its structures!

Therefore, I repeat once again that the UN as a structure designed to restore world order has exhausted itself and it is necessary to create a new structure with real levers of influence on the negative behavior of its members.

Back to the Constitution: Francesco Benedetti interviews Ikhvan Gerikhanov

Dr. Ikhvan Gerikhanov has served the Chechen Republic since 1991. Doctor in law and specialist in comparative studies in international law, with the statute od judge of the highest category, Gerikhanov was Member of the Executive Committee of the National Congress of the Chechen People, Deputy of Parliament on first convocation, and President of the Constitutional Court from 1993 to 1998. He was one of the main authors of the Constitution of 1992, which still today represents the Basic Law of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

Today Gerikhanov is the head of the national war crimes tribunal in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. About this activity, he said: “The objective of our trinbunal is the collection and evaluation of evidence for the assessment of the presence of signs of genocide and ethnocide of the chechen people, starting from the the time of the Tsar’s autocracy, the communist regime and the modern russian invasion on our territory”.

He currently resides in France. The French government refused him and his family a few weeks ago, political refugee status.

We had a long conversation with him about the Constitution, the legitimacy of ChRI governments, as well as some of the most controversial laws, not forgetting his work as President of the Constitutional Court.

Ikhvan Gerikhanov in front of the text of the newly approved Constitution

Dr. Gerikhanov, when talk about a constitution started?

The first debates regarding the writing of the Constitution began at the moment of the creation of the Provisional Supreme Soviet, on September 7, 1991. This body was attended by former deputies of the Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet and popular representatives, and was headed by the future Speaker of the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, Hussein Akhmadov. Joint commissions were created, including a juridical commission for the elaboration of legislative projects concerning the election of the President and the Parliament of the Republic. As a member of the National Congress of the Chechen People (OKChN) and as the only legal scholar (at that time I was a district court judge of the Leninsky district of Grozny, and had recently defended a dissertation on international law at the University of Kiev) I was included in this legal commission, chaired by the former Second Secretary of the regional party committee, Lechi Magomadov. A wonderful person. Many people from all professional backgrounds participated in the discussion of these projects. The discussion was publicized in the media, including through television. Every citizen of the Republic was able to participate.

In 1994, when the war broke out, Magomadov would have been among the main exponents of the unionist government. Don’t you think that the work he did in the legal commission contradicts the choice to take the side of Russia during the First World War?

Magomadov was first of all a worthy and loyal person. Secondly, he fully supported the decisions of the Chechen People’s Congress. At that time he supported the reasons of the people, and did not participate in any opposition. From his work the Chechen nation only benefited. He died in Mecca during the pilgrimage.

If we had to judge people by the episodes, keep in mind that between 2010 and 2012 I directed the Arbitration Tribunal of the Chechen Republic, which is not part of the power system, but helps all those who turn to it in the resolution of civil cases . Due to conflicts with the local authorities, as well as the fact that I refused to pay the “tribute”, they tried to initiate a criminal case against me. And for this reason I was forced to leave my fatherland and my father’s house once again.

Therefore, one cannot judge people by episodes, as life makes its own adjustments, and sometimes a person is forced to live side by side with the enemy. Some supporters of independence still work in various structures today, while in the republic the protégés of the Kremlin rule. This does not mean that they have betrayed the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom!

In the elections of 27 October 1991 you were elected deputy. Do you remember how Parliament developed the work on the Constitution?

I was elected in the Nadterechny constituency. Once formed, the Parliament adopted as a basis the draft already developed by the legal commission of the Provisional Supreme Soviet and, after a general discussion which also took place through the media, in the presence of journalists, jurists and simple interested parties, the Parliament adopted the Constitution of the Republic Chechen on March 12, 1991, a year and a half before Russia adopted its own. Personally, I was one of the main co-authors of the Constitution. The deputies did not have much time to adopt the Basic Law, since Russia had already declared the election of the President and Parliament illegal, and it was urgent to consolidate sovereignty by law, as promised to the Chechen National People’s Congress. Within the walls of the parliament of the Chechen Republic, in the body of lawyers’ deputies, there were very few lawyers, only four people out of 41 deputies, and it was not easy to adopt the Constitution when the body of deputies consisted of former farm workers and builders. But we all faced this task, and the Constitution of the Chechen Republic was adopted by the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, and we all rejoiced this holiday, regardless of profession and religion!

There were many opposition supporters in Nadterechny District. They declared that the elections were a farce and that they did not take place in their controlled areas. How do you respond to these accusations?

During the election period, there were opposition supporters in Nadterechny District, but only in one place, not everywhere. The population still did not realize what was happening, and was rather neutral. I have personally met with voters in two large settlements, where they know me well, and the electoral commission received the ballots and prepared the elections. Two representatives were elected in this constituency. Unfortunately my colleague died heroically in the First War!

After the promulgation of the constitution, the institutions foreseen by the Basic Law began to be established. One of these was the Constitutional Court, of which you were elected president in March 1993. How did this constitution process take place?


In early 1992, the Parliament of the Chechen Republic adopted the law “On the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic” and, according to it, the number of judges was determined at seven people. Well-known lawyers from the Republic, from the Ministry of Justice, from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and from the Supreme Court of the Republic took part in the election of the President of the Constitutional Court. Usman Imaev was nominated by the President of the Chechen Republic, while my fellow deputies convinced me to participate in these elections. I can say that all the judges of the Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic were highly qualified specialists and experienced lawyers. I can be proud of all my colleagues who have had the opportunity to work with them, especially Judge Seda Khalidova, who went through a very difficult path with us and did not become a defector from another government, as some judges have done.

The three leaders of the first call parliament: from left to right, Bektimar Mezhidov (Vice-President), Hussein Akhmadov (President), Magomed Gushakayev (Vice-President)

Why did Dudayev want Imaev in that role?

Usman Imaev was a very knowledgeable lawyer and an excellent executor of all orders of Dzhokhar Dudayev. I would have been happy and satisfied if he had been elected head of the Constitutional Court, but the Parliament saw me, probably, not as an executor of someone else’s orders, but as a learned lawyer, and a person of principle. For example, once elected I was the first of the chechen leaders to meet V. Zorkin, President of the Russian Constitutional Court. On that occasion we prepared a joint agreement ready to be signed, but this was not possible due to the current crisis of power in the Republic.

What activities did the Constitutional Court perform?

The Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic fulfilled its direct duties of protection of the constitutional order and in strict compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, regardless of the origin of the legislative acts, be it the President or the Parliament.

We have repeatedly made decisions on the inconsistency of our Constitution with the Decrees of the President and the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, which at first were taken for granted.
Then, when the confrontation between the legislative and executive bodies became an open conflict, the intervention of our court, and that of its president were not fully received correctly and each side wanted to see the Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic as “partisan ”, which was impossible, because the court was established to protect the constitutional order and not the branches of power.

The Constitution establishes that Parliament holds the legislative power, and this has the right to approve presidential appointments and to control the work of civil servants. President Dudayev’s reluctance to follow these instructions has led to serious tensions between the president and parliament. What was the origin of these tensions?

The main reason for the confrontation between the legislature and the executive was the misunderstanding or non-acceptance of the fact that the Republic was parliamentary. Many members of the government, including the President, could not bear it. At the very beginning of the confrontation between these branches of power, the Constitutional Court and its chairman issued dozens of official statements on the need to follow the requirements of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic and on the fact that such an escalation of tension could lead to consequences unpredictable.

I don’t know the reason behind this non-acceptance of the parliamentary nature of the Republic, but I can say that around Dudayev there were many sycophants who could influence his decision. I myself was dumbfounded by his behavior, when he sent a late night messenger asking me or advice on key legal matters. After agreeing on these matters, Dzhokhar publicly stated the opposite, and when I asked him why he did this, he referred to unknown people who convinced him against our agreement!

