Putin's Chechen, Nemtsov's murder and Russia's new power struggles.

[gigantes]

@kevinNYC,
thanks i'll take a look later. going out to watch the game and have some soul food just now.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

yeah anyone who doesn't agree with American Foreign Policy must be a paid agent of the KGB. Imagine if i started accusing you morons of being on the pay roll of the CIA just because you didnt share my belief. I wonder if all the liberals in the States who used to voice their opinions against the war in Iraq were also working for Putin.

And they didnt leave. CNN disabled the comments section because of all the flack they were getting from all sides of the world. People were tired of reading their lies about Iraq, Libya and Syria and werent buying their bullsh!t story about Ukraine either.

Boys, looks like we've found one. Has he only been posting during a 12-hour window? He's trying to flip the argument around, it's almost textbook.

[KevinNYC]

They hate you for the destruction youve caused around the world (Balkans, North Africa, Vietnam, Central America, Middle East etc).

Yup, right around 2013 our Vietnam policy turned out to be pretty unpopular.

[Dresta]

Yeah, we are basically in a new cold war. Check out this poll of Russia Opinion of America. It's lower than during the Iraq invasion.

A new Cold War? Seriously, how stupid and histrionic can you be? Russia is a country with a long and proud history that is an important part of European history and European culture. America, since the Cold War, has treated it like a fallen enemy. The Soviet Union was not a country, but an idea, one foisted on Russians (and many other people) from above. Conflating that with what is Russia is part of the reason why the Russians feel they are being marginalised (which they clearly are), and part of the reason we have the problems we do. The Russian people have a brief experience with democracy and opening themselves up to Western interests - this happened during the Yeltsin years, where their country was systematically raped, and their wealth appropriated by oligarchs, aided by Westerners - they understandably felt betrayed by this (a missed opportunity for the US to win someone over - something remarkably common for such an altruistic nation ). The Russians now have a word for democracy that literally means 'the rule of shit.'

You've already shown, repeatedly, that you have **** all understanding of Russia, the Russian people, Ukraine, or its people. You are a typical American blundering into what he doesn't understand with a high-minded self-righteousness that whatever he's doing must be right, because you represent America (goodness), and he represents Russia (evil empire part 2, mother****er!).

Here's a brief history for you: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...n-9162734.html

[QUOTE]A thousand years ago Kiev was the capital of an Orthodox Christian state called Rus with links reaching as far west as England. But Rus was swept away by the Tatars in the 13th century, leaving only a few principalities in the north, including an obscure town deep in the forests, called Moscow.

What became known as Ukraine

[Dresta]

Hard men in the west tell us that to take account of Russian concerns is appeasement. To make concessions now, Brzezinski argues, “would lend credibility to Russian objections and reinforce their capacity to influence our publics and legislatures.” The argument is based on a false historical analogy. Appeasement is what happened in the 1930s, when Britain and France failed to stand up to a Germany which was already in the grip of aggressive nationalism under a charismatic leader. The mistake we risk making today is the mistake France and Britain (and, by default, the US) made in the 1920s, when they failed to bring democratic Germany into the European fold. The task now is the same as it was after 1815, after 1918, and after 1945. How do we incorporate a maverick state into a new European status quo? How do we satisfy at the same time the legitimate desire of the countries of eastern and central Europe for a guarantee that their eastern neighbour will leave them alone in the future, and the equally legitimate desire of the Russians to avoid exclusion from the affairs of a continent with which they share their religion, their culture, and most of their history?

The west has no need to make any “concessions” to Russia. It is negotiating from strength. All the Russians can do is to threaten unconvincing things-to reconstruct the Soviet Union, to build a strategic alliance with China or Iran. But there is an obvious bargain to be struck: if the Russians do accept the new status quo they should be brought into a common institution as equals in the management of European affairs. This is not a new idea. People have been talking for some time about a charter between Nato and Russia which would console Russia for the pain of enlargement. But until recently the charter had no substance. The Russians saw it as a feeble attempt to buy them off.

.....

The enlargement of Nato will change the political geography of Europe. It is full of obvious risks; and perhaps-if we are very clever-of opportunities. In their gloomier moments western defence officials whisper what cannot be said aloud. Does Nato really have a future at all? Is enlargement really no more than a substitute for policy, the thrashing about of an organisation which has lost its raison d’?tre? Why has Solana been visiting the countries of the Caucasus and central Asia, raising hopes which Nato has no prospect of satisfying, while convincing even more Russians that Nato’s fine words are merely a cover for a deliberate policy of isolating Russia? What can we do about the countries which may never join the alliance? Does Nato run the risk of enlarging to the point where it ceases to be a serious organisation? Does anybody really know what they are doing? Henry Kissinger, perhaps the ultimate Bourbon, is nevertheless asking some of the right questions.

Advocates of enlargement argue that Europe and its institutions are evolving in such uncertain ways that we cannot know what kind of Europe we will be looking at in 30 years’ time. The passage of time and the workings of historical change will dis-solve any difficulties which enlargement will bring. Nato itself may change, and become a universal security organisation which could embrace Russia. It is a post-modern dream of a new Europe in which the tough old nation state has been superseded by the emollient mechanisms of supranationality. Of course politicians and bureaucrats have to get by as best they can in the imperfect business of making policy from day to day. Of course no one can foretell the future. But to buttress a doubtful policy with the hope that it will turn out all right on the distant night is an odd way to manage the choices that Europe faces in the here and now. Micawber rules, OK?

People have known about this problem for so long, and have been warning about it for decades; Washington has been typically bellicose and uncompromising for too long, and for Russia, US tampering in Ukraine was the final straw (because yes, the US funded the Yanukovich putsch, and has poured billions into Ukraine for years funding the ambiguous target of 'democracy promotion.' It is really the same as if Russia were encouraging hostile elements in Mexico and forging alliances with them, funding them, etc.

The fact people can ignore how the Russians relinquished an incredible amount of territory, completely peacefully, and now call them the aggressors instead, is really quite remarkable. Bravo for that miraculous Orwellian inversion! The reality is that Gorbachev had far more to do with the break of the Soviet Union than did Reagan, and an inability to recognise this, has fools like you unable to throw off the Cold War mindset and to examine things at all objectively. You all talk about Russian propaganda, yet fail to mention how the Western media has been engaged in an all-out propaganda war against Russia and Putin, how the Odessa massacre was not even covered by Western media outlets (graphic details here: http://ersieesist.livejournal.com/813.html), and the amazing inability for them to mention that at the heart of Ukrainian nationalism stand two nazis (Bandera & i forget the other name0, or that Volodymyr Viatrovych, a ‘youngish historian who has made his career by glorifying the OUN and denying its crimes against Jews and Poles’, was appointed as director of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. These crimes were no less than ethnic cleansing btw.

Putin is apparently expansionist when he's relinquished more territory than any Russian leader except Lenin (who made his concessions to get out of WW1). Putin is apparently an all-powerful dictator when he has various factions he needs to appease and keep happy, and keeps a maniac like Kadyrov on side simply because he needs him (this is a man who was seen on video partaking in the beheading of Russian soldiers - do you really think that this is anything other than a marriage of convenience?). If so, then Putin doesn't have anything like the power you think; the annexation of Crimea was really the least he could do to maintain his job security. There are many far more bellicose and dangerous Russians in the Kremlin, and we know the West has no stomach for war, so replacing Putin could actually make the situation much worse (Putin is currently disfavoured by Russian nationalists because he is not doing enough to aid the rebellion in their eyes, which has documented grass-root support and is not a Russian creation, but a reaction to the intolerant Euromaidan movement).

Put the crack pipe down boi and admit that you cannot see Russia as doing anything non-evil simply because you've been bombarded with 50 years of US government propaganda (Invasion of the Body Snatchers a favourite of yours i take it?).

