Rating: 
Summary: chienne de la propagande de guerre
Review: In the spring of 1999 the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia over Kosovo changed the global political landscape in some unintended ways. The world most powerful military alliance went to war, throwing all its might, as an ally of a fairly ordinary guerilla insurgency, not much different from dozens of other separatist movements in various parts of the globe. This was not, of course, the first time a tinpot rebel group was used in a power play in bigger political games. The unusual part was little evidence of any truly strategic interests in that adventure, as opposed to purely opportunistic reasons, such as to demonstrate NATO usefulness in the eve of its 50-th anniversary celebration in April '99, or for Clinton to exorcize ghosts of his humiliation after impeachment over Monica affair. This immediately gave boost to various militant separatists all over the world. In May '99 Pakistan-supported Kashmere rebels launched their biggest offensive in decades against India in Carghil region; East Timor went in flames that summer, with large loss of life and hundreds thousands people uprooted from their homes; from Sri Lanka to Columbia all kinds of militants increased their activity. Ironically, Turkey, itself a participant of NATO operation in Kosovo allegedly to protect ethnic minority, in the spring of 1999 carried the most intensive attacks in years against Kurdish guerillas, with frequent incursions into northern Iraq, where Kurds were supposedly protected from Saddam army by international forces. Another place, where the war in Kosovo coincided with upsurge of violence and separatism, was Chechnya. After Russian withdrawal in September 1996, Chechnya, while relieved of large-scale fighting, quickly descended into lawlessness, hotbed of the most radical Islamic extremism and bloody turf war between local warlords. It largely disappeared from western media radars, except for occasional reports of yet another gruesome murder of some missionary or aid workers (of which the killings of six Red Cross employees and kidnapping and beheading of four British telecommunication engineers are the most known examples). Early 1999 saw rapid increase in incursions of bands from Chechnya into neighboring regions, mainly Daghestan and Stavropol. Some of it was just petty crime, such as stealing of a few cows from surrounding villages by Chechen peasants whose economy collapsed since 'independence'. But others were much more aggressive raids to stoke further separatism and inflame the war in the neighboring Muslim communities of other ethnic groups. Finally, in August 1999 Chechen warlords launched a full-scale invasion of several thousand rebels into mountainous areas of Daghestan, which precipitated Russian response and the second Chechen war. Since 1996 Chechnya wasn't a good place for journalists. During the 1994-96 war Chechen rebel government understood very well the role of propaganda and media coverage, and spend a great deal of efforts on courting both Russian and western reporters. After the war, as near-anarchy set in, journalists became expendable. Many of them that ventured there after the August 96 were kidnapped for ransom, including those that provided very sympathetic coverage to separatist cause during the war. For example, Elena Masyuk of Russian NTV channel, who invariably painted a romantic picture of 'warriors for independence' during her 1994-96 war coverage, was herself kidnapped with her crew members in 1997 and held in horrible conditions by thugs who only laughed when she reminded how she supported their side during the war. Dozens of other journalists from Russia and western countries went through similar ordeal, several were murdered. Now, in the late 1999, as Russian troops moved quickly to repel two invasions into Daghestan and started bombing militant camps in Chechnya itself, situation changed again ' with rebel forces suddenly in need of a few good propagandists. Or, at least, willing ones, as they found in A. Nivat. She arrived first in September 1999 into Daghestan in the areas of recent fighting, with explicitly stated purpose to refute the Russian government version of events. When she didn't find much to support her 'refutation', in particular that the invasion had very little popular support among local ethnic groups that Chechen bands claimed to 'liberate' from Russian 'oppression', and that citizens there overwhelmingly favored strong military actions against rebel forces, A. Nivat simply dropped the subject completely, almost in mid-sentence. As Russian troops moved against militant strongholds in Chechnya itself, she entered Chechnya incognito, without official approval. This was courageous move, of course, which she should be given credit for, although she was probably in less danger than most other journalists before her in the previous few years, when kidnapping and even murder was a likely outcome. She was constantly protected by rebel soldiers and operatives. She avoided being in the middle of bombing or fighting, although was close enough to hear the explosions, or encounter wounded guerilla soldiers streaming from areas of recent fighting. There is no question that many civilians are suffering in this war, but still the author presents too one-sided view of the events. When she tries simply to describe facts, without ideological preconditions, they form somewhat different picture. For example, she often mentions the infamous 'cleansing' operations in Chechen villages by Russian troops, invariably cited for terrible abuses. But the only time ' mentioned almost as a slip of a tongue ' when she actually came in contact with Russian special forces during one such 'cleansing', it didn't look anything like pillage and destruction. Russian soldiers were polite, didn't hurt anybody and their only 'looting' was taking several videocassettes (leaving receipts for them) to check for the presence of rebel propaganda or evidence of their attacks, training or torture of prisoners. So much for 'indiscriminate brutality' ' the staple of reporting about such operations in the western media. This is the first book about the second Chechen war, and some weaknesses can be excused. Still, it all too often leaves out any inconvenient facts and does not have a minimum degree of objectivity and impartiality to be sufficiently credible.
Rating: 
Summary: Opening Our Eyes
Review: It is helpful, painful and beautiful to read more than a "soundbite" about an awful, complicated and very real conflict. In a time when we simplify everything to deal with volume and complexity, Anne Nivat digs a little deeper. She gives us a messy, human tragedy.Ragged at times, really reading like a journal, Nivat's on-the-ground views and emotions of a country at war remind those of us snug in our homes that the world continues to rage and at a very dear price.
Rating: 
Summary: Getting the true story
Review: It's amazing to think that this account of war correspondence could be true, but it is! It reads more like a thriller. Anne Nivat is 'the real thing' as far as journalists go - willing to defy Russian restrictions on the press and sneak into Chechnya many times in disguise and without credentials to get the true story. Over the course of this ongoing Muslim rebel conflict in the Caucuses mountains, she reported about both the Russian and Chechan sides, showing us how this alleged anti-terrorist operation is demolishing the lives and spirits of the citizens of Chechnya. She dodged bombs, terrorist kidnappers, and minefields to find rebels, mothers, soldiers, whoever could explain to the outside world what was really happening under the smokescreen of fictional Russian government press reports. Nivat's reporting has had a profound impact on European public opinion, and this memoir will have a profound impact on any reader who cares about doing whatever it takes to defy propaganda and get to the truth.
Rating:
Summary: A French reporter's view on the War in Chechnya.
Review: Ms. Nivat reports on the War in Chechnya by way of traveling with the civilians and rebels of this war torn province of Russia. Civilians are indeed the victims of any war, and there is no difference in this conflict. I would say that perhaps the Russians were more brutal than other nations. Their targeting of civilian centers by artillery and air bombing turned many of the Chechen civilians against the Federation of Russia. Nivat is very sympathetic to the Chechens. She has been treated kindly by them. She makes frequent mention of the Wahabbis (Islam Fundamentalists) and even describes the terror of these fighters.
Present day knowledge shows that many Chechen Fundamentalists fought and died for the Taliban of Afghanistan. Chechens themselves have been accused of killing and beheading foreigners helping the civilians of Chechnya. Knowledge of this makes me think Nivat could have been a victim of a Chechen crime. Sympathy for the civilians is one thing, supporting Chechen Fundamentalists is another. Chechens invading other provinces of the Russian state and bombing apartment buildings does not give me much sympathy with the goal of this ethnic group. Nivat has too much sympathy for the civilians and overlooks the killing of the rebels. This was (is) a fierce war, and both parties don't look too appealing.
Rating:
Summary: A French reporter's view on the War in Chechnya.
Review: Ms. Nivat reports on the War in Chechnya by way of traveling with the civilians and rebels of this war torn province of Russia. Civilians are indeed the victims of any war, and there is no difference in this conflict. I would say that perhaps the Russians were more brutal than other nations. Their targeting of civilian centers by artillery and air bombing turned many of the Chechen civilians against the Federation of Russia. Nivat is very sympathetic to the Chechens. She has been treated kindly by them. She makes frequent mention of the Wahabbis (Islam Fundamentalists) and even describes the terror of these fighters.
Present day knowledge shows that many Chechen Fundamentalists fought and died for the Taliban of Afghanistan. Chechens themselves have been accused of killing and beheading foreigners helping the civilians of Chechnya. Knowledge of this makes me think Nivat could have been a victim of a Chechen crime. Sympathy for the civilians is one thing, supporting Chechen Fundamentalists is another. Chechens invading other provinces of the Russian state and bombing apartment buildings does not give me much sympathy with the goal of this ethnic group. Nivat has too much sympathy for the civilians and overlooks the killing of the rebels. This was (is) a fierce war, and both parties don't look too appealing.
Rating:
Summary: Chechnya: The Roaring Silence
Review: The two wars Russia has launched to reconquer Chechnya(or Ichkeria in local parlance),after reneging on a promise to allow de facto and then de jure independence, have cost an estimated 60,000 to chechen civilian 100,000 lives. Yet, we in the West hear almost nothing of one of the great genocides of our time, compared to Bosnia and Kosovo.Why not? Because unlike those two other cases of ethnic cleansing the Muslims have a CAUSE in this war, beyond survival: the rebels(mujahideen)want to set up an Islamic Republic, making them pariahs to both liberals and conservatives in Europe and the United States.Even author Anne Nivat is not immune from this stigma: she shared physical hardship to report from inside Chechnya for the Paris daily LIBERATION, yet she is not sympathetic to the rebels;for her ending the war is the only priority,but she never tells us how this can happen short of a mujahideen victory. Final verdict:the book is good grounds for indicting Russian President Putin. George Bush's pal, as a war criminal at the Hague.Hang him high!