Many members of the entourage of the President of the Chechen Republic literally influenced Dzhokhar Dudayev about the negative influence of the parliament of the Chechen Republic in state building, having their own personal and mercantile interests. Issues of a legislative nature were resolved at the household level, ignoring the requirements of the Constitution and other regulatory acts. First of all, it was a confrontation between the forces of order: the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Each of them resolved the issue from the point of view of his participation in the process of declaring sovereignty, and not from the legal point of view of fulfilling his direct duties.
All this led to chaos and mutual misunderstanding, while those who could not be authorized to manage state bodies also very actively intervened: various parties, organizations of the elderly, athletes and cultural figures, who were assigned positions in based on their popularity in their business field.


On April 10 and 17, 1993, President Dudayev issued a series of decrees establishing direct presidential rule and dissolving parliament, decrees which were declared illegal by the Constitutional Court. Do you remember exactly what these decrees contained and why he declared them illegal?

The Constitutional Court has recognized the President’s Decrees regarding the dissolution of the supreme legislative body as illegitimate, as they grossly contradict the provisions of the Constitution. The content of the decree of the President of the Chechen Republic on the dissolution of the supreme legislative body of the country stated that, in order to preserve the sovereignty and political system, and due to the loss of confidence in it, in accordance with Art. 73 of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic the Parliament of the Chechen Republic should have been dissolved. In truth, the art. 73 of the Constitution of the CRI does not guarantee the President these powers, not even in times of war. He could suspend the activities of all authorities by imposing martial law, but this was not done at the time, since there was no reason to do so. The action exercised by Dudayev, in legal language is called “seizure of power”. which is prohibited by art. 2 of the Constitution.

As mentioned above, the Constitutional Court has applied all means to resolve this conflict and, as the head of the highest legislative body, I have personally asked and spoken to the President of the Parliament and almost all the deputies, as well as the President of the Republic, so that this confrontation would not result in a violation of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic and in an armed conflict. However, each side considered itself on the right side, and we are all witnesses and eyewitnesses of what happened next. The Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic, on the basis of the obligation to control and safeguard the state system, has correctly pronounced the illegitimacy of the acts of dissolution of the supreme legislative body, not being able otherwise by the judicial body, called to respond to violations of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic.


In the same period, the parliament called a referendum on trust in President Dudayev and in Parliament itself, which the Constitutional Court deemed acceptable. Was this referendum legitimate?


When the confrontation between legislative and executive authority reached a critical point, the Parliament made use of its constitutional right, provided for by paragraph 24 of art. 64 of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic on the popular vote, to hold a referendum on the issue of trust in the authorities and regarding the form of government of the state. This decision is the prerogative of the Parliament of the Chechen Republic and only it can take such a decision, if it deems it necessary, without the consent of any branch of power. These days the crisis of power, with the exception of the judiciary, was in full swing and turned into an open confrontation, with the subsequent armed intervention of the police forces during the dissolution of the Parliament of the Chechen Republic.

Dzhokhar Dudaev votes in the elections of 27 October 1991

On June 3, 1993, Dudayev rejected the opinion of the Constitutional Court regarding the legitimacy of the referendum, declaring it a “perversion of the law”. Why, in your opinion, was Dudayev so against the referendum?


We have tried to solve this process with all diplomatic methods, up to involving respected people and elders. A conciliation group was created headed by the president of the Academy of Sciences, doctor of physical and mathematical sciences Khamzat Ibragimov, in which I was also included. I spoke to Dzhokhar repeatedly on this matter, but after every conversation he did not operate as required by the Constitution. He believed, like everyone in his entourage, that the parliament of the Chechen Republic acts in favor of the opposition, and that the parliamentarians themselves are on several “barricades” of this crisis.

After the coup d’état of 4 June 1993, the Constitutional Court remained the only institution recognized by the Constitution on a permanent basis. On 18 June it issued a statement on the illegality of the government’s actions. Do you remember the contents of this court statement? What reactions has it elicited?



The Constitutional Court of the Chechen Republic suspended work on the administration of justice on my initiative, because after the court decision on the illegality of dissolving the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, our judges and staff began to fear retribution from the radicals , who saw in this decision only an opposition to the President of the Chechen Republic and nothing else. In this regard, this opinion still remains rooted in some supporters of sovereignty today, although there was and could not be any conflict between the Constitutional Court and the President, neither at an institutional level, nor at a personal level. The highest judicial body, within its powers, performed the duties assigned to it to protect the Constitution and the constitutional order, revealing violations that ignored the requirements of the Basic Law of the land, regardless of grades and degrees, and the position held in power and in this society.


How did relations develop between you and Dudayev, and between you and the government in general, after June 1993? Are you under pressure, threats or attempts on your life?

There was no, and there could be no public persecution and threats, since even to my detractors it was clear that I was fulfilling my duties, regardless of the roles and positions of violators of the requirements of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic.


With the outbreak of the First Russo-Chechen War the authorities of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria were placed under martial law. As a lawman, and a senior state official, how did you serve the cause of independence?


Since the beginning of the first war in December 1994, I have been at the forefront of opponents of armed conflict and have organized national and international conferences, as well as roundtables on the cessation of hostilities in my Motherland, condemning Russia’s military and political leadership. Having the moral and institutional responsibility to preserve sovereignty, as well as to stop hostilities on our territory, as president of the Constitutional Court, I have adopted all the methods and means at my disposal to inform the world and the Russian public opinion about the crime of this war and about the existence of the ongoing genocide against my people. To do this, I involved Russian government officials, as well as personally holding press conferences and organizing international conferences, with the participation of world-renowned scientists, conflict specialists and experts from the United Nations.

A number of conferences were held in the building of the international organization “Federation of Peace and Accord”, which has an advisory office at the United Nations. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the leadership of this organization, especially to the deputy chairman of the Society, MGIMO professor Andrey Melvil, who impartially helped me and provided every opportunity for the world to hear the voice of the Chechen people, who was being exterminated under carpet bombing by the Russian military forces.

Gerikhanov (right) participates in the negotiations for the release of hostages during the Budennovsk crisis

One of the events that saw you protagonist in the period 1994 – 1996 were the negotiations following the Budennovsk hostage crisis. Why were you involved in these negotiations, and how did they unfold?

During this time I was in Moscow and was approached by the Minister of Nationalities of Russia V. Mikhailov, who asked me for help in freeing the hostages, as I was one of the highest officials of the republic. Naturally I could not refuse this request, knowing that the hostages were women and children. Considering myself morally responsible and in general, as a lawyer and also as a simple person, not accepting this way of making war, I went to the place. Upon arrival in Budennovsk, I went to the headquarters for the release of hostages, where N. Yegorov, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation, Stepashin, the director of the FSB and other officials of the Russian side were. Then I went to the hospital, and finally participated in the negotiations and drafting of the documents relating to the conditions for the release of the hostages. At the same time, I had to involve the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation V. Chernomyrdin in this process through Mikhailov in order to have guarantees that the conditions set by Shamil Basaev were met.

My participation in the release of the hostages was decisive, because knowing the situation, I assumed responsibility as an official and as a Chechen: without this happening it would have been impossible to complete this negotiation. I was helped in this by two other compatriots of mine, whom I thank for the courage shown in this situation, in which we were all risking our lives. The important thing was that the result was positive: the hostages were released (over 1200 hostages, mostly women and children) and hostilities on the territory of the republic were stopped, which saved tens and hundreds of civilian lives, and started a dialogue between the warring parties which ended with negotiations peacemakers of Khasavyurt.

Besides that, you worked for the establishment of an international tribunal for Chechnya.

In 1995-1996 I was one of the organizers of the Public International Tribunal for crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Chechen Republic. The presiding judge was Galina Starovoitova, who was killed for her civilian activity by war supporters. The books have been published for some time and are directly accessible via the Internet. The court worked in accordance with the current Russian Criminal Procedure Code, and the collection of materials and evidence took place in the court. The members of the court were former and current deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, as well as well-known world-famous lawyers, both Russian and foreign. Among the observers were well-known specialists and distinguished diplomats.
By the way, one of the experts was Olof Palme’s brother Klaus Palme, and among the diplomats – the last USSR Foreign Minister Pankin. We have conducted several phases of the judicial investigation both inside and outside Russia and have examined evidence bordering on the genocide of the Chechen people. These judicial investigation materials are published in three printed books and are available on the Internet.