Get it into your head that it was Marxist ideology that made the Russians a threat, not the fact that they were Russians. The thing is, the Russians have actually given up their universalist dogma of Marxism, whereas people like you keep the American one flying: the universalist dogma of Wilson, his belief Liberal Democracy marks the 'end of history' and his duty to make 'democracy safe the world' - this racist ideologue is the leader from which your foreign policy worldview is drawn; you should be proud .

FYI i wouldn't bother posting your single article straggles of biased information anymore, because this is a subject i have had to research and write about myself: i've read a bunch of books, a load of journal articles, spoken to many Ukrainians and Russians, and i can tell you, you have no clue about the subject under discussion, literally, at all (and that goes for most on here).

edit: i don't know how many of you can access this, but Kritika had a recent issue focusing on Ukraine, which is useful if you want to find stuff written by people with an actual expertise in the region (i.e. they actually know the region's history and understand the internal dynamics of Ukraine):

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/kritika/toc/kri.16.1.html

(because i know how much you love scholarship )

[KevinNYC]

This anti-Semite will be banned in 3, 2, 1...

The mask drops.

My favorite touch is the idea that Putin has put a stop to the rape of the Russian State. As opposed to streamlining it and cutting out the middleman.

[gigantes]

skipping past the raving ravers doing their thing...

Yeah, we are basically in a new cold war. Check out this poll of Russia Opinion of America. It's lower than during the Iraq invasion.


http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/...ussia-3-07.png

yeah, that directly corresponds to the propaganda campaign i've been reading about and mentioned.

I recommend this book to read about the changes in Russia
http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Is-Tru.../dp/1610394550

i'll try to get that on tablet if i can remember to. tablet's down right now.

There's a bunch on the guy who is basically Putin's Karl Rove if Karl Rove wrote rock music and liked Alan Ginsberg. He a political technologist, what we would call a political scientist, and he controls the media AND the opposition parties, that is, they handpick which opposition parties are allowed to operate openly. But he also wrote an advant garde novel under an assumed name. He fell out of favor for a while but now seems to be back. I think he close to the Chechen guy too.

i got a little insight in to this process when our team owner (mikhail prokhorov) applied for the right to run an opposition party to sew some political oats or something. it was all very sterile with no actual threat posed to putin, then prokhy seemed to tire of the charade and stepped down.

[IMG]Surkov wrote the preface to the 2009 pseudonymous bestselling satirical novel Almost Zero. The author was "Natan Dubovitsky", which is the male form of his wife's last name. Conflicting statements in the preface added to the speculation that Surkov was the author of the novel.[10] Proceeding on that assumption, The Economist wrote that the novel "expos[ed] the vices of the system he himself had created".[37] A successful stage adaptation of the novel (sometimes translated as Nearby Zero[38]) has been presented by Kirill Serebrennikov.[10]
Surkov has composed songs[10] and written texts for the Russian rock musician Vadim Samoylov. He speaks English[citation needed] and is fond of poets such as Allen Ginsberg of the Beat Generation.[22][/IMG]

Vladislav Surkov
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...surkov/382489/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.VTmU0SF3nb0

i'm still a babe in the woods re: this stuff, but perhaps i'll be drawn in more in future.


what struck me a lot in the third article i linked was the kremlin's apparent belief that the next US administration to come will quickly remove the sanctions because 'the USA is inherently a very rational country.' going hand in hand with putin continuing to raise the stakes, this sounds like in his mind he'll get to keep merrily playing the crazy russian, bluffing the west in to submission again and again.

i can't think of a single person or even org that's a greater, more ominous, threat to world stability. well, other than the chinese.

[KevinNYC]

skipping past the raving ravers doing their thing...
yeah, that directly corresponds to the propaganda campaign i've been reading about and mentioned.

interesting article on two more sophisticated trolling attempts trying to influence the news stream to try to get people on twitter and other social media to push the story to everyone. Remember when ISIS blew up that chemical plant in Louisiana on 9/11?

