The Instigator
Haxis288
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Coinsruledude
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Coinsruledude
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 35548
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Haxis288

Pro

When the USSR Fell in 1991 15 Nations got freedom 25 did not Most of them are smallers than most states in the Union there have been wars that have been supressed by the media of the captor nations of Azerbjian,Georgia,Russia Its serious issue In Russia Dagestan ,Chechnya, and North Ossestia is were the major problems are in the North Caucus 15 nations got freedom Armenia,Azerbjian,Belarus,Estonia,Georgia,Kazakstan,Kygystan,Latvia,Lithunia,Moldavia,
Russia,Tajikstan,Turkmenistan,Ukraine,Uzbekistan all did and why cant russia spare 21 others like Chechnya,Dagestan 25 countries are De Facto Nations these 21 Stateless states are: In Russia:Adygea,Altai,Bashkortostan,Buryatia,Dagestan,Inghustia,Kabardino-Balkaria,kalmykia,Karachay-Cherkessia,Karelia,Komi,Mari El,Mordovia,Sakha (Yakutia),North Ossestia Alania,Tartarstan,Tuva,Udmurtia,Khakassia,Chechnya,Chuvashia Thats all from russia about 75% of them are fighting for freedom from Russia in a brutal Civil war now time for Georgia:Adjara,Abkhazia,South Ossestia, and than Azerbjian:Nagorno-Karabakh all of the ones in Georgia and Azerbaijan have had civil wars and cause internatonal wars too so if these nations get freedom it will resolve a lot of issues I got all the Names from Russian Republics from Wikipedia.com i used it only for spelling and same with the other ones
Coinsruledude

Con

Thanks to Pro for the debate. Since we have five whole rounds, I'll be using the first round for my opening statements.

The Russian Federation, is made of 83 different federal subjects, which are Russia's top-level political divisions. Twenty-one of these subjects are republics, which are meant to represent areas of different non-Russian ethnicities in the country. These republics have their own languages and constitutions, and although Putin has strengthened federal power in recent years, the republics still choose their own executives that represent them in the Federation Council. All of the information in this paragraph came from [1].

My opponent already listed all twenty-one Russian republics in his first round, in addition to Adjara, Abkhazia, and South Ossestia, which are in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh, which is in Azerbaijan. I'll be focusing more on Russia, because it contains the majority of the former Soviet states we"ll be discussing, but I'll mention Georgia and Azerbaijan at some point as well.

These twenty-five regions all used to be part of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean they deserve independence and would be better off as separate from the countries that they reside in now. Self-determination for all of the still-unrecognized former Soviet states would have a negative impact on those involved, both economically and through increased conflict.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Haxis288

Pro

As you said these states show a diffrent wthics in the Russian Federation This is same with Yugoslavia or in slavic (Land of the south Slavs" Yugoslavia was very divers relgiously and ethnicly Sufi Muslims in Kosovo Sunni Muslims in Bosnia but were discussing russia the same will happen to Russia the Mujahideen in Chechnya&Daghestan are winning as the mujahids of bosnia&kosovo the Russian Fediration needs to fall it went from one union to another there is genocide in chechnya if chechnya was free "terrorism" in russia would stop and the loss of life will also stop and for chechens reading Allah Korusun Musluman Chechenya'm
Coinsruledude

Con

I"ll be referring to several regions and locations in Russia, so here"s the link to the map I"ll be using: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

There are two main reasons why the Russian republics should not be given independence, and I'll go into as much detail as I can with both of them.

1. Economic trouble and dependence on home countries would result.

The Russian economy is not in a good position to give up twenty-one of its territories. Giving up resource-rich regions that benefit it greatly would send the shaky Russian economy over the edge.
The European recession and falling oil prices slowed Russia"s economic growth in recent years.[1] The twenty-one Russian republics made up about 5% of Russia"s annual GRP in 2008[2], which might not sound like much, but 5% of the Russian economy in 2008 was equivalent to 112.6 billion dollars. Some of the republics also house major Russian cities (such as Kazan, which is located in the Republic of Tatarstan), and losing these pivotal hubs would deal a significant blow to the economy. Taking such a loss would push the Russians into a deeper hole. The same economic problems would be seen in Azerbaijan and Georgia if they were to give up territory.

