X Close

Will Chechnya’s gamble in Ukraine backfire? Ramzan Kadyrov is staking his future on the invasion

Putin's attack dog (Kadyrov Press Office/Getty Images)


March 28, 2022   6 mins

The first month of President Putin’s most recent invasion of Ukraine has not gone according to plan: the initial drive to Kyiv has stalled; his forces have sustained heavy losses; support from his inner circle has been tentative or lacking.

But despite this bleak picture, one man has stood firm in his support for the invasion, both financially and with man-power: Ramzan Kadyrov.

Kadyrov is the governor of Chechnya, the small region in the North Caucasus that has repeatedly fought for its independence against Russian rule. Putin reintegrated the region in the early 2000s with the help of Kadyrov’s father, Akhmad. Following the assassination of Akhmad in 2004 by Chechen Islamists, Kadyrov developed a close relationship with Putin, frequently likened to that of father and son. He eventually took over as the head of Chechnya in 2007, receiving the Russian president’s full backing.

The personalist nature of this relationship is crucial: Kadyrov’s loyalty does not extend to the government or Russia, it is only to Putin himself. This has meant that Kadyrov has grown bolder throughout his rule, clashing with security services and even flouting federal policies. Suffice it to say, support for Kadyrov in the Kremlin does not reach much further than the president’s office. This history is important for evaluating the size of the gamble Kadyrov is taking in his support for the invasion, and what he has already gained.

In Chechnya itself, Kadyrov’s rule is characterised by brutal, indiscriminate violence. His campaign to purge the republic of its LGBTQ community, part of a policy of extrajudicial executions, is well-documented. At the start of this year, he embarked on his anti-dissident war with renewed vigour, conducting mass kidnappings of critics’ relatives. This included violently abducting Zarema Musaeva, the mother of a Chechen human rights lawyer, from Nizhny Novgorod in January; she is still held by police.

This violence has been carried out by the Chechen security services, known as the kadyrovtsy, which operate as Kadyrov’s personal army. These units rarely leave Chechnya, and even then, only for training exercises. Kadyrov mobilised his top commanders and units at the beginning of February, sending them to the staging areas near the Belarusian-Ukrainian border. Moving as one large group, the units known to be involved in the invasion are the “Sever” and “Yug” Battalions (“North” and “South,” respectively), the “Akhmat-Grozny” riot (OMON) police unit, and the “Akhmat” rapid-response (SOBR) police unit.

Allegedly deployed on March 22nd is the Akhmat Kadyrov Police Regiment, the most notorious in Chechnya, and possibly in Russia. This is the unit largely responsible for the extrajudicial executions and the anti-LGBTQ purges. While Kadyrov claims they are now in Ukraine, he has faked their deployment before, and they just returned from a SWAT competition in the UAE.

The most important leader within these units is Magomed Tushaev, commander of “Sever” Battalion. While his counterpart in the “Yug” Battalion, Khusein Mezhidov, has appeared more prominently in propaganda clips, Tushaev played a more significant role in the psychological warfare during the military buildup and the initial days of the invasion, stemming from the brutal reputation developed by Tushaev’s unit during counterterrorism operations in Chechnya.

Tushaev was rumoured to have been killed on February 26th, the kadyrovtsy’s worst day of casualties. It soon transpired that he was, in fact, alive, yet many of Kadyrov’s opponents abroad keep repeating it, allowing Tushaev’s presence to continuously make them look foolish.

In addition to these units’ leaders, Kadyrov sent in his cousins: brothers Sharip Delimkhanov, commander of Rosgvardia in Chechnya, and Alibek Delimkhanov, deputy commander of Rosgvardia’s North Caucasus forces. Their final brother, Adam, is a Duma parliamentarian from Chechnya who is now overseeing the kadyrovtsy’s operations in Mariupol. These units were engaged near Kyiv but could not take sufficient ground to carry out their objective: assassinating President Zelenskyy. Accordingly, Kadyrov pulled them back to Chechnya, deploying new, unidentified units near Mariupol under the leadership of Adam Delimkhanov. These reinforcements also failed the crucial task of taking the Azovstal metallurgy plant, which instead had to be bombed.