Rating: 
Summary: Next time in Aphganistan about nice talibs
Review: This books reads absolutely different after September, 11. What reads like a romantic and eye opening book about nice Chechens who are only guilty of being too free sounds really disgusting today. Mrs. Nivat doesn't mention that the second Chechen war started actually not when Chechen islamists (Khattab and Basayev) invaded Russia but after Moscow, Buynaksk and Volgodonsk apartment blocks bombings that killed hundreds of people. "They didn't deliver proof that Chechens did it." Yes, Anne, only one or two of them were Chechens - others were islamic extremists who found shelter in Chechnya. "Bombing was a pretext to fight peaceful Chechens". When Russia demanded that Chechnya gives up extremists responsible for bombing attacks, Chechnya's President Maskhadov cynically responded that until Russia gives up generals responsible for the 1st Chechen was, extremists are under protection of Islamic Respublic of Ichkeria. Then come Putin's ultimatum: "We are at war with terrorists. Any nation that gives shelter to them is our enemy". Like "poor" talibs - Chechens were only guilty of sheltering terrorists.
I imagine some years later Mrs.Nivat writing a book about nice and friendly talibs and about all horrible attrocities (never actually witnessed herself) Americans do to them.
Rating:
Summary: a human tragedy
Review: This is another of those works whose content takes on new significance after Sept. 11, 2001. Prior to those events, Western public opinion of Moscow's handling of Chechnya was overwhelmingly critical. The Chechen conflict was usually described as a "dirty war". In order to garner international sympathy for the plight of Chechen civilians caught between Islamist extremists and Russian Federal forces, Ms. Nivat clandestinely infiltrated the battlezone. She risked arrest by the Russians, kidnap and torture by the rebels, and death in the crossfire as she conducted her interviews with the populace. Any humane reader will grieve for the suffering of the innocents. But like many antiwar treatices, "Chienne de Guerre" wears its heart on its sleeve and conveniently neglects to tell the whole story: After having won de-facto autonomy, Chechnya rapidly became a region of abysmal poverty and lawlessness. Its leadership, divided by power-struggles between warlords and religious extremists, descended into anarchy. In a close parallel with Afghanistan, Wahhabists gained control. Eventually, these "rebels" began making incursions into neighboring Russian republics. Rebel-occupied Daghestan appealed to Moscow for assistance. Daghestanis, although Muslim, vehemently reject the Wahhabi sect of Chechen Islamists. After Russian Federal troops had freed one Daghestani town, its residents held a meeting to determine the fate of the Wahhabi mosque the Chechens had erected there. The mayor favored razing it, but several townsmen suggested converting it into a strip-club -- "since that would disgrace it more". This anecdote demonstrates the depth of Daghestani hatred. It was the Chechen invasion of Daghestan, followed by a series of terrorist bombings in Moscow, which provoked the second armed response. Like their Taliban counterparts, Chechen Wahhabist rebels have been unaverse to using noncombatants as human shields, and callously exploit civilian casualties for propaganda. This willingness to sacrifice innocent lives did not endear the rebels to the populace whose "cause" they were ostensibly defending. Enter the naively pro-Chechen Anne Nivat. Even she distrusted the motives of the rebels, although at the time their alliance with al-Qaeda was still generally unknown. Since 9-11, Chechen complicity in international terrorism has been widely exposed, and all pretense on the part of rebel mujahedin abandoned. Chechen websites today proudly boast allegiance to bin Laden, post videotaped torture and executions, and make threats against Russian, American, and Israeli targets. Mujahedin leaders defiantly reject any political or diplomatic reconciliation: the only solution they advocate is jihad. Violent terrorist acts, such as the bombing of a Daghestani Veterans Day parade and the raid on a Moscow theater have become increasingly commonplace. Likewise, Chechen-run terrorist training camps and Chechen/al-Qaeda terrorist plots have been uncovered in France, Pakestan, and Afghanistan. Foreign-born Wahhabists now openly direct the Chechen rebel leadership. Talib influence was unmistakable during the Moscow theater siege, in which numerous burka-clad, explosives-wired female terrorists, the so-called "Black Widows", participated. Under Wahhabism, the only way for women to obtain Paradise (and possibly reunite with fallen husbands) is by martyrdom in jihad. President Bush no longer criticizes Putin's handling of Chechnya, but supports the Russian War on Terrorism. The US military, on the other hand, has never criticized. For several years, the American military has closely observed the fighting in Grozniy, and has been practicing urban warfare in deserted bases throughout California. Our military has acknowledged that similar US urban action could result in the same discouraging casualty rate experienced by the Russians -- and with a similar, unavoidable civilian toll. The relevance, post-911, of "Chienne de Guerre" is its documentation of that enormous human tragedy. But, as was the case of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, Chechen civilians are suspected of supporting terrorists. (Albeit, as Nivat writes, often reluctantly.) So much so, though, that Chechens -- unlike Albanian, Somali, and other Muslim victims of aggression -- have not been permitted refugee status in the West. In closing, I would say this book is probably the best and least biased on the subject. But a mere year has provided new light and different perceptions on this "dirty war".