Imagine, for a moment, if Russia were to grant independence to each of its republics. Many of these hypothetical new nations would not be strong enough, either economically or politically, to begin self-governing themselves right away, especially countries like Chechnya and Ingushetia that would still be struggling with internal conflict. They would need support from both Russia and the international community. Also, some of these new countries would be completely landlocked by Russia, and thus would rely heavily on Russian infrastructure and trade to sustain themselves. Like I stated before, Russia would struggle after losing such a sizable chunk of territory and resources, so all of the new economies would struggle as well. If the republics stay part of Russia, then this economic crash will be avoided, and internal conflicts like the ones in North Caucasus can be handled more efficiently than if the conflict were spread among multiple nations.

2. Sovereignty would not stop the problems, only increase them.

My opponent seems to believe that granting independence to the nonrecognized states would stop all of their problems immediately, which sadly isn't the case.
Before I get into that, however, I want to bring up how not all of the unrecognized Soviet states want to secede. Most of them have secessionist movements or had them in the past, but the only ones with any real support are in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Sakha, and Ossetia.[3] Even so, these popular movements still don't have enough popularity to result in a successful secession.

Anyway, back to the second main point: conflict would not stop should the twenty-five nonrecognized states gain independence. In Russia, internal migration has changed the percentage of different ethnicities in different regions, so not every republic is representative of its ethnicity.[3] The Russian republics all have a fairly large percentage of Russians that make up the population, which should be expected, considering that they are part of Russia. If they were granted independence, then the Russians that live in these republics wouldn't take kindly to being cut out of their homeland. More ethnic conflict would arise, as Russians who wanted to remain part of Russia either flee back into what's left of Russia or begin causing trouble with acts of terrorism, just like the Chechens are now. The same would go for the Georgians in Adjara, Abkhazia, and South Ossestia and the Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh; people don't like being separated from their own country. For proof, look at Crimea in Ukraine. The area had (and still has) a majority of ethnic Russians, but it became part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved. This led to tensions between Russia and Ukraine, but eventually Crimea became an autonomous republic that remained part of Ukraine. Even today, there are tensions between the two countries over this territory.
In the case of North and South Ossetia, the conflict between them would still exist after being given independence. Georgia considers South Ossetia occupied by Russia, which means both countries have a stake in its fate; if South Ossetia were to gain independence, it could very well lead to another Russia-Georgia war over the territory. North Ossetia, meanwhile, would still face ethnic clashes between the Ossetians and Ingush. These problems will not be solved with independence; further dividing North Casaucus would only dilute the attemps at stopping the disunity.

I will now begin my refutations for my opponent's points.

"As you said these states show a diffrent wthics in the Russian Federation This is same with Yugoslavia or in slavic (Land of the south Slavs" Yugoslavia was very divers relgiously and ethnicly Sufi Muslims in Kosovo Sunni Muslims in Bosnia but were discussing russia the same will happen to Russia the Mujahideen in Chechnya&Daghestan are winning as the mujahids of bosnia&Kosovo"

Comparing the Russian Federation to Yugoslavia doesn"t translate your point very well, as the breakup of Yugoslavia did not stop the disagreements over territory or bloodshed. Seven countries arose from Yugoslavia, but they did so mostly through wars and ethnic cleansing.
In addition, the economies of the new sovereign nations that came from Yugoslavia were hurt by the breakup. Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia are all on the list of the top ten poorest European countries[4]. If Russia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan were to let go of their republics in any way, peacefully or through violent means, their economies, along with the twenty-five new economies of the freed republics, would suffer, as I stated earlier in this round.