Kadyrov’s financial backing for the invasion has come from the Akhmat Kadyrov Fund (AKF), his family’s private slush fund. It was primarily created by embezzling federal subsidies to the republic and racketeering businesses and state employees. As part of the war effort, the AKF has supplied food and equipment to his troops on the frontlines, as well as military vehicles to the authorities of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. He has also used his corrupt slush-fund to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Melitopol, which is under Russian occupation.

The invasion may still be in its infancy, but a number of consequences of Kadyrov’s gamble are already visible. Most obviously, his information war has proved a success. He continuously makes his critics look foolish about the fact that Tushaev is alive, and he has been able to stage rallies in support of the invasion far beyond Chechnya. Kadyrov’s simultaneous campaign to court the Arabic-speaking world has also helped keep Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from siding against Russia in the pitched economic battle. For Putin, at least, this is enough to justify his decision to make Kadyrov Russia’s chief diplomatic emissary to the Muslim world — even if it does backfire when he prioritises Muslim issues over Kremlin policy, such as with his support for the Ronhingya.

In elite politics, Kadyrov is also coming out ahead. His strong support for Putin, when others were more hesitant, is a clear win. The domestic turmoil in both the FSB and Rosgvardia — exacerbated by American and Ukrainian intelligence disclosures pointing to leaks from the security services — plays to his advantage. Kadyrov’s long-running feud with federal security service leadership means that, the more endangered their futures become, the more secured his is.

Yet not everything is going to plan. For all his propaganda victories, Kadyrov’s biggest loss is that the kadyrovtsy’s reputational bubble has burst. Almost everyone, except the Chechen propaganda circus, has noted that his army has not engaged in fighting, but has still sustained significant casualties. This is likely to embolden his opponents among the Russian political elite, who may fear him a little less, making increased confrontation possible.

In Chechnya, too, his position will be weakened. There currently are and will be fewer kadyrovtsy, as many are engaged, while others have been killed, in Ukraine. It is also important to remember that not all of the kadyrovtsy are devout members of the Kadyrov cult of personality. Forced recruitment into their ranks has long been used as a tactic for containing societal discontent, but failure will only exacerbate it.

For the time being, however, Kadyrov is performing adequately. He is not doing as well as he would hope, but he is certainly not faring poorly, and is generally proving his value to Putin. The elite conflict among security elites could flip on him, but his propaganda victories should keep that at bay.

None of this is to say his safety is guaranteed. In the coming weeks, several trends should be closely watched to see how Kadyrov’s luck holds — the clearest of which is the continued invasion. For now, continued war means continued opportunities for propaganda, one of his favorite activities. This is representative of his regime, prioritising flash over substance. But while Tushaev may not have been killed, the abundance of Kadyrov’s trusted advisors in the field increases the odds of this happening to his allies. Were a number of them to perish, he could quickly find himself isolated.

Then there are the worsening socioeconomic conditions in Chechnya. According to the region’s authorities, there is “no deficit of sugar”, one of the key economic benchmarks; according to reports, the AKF is now handing out sugar to some families. No doubt Kadyrov will keeping a close eye on this: socioeconomic concerns have proved to be the only mobilising grievance for the Chechen public in the current repressive atmosphere. This previous expression of dissent was led by women, who may also now have sons fighting and dying in Ukraine. Women have already led protests elsewhere in the North Caucasus, making this a distinct possibility in Chechnya.

Added to this is the fact that the entire North Caucasus region now faces mass economic disruptions from the new sanctions regime. While experts have noted the region’s potential resilience to the sanctions’ effects, their repercussions on the federal budget are not yet clear. The fate of the federal subsidies, upon which the North Caucasus relies, is still undecided.

