Russia wants "stability" according to ITS rules. This is not stability -- it's dictatorship and anarchy.
Yet another post which shows you have no clue. Yyz717, I suggest you stop posting on this subject, because at every stage you have been shown that you are wrong.
Contrary to what you believe and try to portray, Russia is more than willing to talk and to negotiate.
On 30 August 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic passed a Declaration of State Sovereignty. The aim of this was to elevate Tatarstan from an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic to a constituent republic of the USSR
-- basically putting Tatarstan on par with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, etc. The fall of the USSR
in 1991 put a halt to this 'dream' of the Tatar.
In 1992, the Tatars held a referendum in which the people were asked if they wanted Tatarstan to be a sovereign state, bound by international law, and establishing relations with foreign states (including Russia) on the basis of treaties. A majority of 60-70% of Tatars voted in favour, thereby giving Tatarstan quasi-legal independence. Negotiations with Moscow were already underway when the referendum took place, as Moscow did not recognise the 1990 Declaration. Political and trade/economic agreements were signed between Kazan and Moscow, which led to an official bilateral treaty being signed by both parties in 1994. Care to tell me where Tatarstan is today? They are now all but independent -- responsible for all economic and political issues (including foreign relations) within the republic, with other areas such as defence being the responsibility of Russia. Show me a state in Australia or the US, or a province in Canada, which has the legal right to negotiate and conduct policy with foreign states, without coming under the ultimate control of the Federal government. In 2000, the people of Tatarstan were asked whether they were happy with the way that the political status of their Republic has progressed, and whether they would prefer complete independence or the status quo (remaining for all intents and purposes as part of the RF), and an overwhelming majority (80%+) of Tatars answered yes they were happy, and that they want to remain part of the Russian Federation.
Tatarstan is a highly developed industrialised region, with a GDP (in 1991) larger than Lithuania and Estonia put together, and had more than enough resources to wage a bloody war against Moscow. All Moscow wanted was the opportunity to put their case forward, in a peaceful way, as to why Tatarstan should remain part of the Russian Federation. And as time has progressed, the people see themselves at not only Tatars (very important) but also as Russians.
All of this was done without a shot being fired, without political instability (coups, etc), and without Tatars resorting to terrorism.
Chechnya on the other hand.
Dudayev seized power in 1991 in a coup (the government of the time being forced to step down), he declared independence (like Tatarstan) but also instituted an extreme constitution (more threatening than anything else), and when in 1992 the sizeable opposition attempted to call for a referendum to oust Dudayev due to corruption and his inability to bargain for Chechens, he disbanded the parliament and instituted his form of martial law, etc. Because Dudayev was for all intents and purposes, a complete failure, he did absolutely nothing to curb the lawlessness which would later grow so great, it was a major factor for the 1994 war. So much for your bastion of Chechen peace and democracry Yyz717. But, we all know, that somehow, by some miracle, the failure of the Chechens to negotiate peacefully from the outset and to uphold democracy (i.e. disbanding parliament), will be the fault of the big bad ugly Soviets...err.....Russians.
Also, Yyz717, you mentioned in one of your recent attacks of the Russians, that the Soviets....err....Russians, committed horrendous abuses against the Armenians. If you knew your history, that it was the Turks that killed almost 1.5 million Armenians, and that it was the Armenians who voluntarily joined the USSR
. Even though, during the early years of the USSR
, the Armenians (as did all Soviets) lose some personal freedoms for the good of the state, Armenian society flourished like it had not seen in several decades, most importantly, the Republic was greatly industrialised, and the people were given educations (something that by and large they had not had in decades). So much so, aside from Russia, Armenia was the most loyal Republic in the USSR
. The biggest issue that Armenia had was Nagorno-Karabakh, and that was not so much with Moscow, but rather with Azerbaijan -- the two nations fighting a war over the region. So going by your comments, I really do fail to see just what did the Soviets...err....Russians do to the Armenians that caused to categorically state this in one of your posts (Reply 27 in this thread). Let me guess. 7 December 1988, that wasn't a natural disaster, but rather it was the fault of the Soviet...err....Russian unwillingness to blah blah blah.