"the Russian Fediration needs to fall it went from one union to another there is genocide in Chechnya"

Putin has made it clear with Russian involvement in Chechnya, and other republics, that Russia has no intention of giving up any of them, so should all the other republics instead forcefully take their independence through a series of costly wars, even if they aren't particularly interested in sovereignty? Killing does not warrant more killing.

"if chechnya was free "terrorism" in russia would stop and the loss of life will also stop and for chechens reading Allah Korusun Musluman Chechenya'm"

I"m not sure why you put the word 'terrorism' in quotes, because the methods that certain Chechens are using to attempt to gain freedom is definitely "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".[5] The massive school shootout that killed hundreds of people was instigated by Chechen terrorists, for example.[6]
I already addressed how independence for Chechnya and the other unrecognized states wouldn"t stop of the loss of life earlier in my argument.

On to you, Pro.

[1] http://www.economist.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.techscio.com...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6]http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Haxis288

Pro

Chechens are not terrorists they are mujahids fighting from persicution from Russia,Russia uses terrorism too such as Mass Genocide tell me thats not terrorism tell me Being ordered artillary stkires on Grozny (Dozejahar to chechens) on the civlians isnt terrorism and the chechens use a gurrellia tatics and relgious values for fighting they are fighting for freedom as bosnia did this is like a 2nd Yugoslav war in Bosnia they Had Mujahids and the 7th Muslim Brigade to fight for freedom and they did get it and they used so called "terroist" tatics
Coinsruledude

Con

My opponent has neglected to refute any of my points on the economic impacts of sovereignty, or the fact that conflict would not stop after sovereignty. He also continues to avoid the majority of the debate; there are twenty-five non-recognized former Soviet states, which Pro generously listed in the first round, but he hasn’t mentioned any of them since that list, with the sole exception being Chechnya.

“Chechens are not terrorists they are mujahids fighting from persicution from Russia”

If you add the world “all” into that statement, it would be true. Chechens are not ALL terrorists, just like how not ALL Iranians are terrorists, or not ALL Afghans are terrorists. I never claimed in my argument that every single Chechen was a terrorist out for Russian blood. Most of them aren't.
There are certain groups, however, that do in fact operate as terrorist cells. I already mentioned the massive school hostage crisis, but there are other situations that have been orchestrated by Chechen terrorists.[1] These cells have connections and ties to Al-Qaeda[1], which is well-known as a radical, global terrorist organization. The CE (Chechen Emirate) has also been declared a terrorist organization by the United States[2], so the claim that there are no Chechen terrorists is false.

“Russia uses terrorism too such as Mass Genocide tell me thats not terrorism tell me Being ordered artillary stkires on Grozny (Dozejahar to chechens) on the civlians isnt terrorism”

The artillery strikes that took place in and near Grozny weren’t meant to kill civilians. The intention of the strikes was to displace and eliminate the Islamic militants that were in the city.
Even if the strikes were purposely aimed at civilians, many of the victims were of Russian ethnicity.[4] Why would the Russian military purposely attack their own people? If the Russians are hellbent on committing genocide, they sure don't know who to aim at.

“the chechens use a gurrellia tatics and relgious values for fighting they are fighting for freedom as bosnia did this is like a 2nd Yugoslav war in Bosnia they Had Mujahids and the 7th Muslim Brigade to fight for freedom and they did get it and they used so called "terroist" tatics”

Again, you put ‘terrorism’ in quotations, but the tactics used both in Bosnia and Chechnya are and were clearly terroristic in nature.
Members of the Bosnian Mujahedeen have been accused for war crimes, including rape, murder, and kidnapping. Certain members of the Mujahedeen in Bosnia eventually became members of Al-Qaeda, and were involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bosnia is a cesspool for Islamic terrorist cells[3]. Chechnya, meanwhile, has three different terrorist groups that are funding the Chechen guerilla fighters and contributing to terrorism in the area.[2]
Fighting for religious values doesn't make a cause any more just, either. Look at the Crusades and the Inqusition, for example.


