Russia has hedged its lead as the most prolific arms dealer in the world  (yes, even more than the US) with a recent agreement with Venezuela.

 Oil-rich Venezuela is a major purchaser of Russian weapons and hardware. In 2005-2006, Venezuela ordered weaponry from Russia worth $3.4 billion, including 24 Su-30MK2V Flanker fighters, Tor-M1 air defense missile systems, Mi-17B multi-role helicopters, Mi-35 Hind E attack helicopters and Mi-26 Halo heavy transport helicopters.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it will actively participate in the modernization of the Venezuelan armed forces until 2013.

Kommersant said negotiations were underway on the purchase of 10 Il-76 Candid military transport planes and two Il-78-MK aerial tankers for the Venezuelan Air Force. The contract will be worth a total of $600 million.

Deliveries will be completed next year. The aircraft will replace six outdated American Lockheed C-130H Hercules transport planes and two Boeing 707-320C aerial tankers.

Venezuela and Russia have also agreed on the purchase of four Kilo-class Project 636 diesel submarines. The terms of the deal, estimated at $1.2 billion, were negotiated late last year.

The Project 636 submarine is designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface-ship warfare, and also for general reconnaissance and patrol missions. It is considered to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world.

The strategic problems having (very quiet) Venezuelan submarines patrolling the Atlantic and Caribbean oceans should not be overlooked. To me, this is akin to Russia placing strategic missiles on Cuba.

The Kremlin has expelled two-military attaches from the United States Embassy in Moscow. Many in the media are wondering why in their reports of the event. The reason is simple - reciprocity.

The entire diplomatic world - and especially between countries with a sense of negativity toward one another - is based upon a simple concept of reciprocal treatment. If we search the diplomats at entry checkpoints, they do the same to ours. Last year, the US expelled two-Russian military attaches and the Russians are reciprocating.

Some will soon say the US attaches were “caught spying” and this led to their PNG status. Let me assure you there is not a military attache’ in any embassy in the world who is not engaged in some sort of espionage. That is what they are there for and everyone knows it. There is a wink-wink, nudge-nudge understanding that as long as the espionage is not so overt a common citizen would recognize it, it is usually not acted upon. So espionage will not be the true reason on either side of this issue. that takes us back to reciprocity.

Last Year, the US was trying to get President Putin’s attention and expelling diplomats is a serious enough event to do that that sends a message about some issue between the White House and the Kremlin. Only the highly placed State Department and Administration officials know what the true issue is., but this year, the Kremlin gave us the answer to whatever last year’s question was. The answer, by way of these expulsions, is “up yours”.

This is the sort of diplomacy that maintains my suspicion of the Kremlin.

Russia has cited the exacerbation of separatist movements having a legal leg to stand on, if Kosovo is granted independence from Serbia as a key reason for opposing Kosovo independence. I agree with that.

However, when it comes to Abkhazia and South Ossetia:

The lower house, or State Duma, said President Vladimir Putin and the government should ‘consider the question of the advisability of recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.’

The non-binding motion said that Western recognition of the independence of Kosovo from Russian ally Serbia had ripped up international rules regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The two provinces of northern Georgia broke away from central government control during wars in the early 1990s that saw the mass expulsion of ethnic Georgians by the ethnic Abkhaz and Ossetians.

There is not a great deal of difference to my mind between the two scenarios. Russia wants it both ways and the credibility I was granting the Kremlin on their stance on Kosovo was wasted.

A recent email thread prompted me to write again about Kosovo. It’s important for people to get an understanding of why there is so much support for Kosovar independence and why Serbia - which would welcome entirely different relations with the US or the West in general – garners no support at all.

I have mostly focused on US efforts to gain the love of Muslims and our projection of power in Russia’s backyard as the main reasons for the US position on Kosovo. However, there are other issues.

The destruction of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the relegation of Serbia to the West’s whipping boy came about because of the nationalist ambitions of every ethnic group making up the soviet-era Yugoslavia. The Serbian military support for Bosnian and Croatian Serbian nationalists was probably the geopolitical catalyst for NATO action against them. Milosevic bit off way more than he could chew with Bosnia and Croatia. He drew a line in the sand with regards to those two countries and was thrown under the bus by those he supported. I don’t know specifically if Milosevic was guilty of any war crimes because of the orders he issued. I know he was castigated because of his support for the Serbian uprising across the Balkans - but when it came time to talk in Dayton, as far as diplomacy was concerned, Milosevic was offered all stick and no carrot.

It may be an over-simplification of the issue, but the NATO/US actions against Serbia to stop genocide was a fallacy. A year before Srebrenica the world watched and did nothing as 800,000 Hutus and Tutsis were killed. Yet, Milosevic was seen – as much as Mladic – as the reason 8,300 men and boys were killed and 40,000 residents displaced in Srebrenica.

I have no love for Milosevic. I see him as an oppressive communist with nationalist ambitions of returning Serbians to glory throughout the Balkans. Yet, despite a lack of war crimes evidence against him, Milosevic seems to have been as much a victim of Srebrenica as those who were murdered there. The atrocities at Srebrenica killed him too. Those who were more directly involved in the atrocities are still at large, and the Serbian government is being held responsible for that – fair treatment or excuse to break up a nation? You decide.

Just as anyone else who had an interest in the region, NATO was filling a strategic vacuum and the straw man was genocide. These days, if you look at the news reports, you don’t see a lot of reference to NATO. The terms used now are “international community”, UN, US, and EU as the diplomacy becomes more “civil” in nature - which brings us to Kosovo being carved out of Serbia. Call it whatever you want, but that is exactly what is happening – no different from the parceling that occurred at the end of the Great War. And the reasons are no different, either.

Since 2000, Serbia has had diplomatic relations restored with many countries, including the US, and has rejoined the OSCE and the United Nations. Underscore: Serbia is a member of the United Nations. In 2003, the United States confirmed that Serbia was operating under its commitments of Dayton-Paris. Underscore: Serbia is not in violation of any treaties or “international law”. There is still a carrot and stick scenario for Serbia - again mostly stick. Serbia can ostensibly get back into western favor and join the EU; the stick seems to be lose Kosovo.

The question of Kosovo independence is about what - ethnic demography? Muslims have displaced and oppressed Serbians from this region since the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Kosovo is recognized as a part of a sovereign Serbia in UN resolution 1244. That resolution also requires the KLA to demilitarize – has it done so? That resolution also allows the UN to facilitate a political process to determine the future status of Kosovo. Facilitate a process – the last time I checked - did not mean impose. It means to be the non-interested party in a discussion between the principles in such a way as to keep the discussion alive. The UN is not facilitating the discussion; it is declaring “independence for Kosovo as the only viable option”.

To me, western nations are making the same grunting noises now that were being made during the aftermath of the Great War. Britain, France, and Italy were still steeped in the imperial traditions during the parceling of the Ottoman Empire. I don’t see a great deal of difference between the European Union today and the European parties of the Entente 100 years ago. Back then America was an undecided observer/participant with no real aims for the region – especially since Russia was out of the picture when the Bolshevik kicked off. Today, Kosovo seems to have a two-fold appeal to our government. The first is to show Muslims across the world that the US is not anti-Muslim. The second is to have a strategic bridgehead in or near Russia’s sphere of influence. Kosovo suffices are part of both missions.

My opposition to an independent Kosovo is - ironically – in agreement with what appears to be Russia’s position. Yet, Russia is in a push-pull situation because the Kremlin position on Kosovo is in direct contravention with its position on South Ossetia. However, think of all of the separatist movements existing in just about every nation on the globe. Kosovo can easily become the catalyst for each of those movements to have some measure of international credibility as independent nation-state candidates. Is the UN going to “facilitate” the destruction of those nations too - France, Britain, China, Russia, Georgia, etc? How can you be so sure?

Dmitri Medvedev will be the next president of a Russia, which must be prepared for the long run with regards to foreign policy with the United States.

Russia is proving herself quite capable of competing economically with the west. This is important because the Soviet collapse was based upon Soviet Russia’s inability to do so. Russia also invests very heavily in military capability and the ability to project power outside her own border. Russia has gained, somewhat quiety, Superpower status once again.

Whoever the next president of the US is will need to have a realistic view of Russian preeminence in Eur-Asian geopolitics. Russia owns a great deal of energy and production resources upon which Asian nations depend, but her strength is going to be in Europe.

Russian, state-owned corporate monoliths such as Gazprom are already shifting their focus abroad. While many are in denial that there is an emerging, if not already present, cold war scenario here - that this will only be an economic soft war like the US had with Japan - are missing the forest for the trees. Putin himself is providing the backdrop for my point. His speech in Munich this past March is easily the most aggressive a head of state could make - ala Hugo Chavez.

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

Putin, who has projected geopolitical power - militarily, through the use of cover federal security apparatus, and through the insertion of the Russian nose into the internal business of sovereign nations - has spoken the words above. This is highly reminiscent of Soviet leaders’ speeches.

While we focus our attention on the appeasement gene of those who don’t understand the Islamist psyche, we need to remember that Putin was a highly-placed KGB official. That wasn’t simply a job - it was the professional manifestation of an ideology. And the Russian people love him.

End of an era, they call this. I think it is the beginning of one. We were able to ignore Castro for a long time. I don’t think we will be ignoring Raul. Now, since we are playing in Russia’s backyard, I wonder if we will see more Russian-Cuban gestures of friendship in ours?

By Michael Averko

Original Posted at American Chronicle

Numerous reasons are presented to support Kosovo’s independence. Upon presentation, there is often little challenge to those points. Much of the pro-Kosovo independence advocacy involves fuzzy history and double standards.In an effort to deflate Serbia’s claim on Kosovo, Albanian nationalists portray the province as being initially inhabited by Albanians. In conjunction with that view is the comment about Slavs arriving in the Balkans after the Albanians. The origin of the Albanians is a matter of historical debate. It is said that modern day Albanians are likely derived from one or more groups, who were in the Balkans before the Slavs. In terms of significant numbers and a well established presence, reasonable evidence indicates that the Serbs predominated the Kosovo area of the Balkans before the Albanians. More recent history shows that the Albanian numbers in Kosovo started to increase in the 15th century, after the region had a noticeably inhabited Serb makeup.

The more convincing pro-independence argument focuses attention on Kosovo’s present day Albanian majority, overwhelmingly favoring separation from Serbia. The past 120 years have seen a process of Albanians replacing Serbs as the majority in Kosovo - a demographic change resulting from a series of ethnic cleansing campaigns, immigration from Albania (much of it illegal) and the comparatively high birth rate of Albanians.

Kosovo has been part of modern day Serbia since 1912. Centuries before, it had been an integral part of Serbia. Kosovo was never part of an independent Albania, or an independent entity unto itself. Kosovo’s historic attachment to Serbia is very real and legitimate. It is therefore inappropriate to dislodge Kosovo from Serbia. Allowing Kosovo great autonomy as a continued part of Serbia can hypothetically include the province having full United Nations membership (like Belarus and Ukraine during Soviet times) and International Olympic Committee representation (like non-nations Puerto Rico, British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong). This scenario appears to come closest to simultaneously matching the conflicting Albanian and Serb desires.

For consistency and fairness sake, Republika Srpska (the predominately Serb portion of Bosnia) would be offered the same option (in Republika’s Srpska’s instance, a continued affiliation with Bosnia). Based on the existing circumstances, the whereabouts of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic (two Bosnian Serbs leaders wanted by an overly politicized legal body, who are thought to be residing in either Republika Srpska and-or Serbia) is not a valid counter-argument against Republika Srpska’s inclusion. The dubious trio of Hasim Thaci, Ramush Haridnaj and Agim Ceku are considered acceptable leaders for Kosovo. Like Kosovo, Republika Srpska’s territory was part of former Yugoslavia. Unlike Kosovo, Republika Srpska has the status of a republic and shows itself capable of governing a multi-ethnic land at peace.

Diehard anti-Serb/pro-Kosovo independence enthusiasts are not convinced by this proposal. They have a series of talking points which in their view legitimizes the dismembering of Serbia.

One of them pertains to the period from 1974-89, when the non-Serb Communist dictator Tito granted Kosovo autonomy as part of the Serb republic in Yugoslavia. The follow-up claims that Kosovo during that period was essentially a republic. In point of fact, it remained a continued part of Serbia. That period of great autonomy saw an increase in violence against non-Albanians.

This reminds one of how the concept of American “states’ rights” has been viewed. It is ideal to allow a reasonable amount of regional autonomy. But what if such a scenario results in a greater ethnically related persecution? During the Kosovo autonomy years, Western mass media news reports detailed the increased ethnic violence in that province. By 1988, a consensus was reached in Yugoslavia about the failure of autonomy in Kosovo.

Enter the period of armed skirmishes between Yugoslav authorities and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The 1999 NATO led bombing of Yugoslavia in support of the KLA is an example of what happens when a country does not have nukes, Capital Hill lobbying clout and membership to an American club. Reference Russian actions in Chechnya, Israeli strikes against its adversaries and Turkish actions against the Kurds. For that matter, note the number of civilians killed as a result of the 2003 American led attack on Iraq. These examples are given to put into perspective how the Serbs have been mistreated.

This mistreatment is compounded by the thought that as punishment for fighting the KLA, Serbia lost the right to Kosovo. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 contradicts that belief. It specifically states that Kosovo is a part of Yugoslavia. Serbia is internationally recognized as the successor state to Yugoslavia. In Communist and post Communist Yugoslavia

Kosovo was part of the Serb republic. UNSC 1244 calls for a return of refugees, as well as of Serb military and government bodies to Kosovo. This has yet to happen. In legalese, the 1244 clause about taking into “full consideration” the unsigned Rambouillet diktat is not a green light for independence. It simply means that aspects of Rambouillet can perhaps be considered. Prior to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Clinton

Administration and Kosovo Albanian nationalists wrote a clause in Rambouillet which would have (if signed) permitted Kosovo to vote on independence after three years from the accord’s signing. I specifically recall noted American University law professor Paul Williams bragging about his having written that segment on Geraldo Rivera’s MSNBC cable news show. No one questioned Williams’ objectivity as a then adviser to the Kosovo Albanian nationalist leaders. Madeleine Albright was quoted as having said that Rambouillet was written in a way that was unacceptable to the Serbs. An obvious pretext for starting the war that was to be. The “final outcome” status for Kosovo is stated towards the end of 1244. It relates to how Kosovo should be governed as a part of Serbia. What other logical way can be otherwise suggested when the very same document recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia, while stating that refugees, Serb government and military bodies should return to that province?”

Turkey and Iraq have not lost parts of their land to create a Kurdish state. Past Kurdish and Turkish actions against Kurds were more oppressive than what the Serbs could be legitimately accused of doing to the Albanians. Keep in mind that there is much wrong to be found on the Albanian side. Serbia minus Kosovo is more democratic than Kosovo, Iraq and Turkey.

The view that Kosovo is a “special case” for independence is not in sync with a reasoned comparison of the disputed former Communist bloc territories. Regarding human rights and history, Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has a much better case for independence than Kosovo. Pridnestrovie’s historical relationship with Moldova is nowhere near as close as Kosovo’s ties to Serbia. Pridnestrovie has better economic conditions than Kosovo. The former is also free of the level of ethnic divisiveness in the latter.

There is a somewhat Machiavellian reason for going against the Serbs - the idea to please the “Muslim street”. Russia has sympathized with Serbia and fought a war involving predominately Muslim Chechnya. Yet, Russia does not seem to be as much on the hit list of Muslim extremists when compared to some other countries. Some have stated that the Russian-Serb fraternizing is over-emphasized. Seeing how Russia is not so chastised in the Muslim world, it appears that the Muslim street point to support Kosovo’s independence is the more overrated of the two views.

The inconsiderate attitudes taken against Serbia and comparatively greater concern for accommodating Muslim concerns (real and exaggerated) bring up the not so talked about matter of there perhaps being a bias (subconscious or otherwise) against Slavic Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Christians at large. If I’m not mistaken, Ukraine’s slant continues to not side with Kosovo independence. If true, note how some Ukrainian views get propped over others (like the ones bashing Russia, which are not shared by many in Ukraine).

Adrian Karatnycky’s 1999 article “The Condescension of the Christian West” has a few compelling observations. Among Western intelligentsia, not much effort is given to consider the views of Orthodox Christians on issues like former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, there is concerted effort to understand and reach out to perceived Muslim interests (real and exaggerated). The populations in predominately Orthodox Christian countries were overwhelmingly against the 1999 Clinton administration led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

Religious extremism is not relegated to one faith. Note that Orthodox Christians do not propagate their causes by guiding vehicles into office buildings and military installations. Punishing passive behavior in favor of the law of the jungle is not civilized. Some Albanian nationalist leaders and their Western supporters have hinted that enhanced violence might occur if Kosovo does not become independent. Rather than condemning such comments, they suggest that it is a valid reason for supporting independence. This opinion encourages violence as a means of independence elsewhere.

Sources:

American Council for Kosovo

http://savekosovo.org/default.asp

Edward Herman, “Book Review: Travesty”, Z Magazine Online, Apr. 2007

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Apr2007/hermanpr0407.html

G. Richard Jansen, “Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History”, Colorado State University, June 15, 2007

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/kosovohistory.html

Adrian Karatnycky, “The Condescension of the Christian West”, First Things, Aug./Sept. 1999

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/opinion/karatnycky.html

Nebojsa Malic, “The Suspended Castle: Kosovo’s Unsustainable Independence Claim”, Antiwar.com, Nov. 2, 2000

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m110200.html

****

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. His commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Byzantine Sacred Art Blog, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson’s Russia List, Russia Blog, Serbianna, Siberian Light, The New York Times and The Tiraspol Times.

Averko has appeared as a panelist on several radio shows, including the BBC World Service’s Have Your Say and the The Jay Diamond Show, when the latter aired in New York.

He initiated an on line Guardian Unlimited forum, which discusses former Communist bloc issues.

This is an amazing statistic because it should be much closer to 100%.

 In the poll, conducted in January, respondents gave the ultra nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Russia’s Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov a 1% chance of victory. 21% of respondents said they could see no likely winner.

Other politicians mentioned in the survey - Democratic Party leader Andrei Bogdanov and former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov - were seen as likely winners by less than 1% of respondents.

53% of respondents said Medvedev would be able to handle his potential presidential duties, saying that he was “educated, cool-headed, fair, and hardworking.” Three other presidential candidates, Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov, and Kasyanov received 11%, 9% and 4%, respectively, in this category of the poll.

With Putin’s popularity, Medvedev would have to do something ridiculously stupid to lose the race.

This should be seen as the Kremlin further flexing its muscle toward Europe.

Gazprom set to take over Serbian oil and gas company

The European Commission is worried about energy giant Gazprom’s regional expansion because it is ready to buy a controlling stake worth a billion euros in Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS), or the Petroleum Industry of Serbia, the largest state-owned national oil and gas company.
Experts said the deal would be closed during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Serbia on January 18.
Other customers were deterred because of the minority stake’s $550 million price, the need for additional investment and other prohibitive barriers.
Troika Dialog analyst, Valery Nesterov, said the Serbian company now offered more attractive terms for would-be investors.
Serbian authorities decided that a strategic investor would first buy a minority stake, and that majority stakes would subsequently be sold and top managers hired.
Nesterov said Gazprom had made the most attractive offer, and one that Belgrade could not refuse because otherwise it risked losing a promising gas project.
Gazprom will pay 400 million euros for a 51% stake in NIS and will invest the remaining 600 million euros into corporate development. The energy giant also promised to assist in the construction of the 400-km South Stream gas pipeline system worth $800 million, due to pass through Serbia.
Moreover, Gazprom offered strategic partnership in building a gas reservoir in Banatski Dvor, Serbia.
Timur Khairullin, an analyst with the Antanta Capital brokerage, said politicians and corporate officials had virtually coordinated the deal, and that Serbia’s Minister of Economy and Regional Development Mladan Dinkic who had previously claimed that the NIS stake was worth 2 billion euros, would resign from a commission examining the bilateral contract.
Commenting on the European Commission’s nervous reaction, Khairullin said any company had the right to sell their assets to anyone, and that its objections seemed far-fetched.
Nesterov said Gazprom had recently eliminated gas shortages in Greece and Turkey after Iran curtailed gas exports. The company did this by pumping more gas along the Blue Stream pipeline linking Russia and Turkey via the Black Sea.
“Instead of trying to create artificial competition for Gazprom, the European Commission should adopt a more constructive stand,” Nesterov said.