THE GENERAL OF NAUR – MEMORIES OF APTI BATALOV (Part II)

The first meeting with Maskhadov

My first meeting with Aslan Maskhadov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Chechen Republic took place a few days after my appointment. That day I was summoned to Grozny for a meeting of the commanders of the military units. When I arrived in Grozny, I introduced myself to his office, which if I remember correctly was on the second floor of the building that housed the Headquarters. After a short wait I was called by one of his guards and invited to enter. Maskhadov’s office, then still a Colonel, was not large. He was sitting on his desk and writing. I greeted him with the usual Chechen greeting, he got up from his chair and replied with a counter greeting. When he had finished, he looked at me and asked me what the purpose of my visit was.

I introduced myself, and Merzhuyev ‘s order regarding my appointment as Commander of the districts of Naursk and Nadterechny was placed on the table. Maskhadov took the document, read it, crossed out a sentence with his pen and said to me: Have it wright again, I don’t have enough cops. And he gave me back my order. I took the paper and looked at what he had erased. After seeing his correction the blood went to my head, my face started to burn with anger. Maskhadov had ticked “Police Captain”. Holding back the indignation with difficulty, I replied: I did not ask for this position, I will not go to anyone and I will not write anything! To be honest, in a way, I was satisfied with this “entry” into the ChRI authorities. Now I could legitimately refuse my appointment and go home in peace. But as I reached the door Maskhadov called me back: The meeting will start in an hour, please go to the Central Control Center. I didn’t know what he was talking about and so, after taking my leave, I asked a guard what the Central Control Center ( TsKP ) was, and where it was. The guard told me that it was the Central Command Post, and that I could reach it on the first floor of the Presidential Palace, in the right wing. I headed for my destination, keeping the order in my pocket. I still keep it in my personal archive. As I walked, I thought to myself: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The subsequent history of the Republic confirmed the validity of my hypothesis.

False alarms. Luckly!

Between 29 and 30 August , at the Ishcherskaya checkpoint , we arrested a boy of about 25 from the Stavropol District. Subjected to inspection, in his backpack we found a T-shirt, underwear, a black mask and a full-face balaclava, as well as a silk rope of about one meter in length. In his pocket we found a letter which, we discovered, was addressed to his sister. We questioned him about the purpose of his trip to Chechnya, and he replied without hesitation that he had come to join the opposition and protect the Russians from the oppression and violence of the Dudaevites. He said that he had already fought in Yugoslavia, on the side of the Serbs, and that the mask and the rope he had already used there. He said that once he reached his destination he would send the letter to his sister, the only one who loved him, to inform her of his arrival. After detaining him, I called for ad AN – 2 from Khankala delivered him to Grozny. A few days later the “volunteer” was shown on TV and President Dudaev, in front of the reporters, after showing the mask and the cordon, read aloud the “letter from a volunteer”.

As I wrote earlier, all settlements in the region were equipped with radio stations, there was a consolidated link between the district and the village commander’s offices, at any time of day I could contact the commander of each village and know the situation in this settlement. In addition to ensuring the safety of the Naur region from the Avturkhanov opposition, we, through our local supporters in the village of Znamenskoye , who were not few, monitored what was happening in the opposition camp, and relayed reports to Grozny. We had a signalman who knew radio stations well once he served in Afghanistan as radio operator in a GRU sabotage detachment.

One day, the operator tuned in to the opposition radio station in Znamenskoye , and listened to a radio conversation of our opponents that was endlessly repeated: Tonight , at zero – zero, the time X arrives. Fearing to be heard, I decided to deliver the report personally, and went to Grozny myself. Arriving at the Presidential Palace, I went to the Central Command Post, but found no one. It was late at night, but the news was too important, so I went to the sixth (or possibly seventh) floor, where Colonel Merzhuyev ‘s office was located . After listening to me, he confirmed my fears: Apparently tonight, or early in the morning, something will happen. The Ingush [I don’t know who he was referring to] received orders from Moscow to block the Rostov – Baku highway and to keep it ready for the mass advance of military vehicles.

Merzhuyev was visibly agitated by my message. Before leaving, he asked me to warn Abu Arsanukaev , commander of the Presidential Guard, to strengthen security around the Palace. Having found Arsanukaev , I sent him Mershuyev ‘s order , and he began to tinker with the armored vehicle parked at the entrance, a BRDM armed with a machine gun. After a brief check, it became clear that the vehicle’s machine gun was unable to fire. The guards present began to look for an alternative: it seems that a tank was available, stationed around a nearby corner, but that it was unable to move and that they should have towed it.

I thought, disconsolately, about the conversation with Merzhuyev , while observing the readiness or rather, the non-readiness of the defense of the Presidential Palace in the event of an attack. I returned to Ishcherskaya , waiting for the impending attack. Fortunately, neither that day nor the next day did anything happen. A week or two later Mershuyev apparently quit for health reasons.

Musa Merzhuyev (left) attends the Independence Day military parade, September 6, 1993

The hardest two hours of my life

On 23 August 1994 an opposition unit, mounted on trucks and escorted by two T – 64s, appeared near Chernokozovo, a few kilometers from Naurskaya. Waiting for him was a crowd of local residents, led by the Prefect, Aindi Akhaev , who literally seized the tanks, disarmed the avturkhanovites and sent them back, with a promise never to come back armed. Shortly thereafter, I received an ultimatum from Avturkhanov: either we would return the wagons to him and remove the roadblocks, or, in his words, he would march into the district in bloody boots . Receiving no response from us, he sent a messenger and asked me for a meeting on the bridge between Ishcherskaya and Znamenskoye . I accepted, and went to the birdge. Halfway there was a Volga, from which first a tall man with blond hair got out, then Avturkhanov.

We shook hands. His was sweaty, and visibly trembling. I mocked him, asking: What is it, Umar, don’t you have reliable Chechens to use as bodyguards? He muttered back to me, then moved on to threats. He asked me to return the tanks to him, and to my refusal he replied: I’ll give you two hours, otherwise I’ll reduce you to dust! He did not insist again on the dismantling of the roadblock, perhaps he had forgotten. I replied aloud, in Russian: we’ll see who cancels whom. We are waiting for you. I went back to my companions and told them about our conversation. We prepared to repel the attack. Fifteen minutes later, on the other side of the river we noticed a great commotion: civilian cars were massing at the checkpoint, a ZPU-2 anti-aircraft gun had appeared out of nowhere, and its turret rotated left and right, aimed at ours. locations.

The moment was very tense, and some of us started running away. A police officer who was with me along with four of his fellow soldiers stated that he had been urgently recalled to the District Police Department, and that they should leave us. I couldn’t resist, and I let them go. Other militiamen also left. I had to do something, so I ordered one of the tanks we had seized to be placed at the entrance to the Checkpoint, and aimed the gun at our opponents. At the sight of the tank, the opposition militants on the other side began to fidget, running back and forth. Two painful hours passed while we awaited the attack. If there had been a well-organized attack, we would never have been able to keep the bridge. They would have taken the tank back from us, and no one could have helped us. The difference between our forces and theirs was too great, we barely had two magazines each, and neither of us had military experience. If Avturkhanov had persisted, the bridge would have fallen. At the time I did not understand why he considered it so important to enter the Naursk District, being able to use the road from Lomaz – Yurt to Znamenskoye , along the right side of the Terek, to get to Grozny. Only some time ago, in a conversation with a guy who was an opposition militant at the time, I learned that the anti – Dudaevites had trouble getting the equipment through that street, because the inhabitants of Lomaz – Yurt (now Bratskoye ) they were for the most part supporters of Dudaev, and opposed arms in hand to the passing of arms against the government. Avturkhanov wanted to check the bridge in order to use the road on the left bank of the Terek. But these things I learned only later. I was not aware of this at the time, and I did not understand what this opposition showdown was for.

Eventually Avturkhanov gave up. There was no attack. The Avturkhanovites limited themselves to undermining their side of the bridge and damaging it, leaving only a narrow pedestrian passage. That day I learned about who was with me: I was very proud of the companions who remained. To be honest, these two hours were perhaps the hardest hours of my life for me. The most difficult because for the first time, I had to make a decision that could have had serious consequences. In those days the Chechens were not so indifferent to the bloodshed of their compatriots, they were not yet hardened by the hatred due to political differences!

After the war, when I was director of the National Security Service, I learned from an inmate that the Provisional Council had organized the August 23 Raid to try to take over the entire district. The raid on Naurskaya, stopped by Akhaev in Chernokozovo , was supposed to induce the population of the district to surrender, taking the militia behind while they were busy defending the checkpoints. What Avturkhanov’s strategists had not considered was the courage of the people of Naursk and Mekenskaya . They were simple people, but very determined, who with their courage made the plan of our adversaries fail.

Dudaev (left) Maskhadov (centre) Edilov (Right)

VERSIONE ITALIANA

PARTE II

Il primo incontro con Maskhadov

Il mio primo incontro con Aslan Maskhadov, Capo di Stato Maggiore Generale delle Forze Armate della Repubblica Cecena è avvenuto pochi giorni dopo la mia nomina. Quel giorno fui convocato a Grozny per una riunione dei comandanti delle unità militari. Arrivato a Grozny, mi presentai nel suo ufficio, che se non ricordo male si trovava al secondo piano dell’edificio che ospitava il Quartier Generale. Dopo una breve anticamera fui chiamato da una delle sue guardie ed invitato ad entrare. L’ufficio di Maskhadov, allora ancora Colonnello, non era grande. Egli era seduto sulla sua scrivania e scriveva. Lo salutai con il consueto saluto ceceno, lui si alzò dalla sedia e rispose con un contro saluto. Quando ebbe finito di scrivere, mi guardò e mi chiese quale fosse lo scopo della mia visita.

Mi presentai, e l’ordine di Merzhuyev riguardo la mia nomina a Comandante dei distretti di Naursk e Nadterechny gli fu posto sul tavolo. Maskhadov prese il documento, lo lesse, barrò una frase con la penna e mi disse: Fallo rifare, non ho abbastanza poliziotti. E mi restituì l’ordine. Io presi il foglio e guardai che cosa avesse cancellato. Dopo aver visto la sua correzione il sangue mi andò alla testa, il mio viso iniziò a bruciare di eccitazione. Maskhadov aveva barrato “Capitano della Polizia”. Trattenendo a fatica l’indignazione, risposi: Non ho chiesto io questa posizione, non andrò da nessuno e non scriverò nulla! Ad essere onesti, in un certo modo, ero soddisfatto di questo “ingresso” nelle autorità della ChRI. Ora potevo legittimamente rifiutare la mia nomina e tornare a casa in pace. Ma come raggiunsi la porta Maskhadov mi richiamò: La riunione comincerà tra un’ora, fatti trovare al Centro di Controllo Centrale. Io non sapevo di cosa stesse parlando e così, dopo essermi congedato, chiesi ad una guardia che cosa fosse il Centro di Controllo Centrale (TsKP), e dove si trovasse. La guardia mi precisò che si trattava del Posto di Comando Centrale, e che avrei potuto raggiungerlo al primo piano del Palazzo Presidenziale, nell’ala destra.

Dopo aver salutato, mi avviai verso la mia destinazione, tenendo l’ordine in tasca. Lo conservo ancora, nel mio archivio personale. Mentre camminavo, pensai tra me e me: “C’è del marcio in Danimarca”. La successiva storia della Repubblica confermò la validità di questa mia ipotesi.

Falsi allarmi. Per fortuna!

Tra il 29 ed il 30 Agosto, al posto di blocco di Ishcherskaya, fermammo un ragazzo di circa 25 anni proveniente dal Distretto di Stavropol. Sottoposto ad ispezione, nel suo zaino trovammo una maglietta, della biancheria, una maschera nera ed un passamontagna integrale, oltre ad una corda di seta di circa un metro di lunghezza. In tasca gli trovammo una lettera che, scoprimmo, era indirizzata alla sorella. Lo interrogammo riguardo lo scopo del suo viaggio in Cecenia, e lui rispose senza esitazione che era venuto per unirsi all’opposizione e proteggere i russi dall’oppressione e dalla violenza dei dudaeviti. Disse che aveva già combattuto in Jugoslavia, dalla parte dei serbi, e che la maschera e la corda li aveva già usati lì. Disse che una volta giunto a destinazione avrebbe inviato la lettera alla sorella, l’unica che gli volesse bene, per comunicarle il suo arrivo. Dopo averlo trattenuto, feci arrivare un AN – 2 da Khankala e lo feci consegnare a Grozny. Pochi giorni dopo il “volontario” fu mostrato alla TV ed il Presidente Dudaev, davanti ai giornalisti,  dopo aver mostrato la maschera ed il cordone, lesse ad alta voce la “lettera di un volontario”.

Come ho scritto in precedenza, tutti gli insediamenti della regione erano dotati di stazioni radio, c’era un collegamento consolidato tra il distretto e gli uffici del comandante del villaggio, a qualsiasi ora del giorno potevo contattare il comandante Di ogni villaggio e conoscere la situazione in questo insediamento. Oltre a garantire la sicurezza della regione di Naur da parte dell’opposizione di Avturkhanov, noi, attraverso i nostri sostenitori locali nel villaggio di Znamenskoye, che non erano pochi, monitoravamo quanto stava accadendo nel campo dell’opposizione, e trasmettevamo rapporti a Grozny. Avevamo un segnalatore che conosceva bene le stazioni radio, una volta ha attraversato l’Afghanistan dove era un operatore radio in un distaccamento di sabotaggio del GRU.

Un giorno, l’operatore si sintonizzò sulla stazione radio dell’opposizione a Znamenskoye, ed ascoltò una conversazione radio dei nostri avversari che si ripeteva incessantemente: Questa notte, a zero – zero, arriva l’ora X. Temendo che anche le nostre conversazioni fossero ascoltate, decisi di recapitare il rapporto personalmente, e mi recai di persona a Grozny. Giunto al Palazzo Presidenziale, mi recai al Posto di Comando Centrale, ma non trovai nessuno. Era notte fonda, ma la notizia era troppo importante, così mi recai al sesto (o forse al settimo) piano, dove si trovava l’ufficio del Colonnello Merzhuyev. Dopo avermi ascoltato, questi confermò i miei timori: A quanto pare questa notte, o al mattino presto, succederà qualcosa. L’Inguscio [non so a chi si riferisse] ha ricevuto ordini da Mosca di bloccare l’autostrata Rostov – Baku e di tenerla pronta per l’avanzata in massa di mezzi militari.

Merzhuyev era visibilmente agitato dal mio messaggio. Prima di prendere commiato, mi chiese di avvisare Abu Arsanukaev, comandante della Guardia Presidenziale, di rafforzare la sicurezza intorno al Palazzo. Trovato Arsanukaev, gli trasmisi l’ordine di Mershuyev, e questi si mise ad armeggiare con il mezzo blindato parcheggiato all’ingresso, un BRDM armato di mitragliatrice. Dopo un breve controllo, fu chiaro che la mitragliatrice del veicolo non era in grado di sparare. Le guardie presenti si misero a cercare un’alternativa: pare che fosse disponibile un carro armato, appostato dietro ad un angolo lì vicino, ma che non fosse in grado di muoversi e che avrebbero dovuto rimorchiarlo.

Ripensai, sconsolato, alla conversazione con Merzhuyev, mentre osservavo la prontezza o meglio, la non prontezza della difesa del Palazzo Presidenziale in caso di attacco. Tornai ad Ishcherskaya, aspettando l’attacco imminente. Fortunatamente, né quel giorno, né il giorno successivo accadde nulla. Una o due settimane dopo Mershuyev si licenziò a quanto pare per motivi di salute. Non l’ho più visto

Le due ore più difficili della mia vita

Il 23 Agosto 1994 un reparto dell’opposizione, montato su camion e scortato da due T – 64 comparve nei pressi di Chernokozovo, a pochi chilometri da Naur. Ad attenderlo c’era una folla di residenti locali, guidati dal Prefetto, Aindi Akhaev, i quali letteralmente sequestrarono i carri armati, disarmarono gli avturkhanoviti e li rispedirono indietro, con la promessa di non tornare mai più armati. Poco dopo ricevetti un ultimatum da Avturkhanov: o gli restituivamo i carri e rimuovevamo i posti di blocco, oppure, citando le sue parole, egli avrebbe marciato sul distretto con gli stivali insenguinati. Non ricevendo da noi alcuna risposta, inviò un messaggero e mi chiese un incontro sul ponte tra Ishcherskaya e Znamenskoye. Io accettai, e mi recai sul ponte. A metà strada c’era una Volga, dalla quale scese dapprima un uomo alto, coi capelli biondi, poi Avturkhanov.

Ci stringemmo la mano. La sua era sudata, e visibilmente tremante. Lo irrisi, chiedendogli: Che c’è, Umar, non hai ceceni affidabili da usare come guardie del corpo? Quello mi rispose bofonchiando, poi passò alle minacce. Mi chiese di restituirgli i carri armati, e al mio rifiuto rispose: ti do due ore, altrimenti vi riduco in polvere! Non insistette nuovamente sullo smantellamento del posto di blocco, forse se n’era dimenticato. Io gli risposi ad alta voce, in russo: vedremo chi cancellerà chi. Vi aspettiamo. Tornai dai miei compagni e raccontai loro della nostra conversazione. Ci preparammo a respingere l’attacco. Quindici minuti dopo, dall’altra parte del fiume notammo un gran trambusto: auto civili si stavano ammassando al posto di blocco, un cannone antiaereo ZPU – 2 era apparso dal nulla, e la sua torretta ruotava a destra e a sinistra, diretta contro le nostre posizioni.

Il momento era molto teso, ed alcuni di noi iniziarono a darsela a gambe. Un ufficiale di polizia che era con me insieme a quattro suoi commilitoni dichiarò che era stato richiamato urgentemente al Dipartimento di Polizia Distrettuale, e che avrebbero dovuto lasciarci. Non potevo oppormi, e li lasciai partire. Anche altri miliziani se ne andarono. Dovevo fare qualcosa, e allora ordinai che uno dei carri che avevamo sequestrato fosse posizionato all’ingresso del Checkpoint, e che puntasse il cannone contro i nostri avversari.  Alla vista del carro, dall’altra parte i militanti dell’opposizione iniziarono ad agitarsi, correndo avanti e indietro. Passarono due ore dolorose, mentre attendevamo l’attacco. Se ci fosse stato un attacco ben organizzato, non avremmo mai potuto tenere il ponte. Loro ci avrebbero ripreso il carro armato, e nessuno avrebbe potuto aiutarci. La differenza tra le nostre forze e le loro era troppo grande, noi avevamo appena due caricatori a testa, e nessuno di noi aveva esperienza militare. Se Avturkhanov avesse insistito, il ponte sarebbe caduto. Sul momento non capivo perché ritenesse così importante penetrare nel Distretto di Naursk, potendo utilizzare la strada che da Lomaz – Yurt procede pe Znamenskoye, costeggiando il lato destro del Terek, per arrivare a Grozny. Soltanto qualche tempo da, conversando con un tizio che a quel tempo era un militante dell’opposizione, ho saputo che gli anti – dudaeviti avevano problemi a far passare l’equipaggiamento da quella strada, perché gli abitanti di Lomaz – Yurt (oggi Bratskoye) erano per la maggior parte sostenitori di Dudaev, e si opponevano armi in pugno al passaggio di armi contro il governo. Avturkhanov voleva controllare il ponte per poter usare la strada sulla sponda sinistra del Terek. Ma queste cose le ho sapute soltanto dopo. All’epoca non ne ero informato, e non capivo a cosa servisse questa prova di forza da parte dell’opposizione. 

Alla fine Avturkhanov desistette. Non ci fu alcun attacco. Gli avturkhanoviti si limitarono a minare il loro versante del ponte e a danneggiarlo, lasciando soltanto uno stretto passaggio pedonale. Quel giorno imparai a conoscere chi era con me: fui molto orgoglioso dei compagni che erano rimasti. Ad essere sincero, per me  queste due ore sono state forse le ore più difficili della mia vita. Le più difficili perché per la prima volta, dovetti prendere una decisione che avrebbe potuto produrre gravi conseguenze. A quei tempi i ceceni non erano così indifferenti allo spargimento di sangue dei loro compatrioti, non erano ancora induriti dall’odio dovuto alle differenze politiche!

Dopo la guerra, quando ero direttore del Servizio di Sicurezza Nazionale, seppi da un detenuto che il Consiglio Provvisorio aveva organizzato il Raid del 23 Agosto per tentare di impossessarsi dell’intero distretto. Il raid su Naur, fermato da Akhaev a Chernokozovo, avrebbe dovuto indurre la popolazione del distretto ad arrendersi, prendendo la milizia alle spalle mentre era impegnata a difendere i posti di blocco. Quello che gli strateghi di Avturkhanov non avevano considerato era il coraggio delle popolazioni di Naursk e di Mekenskaya. Si trattava di persone semplici, ma molto determinate, che con il loro coraggio fecero fallire il piano dei nostri avversari.

Le parole di Dudaev sull’Ucraina

Nel 1995, durante la Prima Guerra Cecena, Dzhokhar Dudaev rilasciò un’intervista (della quale alleghiamo il link) che, alla luce degli eventi in corso in Ucraina, potremmo definire profetica. Parlando degli appetiti imperiali di Mosca, da lui definiti “Russismo”, Previde uno scontro “mortale” tra Russia e Ucraina. Ne riproponiamo oggi una traduzione in Inglese, a cura di Inna Kurochkina, e la sua trascrizione in italiano.

Of course, Russia’s plans and appetites have been always wide. But they stopped in Afghanistan.

You know, as in a joke: An Ant goes bandaged, and a mosquito asks. “What’s the matter with you, Murik, dear? What happened?” – “Yes … There was a case … I wanted to taste a firefly, but I ran into a cigarette butt.”

That’s how they ran into Afghanistan. And their appetite has waned a bit. And when they failed in Afghanistan, they decided to change their policy, to win Europe over to their side, ideologists and politicians. And Russia started to flirt with Europe. To intensify their influence up to the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, the Bosphorus, the Red Sea, and then slap Europe as well. Then Afghanistan, and then other difficulties, and now also Ichkeria. Ichkeria reduced Russia’s appetite a little, but did not stop.

There will still be a massacre in Crimea. Ukraine will still clash with Russia…deadly…  As long as “Rusism” exists, it will never give up its ambitions. Right now, “Slavic” plan is there … under this brand, they want to crush Ukraine and Belarus again, as in the old days. Russia wants to get stronger. Now no one wants to be with Russia and in an alliance, either in the military… not only in the military… in the economic, and in the political, and even in the trade sense.

Because they have studied well.

TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

Ovviamente, i piani e gli appetiti russi sono sempre stati voraci. Ma furono frustrati in Afghanistan.

Sai, come in quella barzelletta: una formica si aggira, tutta bendata, ed una zanzara gli chiede: “Che ti succede, Murik Caro? Cosa è successo?” – “Si, è successa una cosa…volevo assaggiare una lucciola, ma sono finito addosso ad un mozzicone di sigaretta”

E’ così che finirono in Afghanistan. E il loro appetito fu ridotto un po’. A quando fallirono in Afghanistan, decisero di cambiare la loro politica, per battere l’Europa sul suo terreno, ideologico e politico. E la Russia iniziò a flirtare con l’Europa, per intensificare la sua influenza nell’Oceano Indiano, nel Medio Oriente, nel Bosforo, nel Mar Rosso, per poi prendere a schiaffi per bene l’Europa. Poi l’Afghanistan, e ancora altre difficoltà, e ora anche l’Ichkeria. l’Ichkeria ha ridotto un po’ gli appetiti russi, ma non li ha fermati.

Ci sarà ancora un massacro in Crimea. L’Ucraina si scontrerà nuovamente contro la Russia, mortalmente…finchè esisterà il Russismo, questo non rinuncerà mai alle sue ambizioni. In questo momento, il piano “Slavo” è lì…sotto questo marchio, vogliono schiacciare un’altra volta Ucraina e Bielorussia, come ai vecchi tempi. La Russia vuole diventare più forte. Adesso nessuno vuole stare in un’alleanza con la Russia, nè militare, nè economica, nè politica, nè commerciale.

Perchè hanno studiato bene.

LA VOCE DEL NEMICO: L’ICHKERIA SECONDO TROSHEV (PARTE 1)

Gennady Troshev è stato uno dei protagonisti delle due guerre russo – cecene: comandò le forze federali durante il primo conflitto, guidò la difesa del Daghestan dall’invasione islamista dell’Agosto 1999 e poi di nuovo la seconda invasione della Cecenia. Su questa esperienza ha scritto tre libri: “La mia guerra: Diario di un Generale in Trincea” (2001) “Recidiva Cecena: Note del Comandante” (2003) e “Pausa Cecena: Diari e Ricordi (2008).  Si tratta di raccolte di documenti, resoconti, riflessioni, che fanno somigliare i tre libri più ad un diario personale che ad un memoriale organico.

Troshev fu uno dei più accaniti oppositori della Repubblica Cecena di Ichkeria. Le sue memorie, come vedremo, lasciano trasparire in maniera chiara il suo punto di vista non soltanto come militare, ma anche come funzionario leale alla causa della Federazione Russa, fiero oppositore del secessionismo ceceno e implacabile critico dei suoi leaders. Le sue parole non sono quelle dello storico, o dell’analista politico: forse proprio per questo spiegano in maniera più efficace (in quanto non – neutrale) le ragioni di chi prese le armi contro la ChRI.

Lo slideshow mostra le copertine dei tre libri scritti da Troshev

SERVIZI SEGRETI

Troshev ebbe fin dall’inizio una pessima opinione di Dudaev. Lo considerava come una sorta di “gangster in divisa”, e biasimava il governo russo per averlo indirettamente favorito rispetto a Zavgaev, del quale apprezzava il pragmatismo e la visione di prospettiva. Secondo lui Dudaev aveva avuto più di un alleato “non convenzionale”: il neonato governo Eltsin, come dicevamo, ma anche i servizi segreti di molti paesi, desiderosi a vario titolo di indebolire la posizione della Russia.

“E’ anche assolutamente indiscutibile che molti servizi segreti stranieri abbiano “ereditato” la Cecenia. Soprattutto quelli mediorientali. Sotto la “copertura” di varie compagnie, hanno svolto il loro lavoro praticamente alla luce del sole, con lo scopo non tanto di raccogliere informazioni, quanto di preparare il conflitto militare tra la Cecenia e la Russia. Ciò è dimostrato da numerose intercettazioni di informazioni di intelligence e dalle testimonianze degli stessi agenti. Mosca ha reagito lentamente a queste circostanze. Come mi ha detto a Grozny uno degli alti rappresentanti delle forze dell’ordine russe, questa passività è stata associata alla corruzione dei vertici del governo federale ed all’instabilità della situazione politica nel paese nel suo complesso.”

La guerra, quindi, fu procurata secondo Troshev anche dall’intervento di forze esterne intenzionate ad aumentare l’attrito tra i nazionalisti ceceni ed il governo federale.

Dzokhar Dudaev in abito

IMPREPARAZIONE DELL’ESERCITO FEDERALE

Troshev fu inviato a guidare le unità dell’esercito federale poco dopo l’ingresso delle truppe in Cecenia. Come comandante dovette confrontarsi fin da subito con la carenza organizzativa e morale dell’esercito che era stato inviato a guidare.

“l’operazione [l’assalto a Grozny, ndr.] è iniziata il 31 dicembre 1994. Secondo alcuni generali l’iniziativa per l’assalto “festivo” di Capodanno sarebbe stata ideata da persone appartenenti alla cerchia ristretta del Ministero della Difesa, desiderose di far coincidere la cattura della città con il compleanno di Pave Sergeevich [Grachev, Ndr.]. Non so quanto ci sia di vero qui, ma il fatto che l’operazione sia stata davvero preparata in fretta, senza una reale valutazione delle forze e dei mezzi del nemico è un dato di fatto. Non si fece in tempo neanche a dare un nome all’operazione.

Sulla base dei dati operativi sul gruppo a difesa della città, era necessario avere almeno 50/60 mila persone per l’assalto. Questi calcoli hanno una propria logica, dimostrata dall’esperienza storica. […] Al 3 Gennaio non c’erano più di cinquemila persone a Grozny e, lasciatemelo ricordare, c’erano il doppio dei militanti!

Le comunicazioni radio nelle unità che assaltavano Grozny erano quasi paralizzate a causa della confusione che regnava nell’aria. Non c’era praticamente alcuna integrazione tra le unità, l’inesperienza affliggeva la maggior parte dei guidatori dei carri armati e dei veicoli da combattimento per fanteria. […] Colonne miste (automobili e mezzi blindati) si allungavano su strade strette senza margini di manovra. Di conseguenza, fanteria ed equipaggiamento furono colpiti dagli edifici a bruciapelo. I comandanti, a partire dal comandante di battaglione a seguire, in realtà non avevano una mappa di Grozny, da qui le frequenti “interruzioni” del percorso, e la perdita di orientamento. E se qualcuno aveva le mappe, erano nella migliore delle ipotesi modelli del 1980, molto obsoleti e mancanti di interi microdistretti.

I numeri citati da Troshev riguardo la consistenza delle unità attaccanti non devono essere mal interpetati: per lui erano da considerarsi unità combattenti soltanto gli uomini inquadrati nell’esercito, e tra questi soltanto i reparti che guidarono il primo assalto alla città. L’opinione del Generale qui è sostanzialmente quella sostenuta dalla maggior parte degli analisti militari: l’invasione della Cecenia e l’assalto a Grozny furono improvvisati e guidati dalla convinzione che una semplice prova di forza sarebbe bastata a far fuggire i separatisti.

CRIMINI DI GUERRA

La Prima Guerra Cecena vide la Russia sconfitta prima di tutto sul fronte dell’informazione. Impreparati a gestire la mediaticità dei nuovi conflitti, i comandi russi si trovarono a doversi proteggere da un fuoco di critiche, essendo incapaci di seguire un’efficace strategia comunicativa. Il fulcro della propaganda separatista furono i costanti resoconti delle atrocità commesse dall’esercito federale, ma soprattutto dalla polizia OMON, sui civili ceceni. Nelle sue memorie Troshev racconta una sua versione dei crimini di guerra compiuti dai separatisti, dei quali i media e l’opinione pubblica sembravano, a suo parere, non curarsi:

“Uno degli spettacoli preferiti dai militanti della prima guerra erano i combattimenti tra schiavi. Penso che valga la pena menzionare anche questo. I militanti spesso organizzavano qualcosa di simile ai combattimenti di gladiatori: se vinci vivrai, se perdi, tu stesso avrai scelto la morte. Per salvarsi la vita alcuni dei prigionieri hanno accettato di convertirsi all’Islam. Successivamente i “convertiti” hanno affermato nelle interviste che essere musulmani significava servire la verità, che la Russia era un aggressore che stava compiendo un’ingiusta azione in Cecenia, e che i ceceni (cioè i banditi) erano giusti, stavano conducendo una guerra santa contro gli infedeli. […] L’adozione dell’Islam era cosparsa di sangue: prima di accettare l’Islam il prigioniero doveva sparare o pugnalare il suo compagno di prigionia […].