[1] http://www.cfr.org...

[2] http://www.cnn.com...

[3] http://www.adnkronos.com...

[4]http://www.nytimes.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Haxis288

Pro

In Dagestan Russia has massive toop presence there and rapes dagestani women in the North Ossuestia war they were acused of several war crimes and the Mujahideen never rapes because Allah would forbid it the Mujahideen is Allah's Army The Strikes on Grozny are terrible the econmie dostn matter when it comes to Islam and the end of murder i dont care about the Russian Econmie neither dose chechnya if Chechnya had freedom mass murders would stop the Chechen econmey is fine as a farming econmie with Islamic Banking Banking Islamic is the most perfict way to bank for it was desinged by allah and sent to Muhammad (SAW) to teach
Coinsruledude

Con

"In Dagestan Russia has massive toop presence there and rapes dagestani women in the North Ossuestia war they were acused of several war crimes and the Mujahideen never rapes because Allah would forbid it the Mujahideen is Allah's Army"

The accusations of war crimes are serious. However, the reason there are Russian troops in Dagestan today is because of the invasion of Dagestan by Chechnya. You claim that what the Chechens are doing is a commendable act, and that they would get what they want, which is independence. However, during the War of Dagestan, the Chechens came extremely close to committing genocide by eliminating entire villages and families. To this day, Dagestan is plagued by Chechen guerillas and terrorists, which is why the Russian troops are there.
This is exactly why I brought up how the Mujahedeen in Bosnia were also accused of war crimes; a cause that appears just doesn't necessarily mean it is. No matter what you believe in or where in the world you fight, fighting will result in horrendous actions by every party, and we cannot make decisions like giving entire nations independence based solely on these actions. Other factors need to be taken into account, such as the consequences of the conflict and so on.

"The Strikes on Grozny are terrible"

I already addressed this point in Round 3.
The strikes weren't meant to kill civilians, but rather to drive Chechen rebels out. The Russian artillery strikes didn't target anyone specifically except for the rebels.

"the econmie dostn matter when it comes to Islam and the end of murder i dont care about the Russian Econmie neither dose chechnya if Chechnya had freedom mass murders would stop"

Like I've said in previous rounds, the murder would not stop should the unrecognized states get independence. Russian violence against the new nations would increase dramatically, and the infighting between ethnic groups wouldn't stop. You've given no evidence to disprove this argument.

"the Chechen econmey is fine as a farming econmie"

The Chechen economy is not 'fine'. The war with Russia destroyed upwards of 80% of the economic potential of the region, the capital city, Grozny, is in shambles, and the majority of the population is unemployed.[1] If Chechnya were to become independent from Russia, it will rely almost exclusively on Russia and other nearby countries for help, which would obviously be an issue as Russia does not want to give Chechnya independence, and Chechnya is bordered by. Sour relations would just be another nail in the coffin for Chechnya at that point.

"Banking Islamic is the most perfict way to bank for it was desinged by allah and sent to Muhammad (SAW) to teach"

I will concede this single point, because it's stretching the boundary between a debate about unrecognized Soviet states and a religious debate. I also don't know the first thing about Islamic banking, or Islam in general...

On to you, Pro.

[1] http://iseees.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
Haxis288

Pro

İslam will win the Mujahideen will never stop there fighting it may take a hundred years or the final day when all are judged to stand befor allah war crimes are nothing when it comes to the Mujahideen if the War Courts of Laws want to exicute the Mujahids
for there crimes so be it a mujahid never dies but in paridse he shall live İn Dagestan the Chechens and Dagestanis are very close Mos Dagestanis are of Chechen desent and in the 40's Chechnya and Dagestan were about of the same ASSR until 1956 so Chechnya and dagestan are very close and the occupation was from the Caucse Emrite wich is İnghustia Adgerya Chechnya Dagestan and North Ossestia they fight for a unifed Caucuse Region under İslamic valuses so chechnya never did it but the Dagestani Mujahideen and Chechen Mujahids and Cauces Emrtie ones all fight to gether and help each other but the dagestani mujahideen and chechen one fight for there own lands and help each other the cauces emirte fights both chechen mujahideens and dagestani
Coinsruledude

Con

Thanks to Pro for this interesting debate.