Several months ago, on September 11, Twitter accounts registered under American-sounding names started spreading the story of a chemical factory explosion in Centerville, Louisiana. A Wikipedia page was created for the fake catastrophe, using Wikipedia editor identities that had been developed over some time. There was also a YouTube video in which Islamic State fighters supposedly claimed responsibility for the terror attack and a Facebook page for a non-existent news outlet called Louisiana News, which backed up the Islamic State story.

A Tweetstorm ensued, and this fake screenshot from the CNN website began making the rounds:

Of course, Ukranians have gotten blasted with fake news stories over the past year. And this bullshit was parroted on ISH pretty often last year.

[QUOTE]The photograph, published on a Russian politics website and then spread quickly to many blogs, was said to show a morgue full of dead bodies in Slovyansk, Ukraine.



There

[Dresta]

Care to say anything about the Odessa massacre Kev, as documented in my last post? I doubt it...

How much a fool one must be to think that unaccountable volunteer battalions wouldn't engage in wanton cruelty and destruction, because that isn't the nature of war at all, that isn't what happens when you send a bunch of 'patriots' to put down a bunch of 'traitors.'

Particularly, 'patriots' who parade around pridefully in their nazi insignia - i'm sure you wouldn't be bothered by these if they came sweeping into your home, shelling your cities, and killing your civilian neighbours.

To think for one second that you can trust the media on this matter is beyond absurd. Amnesty International documented abuses by both sides:

http://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war...s-grows-269604

Deny it all you want - but you are denying pretty much the first reality of war, a war that you and your heroes Obama and Hilary have encouraged, with no regard for the lives of those at stake (as usual). You really will justify anything if it be done by a Democrat - the ultimate stooge that you are. The irony of you even talking about propaganda trolls is palpable considering all you ever do is copy & paste articles in a way that can only be described as propagandising for the current Presidential administration (are you getting paid for this? I should hope so, because it looks boring as hell to always have so little of your own to say, and to have to rely on others to such an extent - a little sad, even).

This is very telling. Its no secret that America and its Zionist overlords attempted to completely control Russia instead of helping them integrate into a united world society. Its also not a secret that the majority of Russian oligarchs who attempted to rape the state were all Zionists as well who used a drunk like Yeltsin as their puppet during this period. Thank God for Putin for putting a stop to it....


Even today the biggest critics of the Russian president (And therefore the darlings of the West) are Zionists. None of these men have any respect or support from ordinary Russians, yet people like KevinNYC believe CNN when they tell him theyre all "democratic freedom fighters"

Im talkin about people like Garry Gasparov, Boris Berizovsky, and Kevins hero Boris Nemstov. All of them known throughout the Western World as Putin's biggest critics, and all of them Jewish. Please try and tell me America doesnt have a hand in this.

Didn't know that so many of the oligarchs were Jewish actually - Russians must be feeling pretty salty considering it was a group of Jewish bellends that established Bolshevism on them in the first place - and yet it is Russians we always associate with Communism, and Russians who the Americans still refuse to deal with in any kind of civilised or respectful manner, pretty much solely due to the negative associations spawned by the Cold War (you would not be able to convince people of the rightness of pushing a destructive civil conflict in Ukraine if not for this irrational fear of Russians). Fact is, Russians have far more to fear than we: they share a huge border with China in the south (that is likely to come under threat), and thus refuse to share their Western border with another potentially hostile large power (a Ukraine as part of American funded NATO/EU alliance - the EU doesn't want Ukraine as they haven't got much money anyway - it is America forcing reluctant powers into conflicts they do not want, perfectly epitomised by Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland).