The final threat to Kadyrov is the reshuffling of the elite hierarchy. While Kadyrov is currently edging out federal security officials, his advantage may not hold in the long run. Anticipating this, he is trying to earn federal recognition as the North Caucasus’s most important leader. Yet the Kremlin has worked to establish Sergei Melikov, head of neighbouring Dagestan, as a regional counterweight to Kadyrov — as most non-Putin officials in the Kremlin are wary of his influence in this corner of Russia. Whether he poses a significant threat to Kadyrov is still unclear: at a recent national security meeting, Kadyrov took the opportunity to, quite literally, shunt Melikov to the side. Elite jockeying is, after all, an art of longevity.

It was proof that, for now at least, Kadyrov remains in a strong position. But the consequences of Russia’s latest incursion into Ukraine are still coming into focus. The fate of the war has yet to be decided and the full effects of sanctions have not been felt. When the dust finally settles, Kadyrov may not be standing where he thought he was.


Harold Chambers is a political and security analyst of the North Caucasus.

chambersharold8

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

37 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
2 years ago

A very interesting article about a subject unlikely to be reported outside the specialist literature.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 years ago

Given that Putin’s primary justification for this war is based on the shared roots and ethnicity of the Slavs in Russia and Ukraine (and Belarus), I’m rather surprised that no one has raised the issue of how Russian Slavs will feel about Chechnya Muslims slaughtering their fellow Ukrainians Slavs. I don’t think they’ll be at all happy about it, and it severely undermines Putin’s claim of defending Slavs.
But I’ve yet to see any commentator, including this writer, mention that aspect. Am I wrong in thinking this could be a big deal in the aftermath of the war?

Last edited 2 years ago by Ian Stewart
ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

A very good point.
In the early days of the Irish Rebellion 1969-1996 we could have deployed Gurkha troops, who no doubt would have solved the problem overnight.
In the event we didn’t, and preferred to use ‘Aunt Sally’ tactics with disastrous results.
Putin obviously lacks our scruples, but we should not be surprised. After all both the Tsars and Stalin had no compunction at all in slaughtering thousands of fellow Polish Slavs and others.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

I don’t think he is ADVOCATING their use! I very much doubt that the Gurkhas would have ‘solved the Irish problem overnight’ because essentially the British had lost all political legitimacy among the Irish population by the time of the Anglo-Irish war. Defeating an insurgency with public support is very hard, short of using utterly brutal methods; we could not defeat the Provisional IRA in the small state of Northern Ireland after all. It is not at all likely that British public support for a policy of complete repression in Ireland could have been maintained, which of course is precisely why there was a truce and a negotiated settlement.

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Philip Crook
Philip Crook
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

The reason why the Provos led by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness decided to in effect sue for peace is that they realised that they could not defeat the British army. That sounds a bit like a military defeat.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Philip Crook

As indeed it was. However one must remember that ‘self praise is no recommendation’ mustn’t one?

John Lee
John Lee
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

The IRA were not operating out of Northern Ireland but out of the South with the complicity of the Irish government.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  John Lee

And the US Government via that odious organisation called NORAID, to which both Biden and Pelosi and countless others are closet supporters.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

The Gurkhas* plus Derek Wilford’s I Para and the 39 Brigade Commander, Frank Kitson would probably have ‘wrapped it up in six months’, but to the detriment of the future of the British Army it must, reluctantly be said.

(* An optional extra, which again it must be said.)

Marcia McGrail
Marcia McGrail
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Defeat them? Murderers who used the skirts of women to hide: cowardly bombs & bullets to achieve for them what democracy would not? How does a standing army achieve that? There are many historically divided islands that live with the status quo-trying to right a wrong perpetrated 00’s of years ago by murdering the descendents is an obscenity.

Philip Crook
Philip Crook
2 years ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

I was one of the Aunt Sally’s you refer to in the COIN operation known as Op BANNER. I do not recognise this Irish Rebellion you refer to at all. That had already happened after WW1 and resulted in the partition of Ireland leading to the present situation. The mention of the use of Gurkha units is a red herring and in any event would not have made any difference.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Philip Crook

Really! How extraordinary so was I. I hadn’t heard that dreadful acronym COIN before, how odious.
I cannot follow your logic. Yes there had been an Irish Rebellion between 1916-21, but after years of poverty and peace which lasted until 1969, there was the outbreak of Rebellion II, which the British Public quite happily endured for more than thirty years.*

I fail to see how the use of Gurkha troops is a “red herring” in the context of this article where the use of Muslim Chechens against Christian Slavs seems to be the point. I would have thought the parallels were obvious.