Anche rispetto agli eccessi compiuti dai militari russi, Troshev aveva una sua idea piuttosto chiara: i “suoi” uomini si comportarono sempre piuttosto bene, e laddove ci furono crimini, questi furono compiuti essenzialmente dalle unità dipendenti dal Ministero degli Interni, e dalla Polizia OMON:

“La prolungata presenza di truppe federali nei punti di schieramento, la passività nel disarmo dei gruppi di banditi e l’aumento del numero delle cosiddette perdite non combattenti hanno avuto un effetto deprimente sul personale. I casi di saccheggi sono diventati più frequenti, sempre più spesso si è cominciato a licenziare “soldati a contratto” per ubriachezza… […] Di quali standard etici possiamo parlare se i residenti di alcuni insediamenti classificano le forze federali a modo loro “per gradi”? Il primo scaglione combatte principalmente i banditi e condivide pane e cibo in scatola con i civili (si tratta principalmente di uomini dell’esercito). Il secondo scaglione fa una “pulizia”, non condivide nulla, ma non entra in casa finchè non lancia una granata per ogni evenienza, schiacciando tutto ciò che gli sta intorno (truppe interne). Il terzo “scaglione” passa per il villaggio con grandi borse in spalla e ruba tutto ciò che ha valora dai residenti locali (questa è principalmente la polizia). Questo “scaglionamento”, ripeto, non è stato inventato da me o dal quartier generale delle forze federali. Questa è la terminologia dei civili in Cecenia. Non voglio denigrare i rappresentanti delle truppe interne e della polizia (sono nostri fratelli d’armi) ma non ho nemmeno il diritto di chiudere gli occhi su tali fatti, poiché queste rapine possono in un attimo annullare enormi sforzi e vittorie di tutte le forze federali, compreso il Ministero degli Affari Interni, ottenute nelle battaglie con i banditi.”

Militari russi posano davanti ad una abitazione data alle fiamme.

ORGANIZZAZIONE MILITARE DEI SEPARATISTI

A dispetto dell’immagine descritta a posteriore dai separatisti, secondo la quale l’esercito dei difensori era poco più che un’accozzaglia di giovani volontari armati alla meno peggio e animati soltanto dal sacro dovere di resistere, Troshev descrive quanto invece, secondo lui, il fronte militare avversario forze forte e ben organizzato (nonché fiancheggiato da migliaia di mercenari), e di quanto difficile sarebbe stato per qualsiasi esercito piegarlo in battaglia:

Al 1° Marzo 1995 il numero totale del personale dei gruppi armati illegali, escluse le potenziali riserve nelle zone montuose, raggiungeva più di novemila persone, tra le quali più di tremilacinquecento erano mercenari e volontari provenienti dall’estero, vicino e lontano. Erano armati con più di 20 carri armati, 35 veicoli blindati per il trasporto della fanteria, 40 cannoni e mortai, 5 – 7 installazioni GRAD, 20 sistemi antiaerei. Allo stesso tempo, nel solo mese di Febbraio, il numero dei veicoli corazzati è raddoppiato a seguito delle riparazioni avviate nelle rimesse di Shali e Gudermes, ed anche la fornitura di armi attraverso Azerbaijan e Georgia è aumentata. I dudaeviti continuarono a raggruppare le loro forze ed i loro mezzi, preparandosi per le future battaglie. L’attenzione principale era posta al rafforzamento della difesa dei fronti di Gudermes e Shali. I gruppi militanti, qui, sono diventati i principali, poiché il baricentro della resistenza alle truppe federali si era spostato nelle regioni orientali e sudorientali della Repubblica. […] I militanti avevano preparato le basi con armi, munizioni, medicinali e cibo in anticipo, il che permise loro di condurre operazioni di combattimento in autonomia per lungo tempo. Nell’Est della Repubblica spiccavano le unità di difesa di Argun, Shali e Gudermes. La posizione geografica militarmente favorevole e la presenza di barriere d’acqua ramificate […] rafforzava i già potenti centri di resistenza. Ad esempio, la piazzaforte di Shali includeva due linee di difesa ben separate. La prima, su entrambe le rive del fiume Argun, sul lato di Chechen – Aul, Starye Atagi e Belgatoy. La seconda dentro Shali e nei sobborghi più vicini, con una rete sviluppata di strade di accesso che consentiva al nemico, se necessario, di manovrare prontamente con uomini e mezzi. Secondo le nostre informazioni qui erano concentrati fino a 1700 militanti, carri armati, artiglieria e mortai, oltre a diversi lanciarazzi. Non era escluso che da un momento all’altro potessero essere supportati da distaccamenti di militanti (fino a 500 persone) con attrezzatura provenienti dalla regione di Vedeno e dagli insediamenti di Kurchaloy e Avtury.

DOPO BUDENNOVSK

Il Raid su Budennovsk fu l’evento che determinò una svolta radicale nel primo conflitto ceceno. L’azione, ideata a portata a termine da Basayev e dai suoi luogotenenti, costrinse il governo federale a negoziare un cessate – il – fuoco, creando le premesse di quella “strana guerra” che, trascinandosi fino all’autunno del 1995, avrebbe permesso ai separatisti di riorganizzarsi e di preparare la riscossa del 1996.

“Avendo abbandonato il confronto diretto e utilizzando un accordo su un cessate il fuoco reciproco, i militanti hanno fatto affidamento sulle tattiche di guerriglia, del sabotaggio e delle attività terroristiche. Molti uomini ceceni ripresero nuovamente le armi. In montagna di formarono gruppi per compiere sabotaggi, vennero create nuove basi dei militanti, dove venivano addestrati i sabotatori. In particolari, “scuole” simili erano situate nelle vicinanze di Bamut, di Orekhov, di Roshni – Chu. Un centro di formazione operava sul territorio della vicina Inguscezia – presso il dipartimento regionale degli affari interni della regione di Dzheyrakh, nell’edificio del sanatorio “Armkhi”. Durante la moratoria, il comando dei militanti provenienti da distaccamenti sparsi e demoralizzati è riuscito a riunire quattro gruppi relativamente grandi, rifornirli di “volontari”, armi e munizioni, ripristinare il sistema di controllo e dispiegare un nuovo sistema di comunicazione cellulare.

Alla fine di Agosto i gruppi di banditi, fino a cinquemila, si erano concentrati in quattro regioni principali: est, sud, ovest e centro. Erano armati con 10 carri armati, 12/14 veicoli da combattimento per la fanteria e veicoli blindati, 15/16 cannoni e mortai, diversi lanciarazzi a lancio multiplo, due dozzine di sistemi missilistici antiaerei. Attrezzature e armi arrivavano dall’estero attraverso Azerbaijan, Georgia e Inguscezia. La comunicazione tra i posti di controllo dei gruppi armati illegali era garantita da un sistema ad onde ultracorte a sette frequenze fisse, utilizzando stazioni radio della società Motorola. Per garantire la segretezza, il comando militare cambiò i nominativi degli ufficiali e dei comandanti sul campo che lavoravano nella rete radio del controllo operativo.

Mentre le nostre truppe erano sulle montagne, il nemico iniziò a ritirare le sue truppe nella pianure, inclusa Grozny. Gli attacchi con armi leggere, mortai e lanciagranate ai posti di blocco e alle basi dei federali non si fermava, La “guerra contro le mine” si svolgeva su larga scala. Anche nel processo di consegna delle armi da parte della popolazione, i militanti cercavano di ottenere il massimo beneficio per loro stessi: portavano per lo più armi vecchie o difettose e ricevevano una discreta ricompensa in denaro per ogni carico. Poi persone fidate dei militanti compravano armi nuove ai bazar con questo denaro. Questa è una scena abbastanza tipica. Si capiva sempre più chiaramente che gli accordi firmati con i capi delle formazioni di banditi erano una formalità, e non venivano praticamente rispettati.