Kevin keeps talking about Nemstov as if he was some rival to Putin, when the reality is he was a completely disgraced politician already due to his association with the Yeltsin regime. The man was a complete non-threat and yet Kevin thinks he was a danger to Putin .

skipping past the raving ravers doing their thing...

what struck me a lot in the third article i linked was the kremlin's apparent belief that the next US administration to come will quickly remove the sanctions because 'the USA is inherently a very rational country.' going hand in hand with putin continuing to raise the stakes, this sounds like in his mind he'll get to keep merrily playing the crazy russian, bluffing the west in to submission again and again.

i can't think of a single person or even org that's a greater, more ominous, threat to world stability. well, other than the chinese.

You know, for a man who makes a big deal about being open-minded and receptive to new ideas you are hopelessly narrow-minded and dismissive of anything that doesn't fit into your neat little preconceptions.

Putin has time and again defended the right of individual states not to have their sovereignty violated: in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, and now in Ukraine, whose legitimate government was thrown out in a US-backed putsch (and then portrayed in the unbiased Western media as a 'revolution of dignity') simply for signing a trade deal with Russia (even though this deal was far, far more profitable than the signing the expensive and toilsome EU Association Agreement - btw, do you even know about these things or am I talking to a wall here)?. Which country has been parading around the world stirring up civil conflict and attempting to topple sovereign states? Not Russia.

I've already explained to you that Putin is one of the more restrained in the Kremlin, and that he has been catching a lot of heat for not giving more support to the rebels in Donbass. Putin has exerted an influence over Ukraine, but the US has been pushing its agenda in Ukraine for years, and started its acceleration recently in an attempt to marginalise Russia (likely as revenge over his embarrassing America over Syria). But, oh no! It's a shady Russian guy from the KGB who looks slavic and sinister - he must be the biggest threat to world stability, even though if America had actually listened to him the world would be a far, far more stable place than it currently is. Particularly, Libya and Syria wouldn't be the living hell-holes they currently are had his advice been heeded.

Wikileaks cables even show how the US has been working with Poroshenko since 2006 even: https://www.popularresistance.org/wi...raine-insider/

[QUOTE]Perhaps the most interesting revelation comes from a 2009 cable where Poroshenko told then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he supported

[RidonKs]

skipping past the raving ravers doing their thing...

[gigantes]

@dresta,
oh yes, my beauty... i'm as close-minded as they come. which is why i lean on folks such as you to articulate legit facts and careful (if long-winded) reasoning in to a bubbling goulash spiced with long rambling passages of batshit insanity and half-baked theory.

oh yes... when i'm in just the right mood, your mini-novel posts makes for some fun puzzling and sleuthing. thank you for that.


@ridonks,
someone had to say it!

[KingBeasley08]

Care to say anything about the Odessa massacre Kev, as documented in my last post? I doubt it...

How much a fool one must be to think that unaccountable volunteer battalions wouldn't engage in wanton cruelty and destruction, because that isn't the nature of war at all, that isn't what happens when you send a bunch of 'patriots' to put down a bunch of 'traitors.'

Particularly, 'patriots' who parade around pridefully in their nazi insignia - i'm sure you wouldn't be bothered by these if they came sweeping into your home, shelling your cities, and killing your civilian neighbours.

To think for one second that you can trust the media on this matter is beyond absurd. Amnesty International documented abuses by both sides:

http://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war...s-grows-269604

Deny it all you want - but you are denying pretty much the first reality of war, a war that you and your heroes Obama and Hilary have encouraged, with no regard for the lives of those at stake (as usual). You really will justify anything if it be done by a Democrat - the ultimate stooge that you are. The irony of you even talking about propaganda trolls is palpable considering all you ever do is copy & paste articles in a way that can only be described as propagandising for the current Presidential administration (are you getting paid for this? I should hope so, because it looks boring as hell to always have so little of your own to say, and to have to rely on others to such an extent - a little sad, even).