“İslam will win the Mujahideen will never stop there fighting it may take a hundred years or the final day when all are judged to stand befor allah war crimes are nothing when it comes to the Mujahideen if the War Courts of Laws want to exicute the Mujahids for there crimes so be it a mujahid never dies but in paridse he shall live”


None of this has anything to do with this particular debate. Stating that the Islamic radicals will never stop fighting in North Caucasus and how the Mujahedeen is Allah’s army doesn’t justify giving sovereignty to the unrecognized states.

“İn Dagestan the Chechens and Dagestanis are very close Mos Dagestanis are of Chechen desent and in the 40's Chechnya and Dagestan were about of the same ASSR until 1956 so Chechnya and dagestan are very close”

Yes, this is all true. But again, none of it has any weight behind it in this debate. Does the close relationship between Chechnya and Dagestan warrant independence for all twenty-five unrecognized states? No.
If anything, it says the opposite, because the Chechens in Dagestan would want Dagestan to become part of Chechnya, which would lead to even more ethnic conflict and violence in Dagestan.

“the occupation was from the Caucse Emrite wich is İnghustia Adgerya Chechnya Dagestan and North Ossestia they fight for a unifed Caucuse Region under İslamic valuses”

The Caucasus Emirate is a declared terrorist organization in both Russia and the United States, and has proven to be so with the occupation of Dagestan and the multitude of terroristic attacks, so if that’s why you mean by ‘Islamic values’, then you’re spot-on.

“so chechnya never did it but the Dagestani Mujahideen and Chechen Mujahids and Cauces Emrtie ones all fight to gether and help each other but the dagestani mujahideen and chechen one fight for there own lands and help each other the cauces emirte fights both chechen mujahideens and dagestani"

I would ask you to elaborate on this (perhaps with better punctuation) so I could understand your point better, but considering it’s the last round, I don’t see an opportunity to get clarification, so I'll just say this: from what I gather, none of this has anything to do with the debate again. All this point is doing is stating that there are different groups of people fighting for different causes in North Caucasus.

In closing, I think I have given sufficient proof as to why the unrecognized former Soviet states should not be given independence. Economically, it would hurt the mother countries and the new sovereign states, and when it comes to the violence in the area, conflict would escalate as the new nations try to establish themselves after decades of economic and political dependence.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Coinsruledude 3 years ago
Coinsruledude
Oh.
Well, okay.
Posted by Haxis288 3 years ago
Haxis288
The Armies of Jihad will hunt you down
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
RFD:

S&G: Pro used no punctuation and was borderline incoherent.

Sources: Con supported his case with multiple news sources while pro did not support his case at all.

Arguments: Con refuted Pro's case line by line while Pro did not respond to most of Con's points. In particular, Con presented a very convincing case that Chechnya and Russia are economically codependent and a separation of the two would destabilize both economies. Con also offers more convincing analysis of how tensions between Chechnya and Dagenstan demonstrate that independence would only lead to further violence and regional destabilization, even using Pro's arguments to support this point.
Posted by Coinsruledude 3 years ago
Coinsruledude
Putin also isn't the topic of this debate.
Posted by Haxis288 3 years ago
Haxis288
Putin is a peic of Crap
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Haxis288CoinsruledudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar, or rather his lack thereof, was abhorrent. Pro's points were underwhelming to say the least.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
Haxis288CoinsruledudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments