Please can I have responses to the following three posts.Post 1Comrades of the Board,In order to resolve our intricate problem, it is crucial that we put aside our past grievances. My brothers in the Chechen Underground are not responsible for the atrocities committed by various splinter organizations and criminal groups that have arisen in the last ten years. Contrary to this, the Russian government is solely responsible for the actions of their soldiers in the invasions of Chechnya. The first step in moving forward towards lasting peace must involve the Russian government taking responsibility for the humanitarian crisis they have created. In turn, the Rightful Chechen Government will find the terrorist and criminal organizations that have been taking advantage of our people’s struggle to wreak havoc, and hold them accountable for their crimes in a court of justice. The world must know that Chechnya is not a lawless land, and we must show the OSCE and UN that we can govern ourselves and do not need Russia or their puppet administrators. The second thing we must do is build an economic plan for the future of Chechnya. For this, we do need Russia, for it is only through close economic ties that both Russia and Chechnya can prosper. Whatever the outcome of these talks, and whether in the long run Chechnya achieves independence or even semi-autonomous status from Russia, we must retain close economic ties for the both of us to benefit. During our few years of independence, it was our lack of economic stability that prevented us from being able to provide for our citizens, and allowed the rise of terrorists and criminal groups. Russia in turn wants access to our natural resources, which we will provide at a fair price in order to ensure mutual prosperity. Lastly, in order to resolve the conflict without the use of violence, we must hold immediate elections in Chechnya which are monitored by unbiased international organizations. This is a key step in eliminating the terrorist organizations, because the people of Chechnya must have a government that they support and believe in, and that actually serves them and provides for their basic needs. Without that, they will seek that stability elsewhere, and fill that governmental void with religion or money, thus driving them into the hands of the criminals and terrorists. I understand that this is a lot to ask of our Russian partners, but without these steps the violence will undoubtedly continue, and Russia will be forced to sacrifice more soldiers to suppress the criminals and terrorists. I look forward to hearing from my Russian counterparts regarding these steps. I hope we can approach them in the spirit of progress that they are intended in. Thank you.Respectfully, Salambek MaigovPost 2I am Garan Sureyev Aide to Ruslan Gelayev, Second most senior Chechen Field Commander. I believe that the relations between the Russians and Cheyanne need to de-legitimize religion and treat religion as a non-dominating factor. There is much to be said about the original issue of why Chechnya wanted independence from Russia, including the growing cultural differences and the feeling of exploitation for the land. “While much of the Russian Federation is ethnically and linguistically Russian, there are other republics with high percentages of different ethnic and religious groups that might have been particularly likely to push for independence or greater autonomy.” (USIP 2003). Chechnya sits on land that Russia finds valuable for location and natural resources. This is what makes the resolution difficult. Since an agreement could not be made, the conflict of interest arose and Russia began to use Chechnya as a political pawn to gain support during elections. To fully separate the ill will between the two sides, it would behoove Chechnya to choose a leader to speak on their behalf to support their interests. The situation has gotten out of hand and primary interests have deviated from their original goal. It will take some time and cleverness to get the both parties on track. There is power in unity and if Chechnya can elect a public face to speak for the collective, perhaps an agreement can be made with Russia’s leader. “First encouraging negotiation is a key requirement to facilitate military peacekeepers to understand non-violent approaches to conflict management.” (Woodhouse 2010).The conflict encompasses the heart of the culture in Chechnya and it should be represented as such. “Culture must, then, be seen not just as one of many elements impacting on peace keeping, but as a quality determining it’s very essence.” (Curran 2013). Because of this it is important not to forget the bloodshed but to appreciate the cause and how it has led to the moment where negotiations can begin to bring peace to the two parties. ReferencesCurran, David. 2013. Training for Peace Keeping: Towards Increased Understanding of Conflict Resolution? International Peacekeeping. Vol 20.Woodhouse, Tom. 2010. Peacekeeping, Peace Culture and Conflict Resolution International Peacekeeping.USIP. 2003. Simulation on the use of Force in Chechnya: An Exploration through Track-Two Diplomacy. United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/chechnya.pdf (Web).Post 3Hello Class,Out of character and pertaining to the on spread violence between the Russian Government and Chechnya, parties will regenerate a means to no end so long as each group continues avoid the oppositions perspective. There are other ways for either party to be able to get what they desire, or at least a portion of it, rather than taking on roles of vigilantes. It would appear that the parties involved have been in somewhat of a long-term competition with outdoing one another, and it is time to make it a mission of cooperation (APUS 2019). In order for positive peace to take place in these aspirations of lasting restoration, continued opportunity to address negative attitudes would be advisable since the aim is to reform mindsets of the offended (Otzel, Getz, and Ledek 2007, 334). To come to manage this conflict, there must be acknowledgement of the pivotal aspects that will need to be repaired on both sides of the spectrum. One reoccurring concept that has been brought to the attention of this board, was the verbal annotations of the faced sufferings endured by the Chechen Eco structure, in addition to the physical sufferings of its people. The land of Chechnya has been left in ruins from the results produced by the war and its costs have been devastating. As noted in our reding this week, “Narratives are understood here as views constructed through words that serve to frame perceptions of any issue. Environmental narratives shape and are shaped by our views of the natural world, and can serve to increase or decrease the salience of a contested environmental issue…and in turn the likelihood of its resolution. In the terms of the basic discourse, security studies, and negotiations theories…environmental narratives frame perceptions of issues such that they become politicized to reveal interests, or securitized to reveal positions. Opportunities for resolution of tensions are opened up or shut down, accordingly” (Zeitoun, Talhami and Eid-Sabbahg 2012, 294). As an act of good will, Russians can begin to manufacture trust among Chechens through the tangible rebuild of environmental narratives expressed during these hearings, which could allow for mutual successes if the negotiations are effective (Curran 2013, 85). Many viable options present themselves as provisions of “mutual gain”, such as the employment of Russian troops to provide aid in the peace process by reforming previous notions of these men through new acts of guardianship and relief to the Chechen people (2013,89). Not only could this begin to reshape generalist categorizations placed on these Russian men, but with their implementation of Core Pre-Deployment Training Materials (CPTM) they could succor significant decrease in widespread violence as these methods can equip positive peace during these times of reformation (2013, 90). Although options, none of the array of opportunities for reform will be possible if the Chechen people do not denounce their subjected role as “terrorists” (USIP 2003, 10). In order for Russian officials to consider bestowing independence to Chechnya, there will need to be reassurances that no impositions of Islamic Shari’s Law will be enforced on any other land or peoples that would boarder the newly identifiable plot. The continued meetings of humanitarian parties from both Russian and Chechen representatives will allow forward motions in these possibilities, so that deeper understandings can be reached in hopes to mold new relationships based on freshly formed understandings, which could hopefully yield respect and innovative action for a brighter tomorrow. References Curran, David. (2013). Training for Peacekeeping: Towards Increased Understanding of Conflict Resolution, International Peacekeeping, 20:1, 80-97. Oetzel, J., Getz, K. A., & Ladek, S. (2007). The role of multinational enterprises in responding to violent conflict: A conceptual model and framework for research.American Business Law Journal, 44(2), 331-358.USIP. 2003. “Simulation on the use of Force in Chechnya: An Exploration through Track-Two Diplomacy.” United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/chechnya.pdf.Zeitoun, Mark, Michael Tathami, and Karim Eid-Sabbagh. 2013. "The Influence of Narratives on Negotiations and Resolution of the Upper Jordan River Conflict." International Negotiation 18, no. 2: 293-322. Responses should be a minimum of 150 words.