Da sinistra a destra: Isa Madae (con il basco)v, Gennady Troshev (con il cappello), Aslan Maskhadov

IL SUPPORTO DELLA DIASPORA ALLA RESISTENZA CECENA

Contrariamente a quanto affermato dai separatisti, Troshev valutava come “determinante” l’appoggio fornito dai sostenitori esterni alla resistenza armata. Si riferiva certamente non soltanto alle donazioni volontarie dei ceceni all’estero, ma anche al supporto interessato dei governi in attrito con la Russia, e dai loro servizi segreti. In questo passo Troshev parla delle organizzazioni appartenenti alla diaspora Vaynakh che sostenevano i dudaeviti durante la Prima Guerra Cecena e della resistenza durante la Seconda:

“Caratteristiche distintive dei membri delle diaspore cecene sia nei pasi della CSI che nel lontano estero sono il pregiudizio anti  -russo, tradizioni storiche e religiose comuni, idee ed obiettivi nazionalisti, il che determina il loro sostegno al movimento separatista in Cecenia. La diaspora cecena in Turchia, ad esempio, è una delle più numerose, contando oltre trentamila persone, alcune delle quali occupano posizioni di rilievo nei più alti organi statali e nelle forze armate. Secondo le stime circa 50.000 Vaynakh si trovano in Giordania, Siria ed Iraq. Una colonia cecena di diverse decine di migliaia di persone risiede permanentemente negli Emirati Arabi Uniti. Ci sono circa 2.000 ceceni in Israele. Nelle aree nelle quali la loro presenza è più massiccia i ceceni dimostrano un alto livello di coesione nazionale con i loro compatrioti nella loro terra natale. Subito dopo l’inizio della seconda campagna militare cecena, diversi milioni di dollari sono stati inviati solo dall’Arabi Saudita ai “fratelli della fede”: Un altro tipo di assistenza è il reclutamento di mercenari tra i rappresentanti delle diaspore negli stati del Vicino e Medio Oriente.

Le diaspore cecene sono le più influenti e organizzate nelle repubbliche che facevano parte dell’ex Unione Sovietica. I loro rappresentanti in Bielorussia, Ucraina, Moldavia e Kazakistan mantengono legami con la Cecenia. Queste connessioni sono spesso di natura criminale. In particolare, i “nuovi ceceni” forniscono assistenza finanziaria a gruppi armati illegali. Secondo le forze dell’ordine, una delle fonti di reddito per i “gruppi ceceni” sono i contributi degli imprenditori locali. Anche durante il conflitto armato del 1994 – 1996, le comunità cecene della CSI hanno pagato la cosiddetta “tassa volontaria sugli aiuti ai fratelli belligeranti”. In Kazakistan, ad esempio, questa ha raggiunto il 10% del reddito della diaspora nazionale. Secondo alcuni rapporti, dal 25 al 50 percento dei profitti delle attività degli uomini d’affari ceceni sarebbero stati inviati in Cecenia.

In Russia la diaspora cecena conta circa cinquecentomila persone. Non è un segreto che la maggior parte dei suoi rappresentanti sia coinvolta nel business criminale. Controllano il commercio dei prodotti petroliferi, i servizi ai consumatori, la ristorazione pubblica e la lavorazione dei prodotti agricoli. In alcune regione della Russia, addirittura, controllano completamente l’attività del prestito, ed in alcuni casi influenzano i rappresentanti delle autorità locali. Ci sono prove che nella stessa Russia ci siano banche e aziende che sono state impegnate in transazioni fraudolente nel settore monetario.

Uno  dei partecipanti al finanziamento illegale dei gruppi armati illegali era la Transcreditbank, con sede a Mosca. Secondo la Direzione principale per la Lotta alla Criminalità Organizzata del Ministero degli Affari Interni della Federazione Russa, la direzione della banca ha partecipato alle attività di legalizzazione dei proventi criminali, incassando fondi e incanalandoli verso i combattenti ceceni. Secondo il GUBOP, ogni giorno sono stati incassati fino a cinque milioni di dollari attraverso società appositamente create. E questo è tutt’altro che un esempio isolato.

Alexander Lebed ed Aslan Maskhadov si scambiano una stretta di mano a seguito degli Accordi Di Khasavyurt

GLI ACCORDI DI KHASAVYURT

Troshev fu molto critico verso l’approccio accomodante assunto dal governo federale nei confronti dei Ceceni, durante le trattative che portarono alla firma degli Accordi di Khasavyurt. Nelle sue memorie il Generale russo riporta un aneddoto e le sue riflessioni:

“Gli accordi di Khasavyurt hanno stretto ancora di più il nodo dei problemi caucasici. Difficilmente Alexander Lebed, mettendo la sua firma, avrebbe potuto credere che i militanti si sarebbero disarmati ed avrebbero fermato le loro attività illegali. Le nostre unità militari erano ancora sul territorio della Cecenia, ed i leader di Ichkeria avevano già iniziato a ricostruire il loro esercito, svolgendo l’addestramento dei futuri terroristi in apposite scuole e campi di sabotaggio.

A metà del 1997 in un campo di addestramento di Grozny si consegnarono i “diplomi”. Salman Raduev si rivolse ai diplomati. Cito quasi integralmente il suo discorso, perché è molto simbolico ed ha un carattere programmatico.

“Fratelli, oggi lasciate le mura della nostra scuola. Per quattro mesi i vostri insegnanti vi hanno insegnato l’arte del sabotaggio, della corruzione, della diffusione di voci e molto altro. Avete preso tutti parte alla guerra, santa per l’indipendenza di Ichkeria, e non importa che tra voi non ci siano solo ceceni e musulmani, Ichkeria è diventata comunque la loro vera patria, hanno versato il loro sangue nella lotta per la libertà, vivono secondo le leggi della Sharia, sono nostri fratelli.

Ora Mosca sta cercando di convincere tutti che ci darà il mondo. Non ci credo, così come né Shamil [Basayev, ndr] né Aslan [Maskhadov, ndr] ne molti altri, che hanno guadagnato l’indipendenza con le armi in pugno, ci credono. Tutte le promesse di Mosca sui finanziamenti non sono altro che chiacchiere per stupidi. Il denaro trasferito attraverso le banche russe finirà nelle tasche dei funzionari. Aslan è fantastico. Tiene Eltsij per il naso e, probabilmente, riuscirà ad ottenere i soldi per la nostra banca nazionale. E anche se non ci riuscisse, va bene. Non abbiamo bisogno dei soldi russi. Ci verranno dati da alcuni paesi europei, oltre a Pakistan, Afghanistan e Iran. Da loro riceveremo denaro, armi ed equipaggiamento militare per armare il nostro esercito. Si, e tra i più alti funzionari russi ce ne sono molti pronti a venderci armi, cibo, uniformi […].

Le nostre richieste: completa indipendenza politica di Ichkeria. La Russia, in quanto parte sconfitta in guerra, è obbligata a pagare un’indennità. Ogni centesimo. Senza condizione. Di coloro che hanno sostenuto Mosca nella guerra, ci occuperemo con la Legge della Shari […].

Già domani alcuni di voi inizieranno a svolgere i loro incarichi. Il vostro compito è seminare terrore mortale tra coloro che hanno venduto Allah. Devono sentire la mano fredda della morte ogni ora. Tra tutti i militari che sono ancora sul nostro territorio è necessario seminare confusione e paura. Prendete in ostaggio, e uccideteli. Allah perdonerà tutto, non prestate attenzione alle grida dei politici: questa non è altro che una cortina sonora.

Un compito speciale per chi si stabilisce in Russia e negli stati limitrofi. Il vostro compito è infiltrarvi nelle strutture di potere, negli organi amministrativi e finanziari. Il vostro compito e destabilizzare la situazione, l’economia e le finanze. Create basi, selezionate persone, non dovrete aspettare  a lungo. Se Ichkeria non riceverà la completa libertà e indipendenza entro la primavera, colpiremo quasi tutte le grandi città industriali.

[…] Dovete gettare fango su quei russi che sono patriottici. E’ molto facile accusarli di fascismo, antisemitismo e nazionalismo. Quelli tra i Gentili che vogliono stare sotto al Sacra Bandiera del Profeta devono essere battezzati con il sangue. Allora non avranno modo di tornare indietro. […].