Originally posted by denythestatusquo
gee why is the media in the first world not talking about the brutality of Russia in chechnya? I would think that they would be most eager to get the
truth out about what is going on in Chechnya, that is their job.
It's a complicated issue I don't know how to write it most clearly. The reason revolves around this probably.
The Western Media imagined the end of the USSR as the end of the Russian Empire (which was primarily what the USSR was).
But in order to ensure the security of Nuclear Weapons; Russia was able to get the US to bully the Ukraine and Khazakstan in transferring all control
of their Nuclear Weapons to Russia. This is called the "Sovereign State Inheiritor" or whatever (not sure what the West called it).
Russia would inherit all the Nukes.
This caused an unforseen problem.
Without Nuclear Weapons the former Republics have no strength against Russia.
The Soviet Union ended and the Commonwealth of Independent States began at the same time.
This is what the West forgets much.
The three baltic States seceded from the Soviet Union; but the other Republics merely dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the CIS.
The CIS is a loose confederacy where Russia is given Chief-Command of the Military of all the states in the CIS.
Recently (and also ignored by the Western Media) Russia was discussing to put Russian soldiers into various CIS nations to protect their borders.
This was a powerful move because it would put spine into the back of the CIS with Russia as the dominant leader once again.
Because of the chaos of the fall of the Soviet Union the USA allowed the CIS to be formed.
This stunted the departure of the former Soviet Republics from the Russian Empire.
The CIS is not an Empire yet...but Russia is certainly close to reforming it; and if any former Republic with the exception of the Baltic States were
to try and legitimately break away from Russian influence; there'd undoubtedly be a war.
Anyway I was trying to establish the background which is too complex to do simply.
My point in answer to your question is this
Western Media made an assumption that Russia now is a "good guy" and the USSR is ended.
Western Governments realized too late that the situation in the former USSR was not democratic.
The later happend because in 1980s CIA reports made 5 possible paths that the USSR might take in the next decade: including civil war and what exactly
happend on the surface....the peaceful dissolution of the USSR.
In fact a third possibility they reported was a Hardliner Coup to try and reinstate the Command Economy. This happend first then the peaceful
dissolution of the USSR...so the assumption the West made (I believe) was that they guessed right.
What the CIA failed to report upon (and these are classified doccuments so no I don't have a full source to give to you) is another possible
A populist coup resulting in a change of who is in power.
The events unfolded as they did because of the consequences of this populist coup.
So the Western Governments assumed a Democratic revolution occurred...
The reality was much different; a power struggle occurred and the only way the people who gained power could do so was to dismantle what was in their
way; the Soviet Union.
The new structure is fragile, but they want it to be an Empire.
And so this I think explains why the West doesn't talk about it.
I didn't want to say they simply don't want to piss Russia off; I think it's much more deep than that; I think the West has misundestood until it
was too late what really occurred in Russia; and I think the Media has completely misunderstood what happend...
So they don't even bother to make Russia an issue; they've written it off as a Democratic reformation going on.