Didn't know that so many of the oligarchs were Jewish actually - Russians must be feeling pretty salty considering it was a group of Jewish bellends that established Bolshevism on them in the first place - and yet it is Russians we always associate with Communism, and Russians who the Americans still refuse to deal with in any kind of civilised or respectful manner, pretty much solely due to the negative associations spawned by the Cold War (you would not be able to convince people of the rightness of pushing a destructive civil conflict in Ukraine if not for this irrational fear of Russians). Fact is, Russians have far more to fear than we: they share a huge border with China in the south (that is likely to come under threat), and thus refuse to share their Western border with another potentially hostile large power (a Ukraine as part of American funded NATO/EU alliance - the EU doesn't want Ukraine as they haven't got much money anyway - it is America forcing reluctant powers into conflicts they do not want, perfectly epitomised by Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland).

Kevin keeps talking about Nemstov as if he was some rival to Putin, when the reality is he was a completely disgraced politician already due to his association with the Yeltsin regime. The man was a complete non-threat and yet Kevin thinks he was a danger to Putin .




You know, for a man who makes a big deal about being open-minded and receptive to new ideas you are hopelessly narrow-minded and dismissive of anything that doesn't fit into your neat little preconceptions.

Putin has time and again defended the right of individual states not to have their sovereignty violated: in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, and now in Ukraine, whose legitimate government was thrown out in a US-backed putsch (and then portrayed in the unbiased Western media as a 'revolution of dignity') simply for signing a trade deal with Russia (even though this deal was far, far more profitable than the signing the expensive and toilsome EU Association Agreement - btw, do you even know about these things or am I talking to a wall here)?. Which country has been parading around the world stirring up civil conflict and attempting to topple sovereign states? Not Russia.

I've already explained to you that Putin is one of the more restrained in the Kremlin, and that he has been catching a lot of heat for not giving more support to the rebels in Donbass. Putin has exerted an influence over Ukraine, but the US has been pushing its agenda in Ukraine for years, and started its acceleration recently in an attempt to marginalise Russia (likely as revenge over his embarrassing America over Syria). But, oh no! It's a shady Russian guy from the KGB who looks slavic and sinister - he must be the biggest threat to world stability, even though if America had actually listened to him the world would be a far, far more stable place than it currently is. Particularly, Libya and Syria wouldn't be the living hell-holes they currently are had his advice been heeded.

Wikileaks cables even show how the US has been working with Poroshenko since 2006 even: https://www.popularresistance.org/wi...raine-insider/



All this you can completely ignore because you are a rank ideologue who simply dismisses any facts presented to him. America is right, Russia is wrong; Putin is the most dangerous threat to the world, even though i clearly demonstrated how these problems long preceded Putin, and of which we were being warned even in 1997 (ignored though, of course). I swear, when taking the same line as George Kennan can be dismissed as a form of raving mania, well, then there is something seriously wrong in the minds of the American people. You are part of the problem bud. Your kind of blind pig-headedness is generally the reason why most of the world hates the US (it is that combination of ignorance and conceit that is particularly irritating). Don't you think something has gone wrong when Henry Kissinger is the one urging restraint? Try actually having an answer for once.

Let's be real, if George Bush was President, KevinNYC wouldn't be taking the side he is now. He has no loyalty to the American gov, just the Democratic party

[KevinNYC]

The New York Times today has big article on the leader of Chechnya, his loyalty to Putin and his influence outside Chechnya.

More reporting on Ramzan Kadyrov.

Chechnya’s macho leader Ramzan Kadyrov is the most loyal of Vladimir Putin’s regional heads, at least in theory. The central street of the captial, Grozny, is called Putin Avenue, and the lampposts lining it are adorned with the Russian tricolour. Putin’s portrait looks down from dozens of buildings across the city, and Kadyrov’s Instagram account, his main method of communication with the outside world, is full of protestations that he is a “foot soldier”, supremely loyal to Russia’s great leader.

But recent events, especially the murder of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow, have led to renewed debate over whether the Kremlin’s political control over the region, won back after two gruesome wars in the post-Soviet years, may be loosening.

While pledging a feudal-like loyalty to Moscow, Kadyrov has been provided billions of roubles to rebuild Grozny, which has been transformed from a ruined shell reminiscent of Stalingrad to a modern city studded with shiny Dubai-style skyscrapers. Wealthy locals dine in the 32nd-floor restaurant at Grozny City, a five-star hotel, the football team plays at a newly renovated stadium.

But Kadyrov has also built up his own private armies. In an extraordinary address to thousands of his troops, gathered in fatigues and armed in Grozny’s main stadium in December, a black-shirted Kadyrov said his men were ready to fight for the motherland at any time.

“America and Europe have declared an economic war on Russia,” he declared to the assembled ranks of fighters. “But the Russian people have rallied around their leader Vladimir Putin … Long live our great motherland Russia! Long live our national leader Vladimir Putin! Allah-u Akbar!”

The pictures were not widely broadcast on Russian television, and the sight of a regional leader commanding such a fierce army gave many pause for thought.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the-former-richest-man-in-Russian turned prisoner turned exile, has just produced a documentary on him as well. The documentary claims that every worker in Chechnya has to donate part of their paycheck to a secret fund controlled by Kadyrov.

The other day a human rights organization in Chechnya had its office ransacked

A group of people broke into the office of the Committee Against Torture, one of the only human rights non-governmental organizations based in the Russian republic of Chechnya, and ransacked it, according to representatives of the organization.

This is not the first time the Committee Against Torture has faced problems in Chechnya. Last December, its office was set on fire shortly after Kalyapin asked the Prosecutor’s General office and the Investigative Committee to examine statements made by Kadyrov—he had said that the Chechen government would persecute the relatives of the known terrorists, which resulted in multiple house burnings across the republic. Kadyrov also accused Kalyapin of sponsoring the terrorists. “I am in charge of defending human rights in Chechnya,” Kadyrov wrote on his Instagram at the time.

Kadyrov has been in the center of multiple controversies lately. He advocated for Zaur Dadayev, a former high-ranking Chechen military officer accused of the murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, calling him “a fearless and courageous man.” He also declared that the Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev was framed by American security forces. Just last week Open Russia, an organization funded by a former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, released a documentary about Kadyrov and his administration called The Family.

[KevinNYC]

Moscow is Turning on Chechnya’s Ruthless Kadyrov
As graft and murder scandals poison the air around the Chechen strongman, Moscow is holding its nose and many there are hoping to be rid of him.

“All of the Russian law enforcement agencies, including the FSB, the Investigative Department and the MVD agree that Kadyrov should be replaced—there is solid consensus on that,” says Moscow-based Kremlinologist Stanislav Belkovsky. He contends the Kremlin does not approve of the illegal actions taken in Chechnya and often criticizes Kadyrov and his men for their abuses, which include burning private property, unlawful threats, abductions, and violence.
......
On Monday another publication, the well-respected Kommersant newspaper, wrote about corruption directly connected with Kadyrov’s name. The report presented detailed analyses of Kadyrov’s feudal system of economy based on kickbacks from businesses, and even state employees, to a non-transparent Akhmat-haji Kadyrov Charitable Fund, named after Kadyrov’s assassinated father.

“There are no signs of concern in the Russian Federation government about non-transparency in the system of distributing financial recourses in Chechnya,” the report said. “Money comes to the fund from everywhere,” the report said, including local businesses; every state employee kicked 10 percent of his or her income to the fund on a “volunteer-forceful basis.”

Last year the fund, which for about a decade did not open its files to Russia’s Ministry of Justice, accumulated $3.3 billion—a lot of shadow money in a republic that received $378 billion of donations from the federal budget.

If the Kremlin is indeed turning against Kadyrov, one might wonder what was

Many have argued that the Boris Nemtsov murder was the turning point for key Russian officials.......“The best proof that the Kremlin’s running out of patience is that all the materials about Nemtsov’s investigation leaked to the press. That never happened before Nemtsov’s murder,” Belkovsky told The Daily Beast.

[KevinNYC]

The feud between the Oligarch and Chechen goes back a little ways.