Here are some things to consider:

Oil:

• 45% of EU oil imports originate from the Middle East;
• by 2030, 90% of EU oil consumption will have to be covered by imports

Gas:

• 40% of EU gas imports originate from Russia (30% Algeria, 25% Norway);
• By 2030, over 60% of EU gas imports are expected to come from Russia with overall external dependency expected to reach 80%.

Coal:

• By 2030, 66% of EU needs is expected to be covered by imports.

Russia does not need to join the EU - the EU will be at the Kremlin’s feet.

I know some of my opinions about Russian policies and the over-bearing nature of Russian government organizations are met with angst from people I respect - People who also know Russia. However, it is difficult to argue the perception of instability in Russia, when the current government takes archetypal soviet actions.

Beslan - 396 people killed, many of them school children held hostage in a 3 day siege.  I remember it well. I helped raise funds for the victims.

The investigation was a sham - cloaked in secrecy. The survivors and families of the victims have never received satisfaction as to what occurred there.  But, here is how they are treated.
From Siberian Light 

True, under Russian law, such criticism of the President is technically illegal - the law was amended in 2006 to bring public slander of a government official within the legal definition of extremism,

But has anyone considered whether this prosecution is actually in the public interest? How will the Russian public be served by prosecuting a protest group led by greiving mothers?

Surely (and assuming that Putin isn’t complicit), the most sensible way forward for the Russian authorities is to accept that grief causes mothers who have lost their children to lash out, and accept this as a natural expression of their anguish?

Instead, by prosecuting these mothers as extremists all Russia does is trivialize its, and the world’s, ongoing struggle against real terrorists.

The Voice of Beslan published a letter in 2005, for which they will now be prosecuted.

addressed to “Everyone sympathetic to Beslan’s tragedy” and posted on the group’s web site, says “none of the acts of terrorism that occurred during Putin’s presidency has been investigated properly” and that Putin has become “the guarantor for the terrorists” by not punishing senior officials for the botched Beslan rescue operation. More than 330 people died, most as special forces tried to rescue them during the final chaotic hours of the 2004 hostage taking at the Beslan school.

“We are surprised to find out that our right to demand a fair investigation of the Beslan tragedy has been declared extremist,” Voice of Beslan founder Ella Kesayeva said by telephone from Vladikavkaz.

Kesayeva, whose daughter survived the attack, said she had been summoned to appear in a Nazran court on Monday. She said she had asked prosecutors to move the case to Vladikavkaz, where the Voice of Beslan was registered before it was disbanded by North Ossetia’s Supreme Court last month in a separate lawsuit.

Vladislav Svetostov, a spokesman for a Nazran prosecutor, declined to comment about the extremist case ahead of the hearings. He defended the complaint, though, saying prosecutors in all regions are supposed to monitor the media to make sure that nothing illegal is published.

The Voice of Beslan was formed as a nongovernmental organization to raise awareness about the attack two years ago. Kesayeva led the group until the North Ossetian court upheld a lawsuit by another NGO with the same name last month.

Kesayeva accused the authorities of using the latest lawsuit to try to silence critical Beslan residents.

Many of these family members of vicitms and victims themselves also stood in 2004, blocking highways in North Ossetia - Alania to try to get attention for the need for investigations into what sparked the battle at Number One School. The Russian authorities in the region responded unfavorably then too.

I too don’t indict Putin on this issue directly, however he cannot possibly be deaf to this . It makes no sense that the event which was galvanizing with respect to Russia’s stance on terrorism has no attention from him. He appointed the commission which pushed this under the carpet. This is a federal issue.

As for the treatment of the Mothers of Beslan, well I condemn that.  Their children paid the ultimate price for Russia’s war in Chechnya - Russia’s war on terror. They deserve better.