Rating:
Summary: a human tragedy
Review: This is another of those works whose content takes on new significance after Sept. 11, 2001. Prior to those events, Western public opinion of Moscow's handling of Chechnya was overwhelmingly critical. The Chechen conflict was usually described as a "dirty war". In order to garner international sympathy for the plight of Chechen civilians caught between Islamist extremists and Russian Federal forces, Ms. Nivat clandestinely infiltrated the battlezone. She risked arrest by the Russians, kidnap and torture by the rebels, and death in the crossfire as she conducted her interviews with the populace. Any humane reader will grieve for the suffering of the innocents. But like many antiwar treatices, "Chienne de Guerre" wears its heart on its sleeve and conveniently neglects to tell the whole story: After having won de-facto autonomy, Chechnya rapidly became a region of abysmal poverty and lawlessness. Its leadership, divided by power-struggles between warlords and religious extremists, descended into anarchy. In a close parallel with Afghanistan, Wahhabists gained control. Eventually, these "rebels" began making incursions into neighboring Russian republics. Rebel-occupied Daghestan appealed to Moscow for assistance. Daghestanis, although Muslim, vehemently reject the Wahhabi sect of Chechen Islamists. After Russian Federal troops had freed one Daghestani town, its residents held a meeting to determine the fate of the Wahhabi mosque the Chechens had erected there. The mayor favored razing it, but several townsmen suggested converting it into a strip-club -- "since that would disgrace it more". This anecdote demonstrates the depth of Daghestani hatred. It was the Chechen invasion of Daghestan, followed by a series of terrorist bombings in Moscow, which provoked the second armed response. Like their Taliban counterparts, Chechen Wahhabist rebels have been unaverse to using noncombatants as human shields, and callously exploit civilian casualties for propaganda. This willingness to sacrifice innocent lives did not endear the rebels to the populace whose "cause" they were ostensibly defending. Enter the naively pro-Chechen Anne Nivat. Even she distrusted the motives of the rebels, although at the time their alliance with al-Qaeda was still generally unknown. Since 9-11, Chechen complicity in international terrorism has been widely exposed, and all pretense on the part of rebel mujahedin abandoned. Chechen websites today proudly boast allegiance to bin Laden, post videotaped torture and executions, and make threats against Russian, American, and Israeli targets. Mujahedin leaders defiantly reject any political or diplomatic reconciliation: the only solution they advocate is jihad. Violent terrorist acts, such as the bombing of a Daghestani Veterans Day parade and the raid on a Moscow theater have become increasingly commonplace. Likewise, Chechen-run terrorist training camps and Chechen/al-Qaeda terrorist plots have been uncovered in France, Pakestan, and Afghanistan. Foreign-born Wahhabists now openly direct the Chechen rebel leadership. Talib influence was unmistakable during the Moscow theater siege, in which numerous burka-clad, explosives-wired female terrorists, the so-called "Black Widows", participated. Under Wahhabism, the only way for women to obtain Paradise (and possibly reunite with fallen husbands) is by martyrdom in jihad. President Bush no longer criticizes Putin's handling of Chechnya, but supports the Russian War on Terrorism. The US military, on the other hand, has never criticized. For several years, the American military has closely observed the fighting in Grozniy, and has been practicing urban warfare in deserted bases throughout California. Our military has acknowledged that similar US urban action could result in the same discouraging casualty rate experienced by the Russians -- and with a similar, unavoidable civilian toll. The relevance, post-911, of "Chienne de Guerre" is its documentation of that enormous human tragedy. But, as was the case of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, Chechen civilians are suspected of supporting terrorists. (Albeit, as Nivat writes, often reluctantly.) So much so, though, that Chechens -- unlike Albanian, Somali, and other Muslim victims of aggression -- have not been permitted refugee status in the West. In closing, I would say this book is probably the best and least biased on the subject. But a mere year has provided new light and different perceptions on this "dirty war".
Rating:
Summary: Unique
Review: Un livre généreux et impressionnant. Une histoire saisissante et passionnante.
|