Incidentally thank God we didn’t use the Gurkhas and the philosophy of Derek Wilford and Frank Kitson and destroy the the IRA at birth. As you may recall this was the era of massive Defence cuts by Dennis Healey & Co, even the Agile & Suffering Highlanders** were almost disbanded despite their recent sterling service in Aden. In fact Ireland gave the Army another lease of life, a thirty year live firing training area, which would not have been the case had things been wrapped up in say 1971-2, would you not agree?

(* In answer to Andrew Fisher.)
(** Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders for the uninitiated.)

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

‘In the early days of the Irish Rebellion 1969-1996 we could have deployed Gurkha troops, who no doubt would have solved the problem overnight.’

You couldn’t, otherwise you would have done so.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago

We could, but unfortunately Harold Wilson was a socialist worm. QED.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Good point. Franco notoriously used Moroccan troops in his ‘reconquista’ of (Republican) Spain, who were noted for their brutality. They probably had no particularly good reason for loving the Spanish in general (there had been an ongoing colonial war which Franco put down).

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Nearly half the Free French Army in September 1944 was ‘black’.
They were later to be defrauded of their pensions by the French Government in 1959. C’est la vie!

Andy E
Andy E
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

>Russian Slavs will feel about Chechnya Muslims slaughtering their fellow Ukrainians Slavs
It seems the Chechens are annihilating Azov and similar n**i creatures. I hear they are not considered to be Slavs even by Ukrainian Slavs. People escaped from Mariupol held by Azov are telling things.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
2 years ago

We need to start thinking about what happens should Putin fall.
It’s doubtful that Kadyrov would have any loyalty to the regime that replaces Putin. It’s also doubtful that any other Russian leader would be able to hold the country together. Certainly no one in the Duma has any legitimacy.
It would thus be very tempting for Kadyrov to expand into part of Ingushetia and other parts of the Caucasus.
Things may get as messy as during the Russian Civil War.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago

Chechnya is an irrelevance.
Smaller that the island of Sardinia in both size and population, it is a mere pawn on the board.
In UK terms it would be like having the support of the Isle of Wight or in US terms, Rhode Island.

Last edited 2 years ago by ARNAUD ALMARIC
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

Size is not everything, as the Spartans historically, among others, showed. Fighting spirit and a reputation for brutality can, unfortunately, mean that small units can punch well above their weight, especially in the context of a lumbering regular army made up largely of poorly motivated conscripts.

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Sparta was destroyed by Epaminondas at Leuctra despite outnumbering them 10:7.
Normally, as Voltaire said “ God is on the side of the big Battalions “

Joe Donovan
Joe Donovan
2 years ago

In the noon-day sun in the Valley of Dagestan, I lay motionless with a bullet in my breast … Drop by drop my blood ran out.
So wrote Turgenev. The more things change …

Nick O’Connot
Nick O’Connot
2 years ago
Reply to  Joe Donovan

Someone else wrote that I think.

rick stubbs
rick stubbs
2 years ago

Somewhat disjointed claims none of which offer much conviction. Does the deployment of this force threaten UKR or is it a vanity play? Do these forces even speak Ukrainian and if not how well can they infiltrate or do their psych ops? Is their PR strategy just self aggrandizing or are they doing real damage? Try again

Neven Curlin
Neven Curlin
2 years ago

The first month of President Putin’s most recent invasion of Ukraine has not gone according to plan: the initial drive to Kyiv has stalled; his forces have sustained heavy losses; support from his inner circle has been tentative or lacking.

These are all assumptions, but you’re presenting them as fact! And that’s just the first paragraph of your piece. How do you expect me to continue to read?

Andy E
Andy E
2 years ago

>The first month of President Putin’s most recent invasion of Ukraine has not gone according to plan
I had to force myself over those first lines. (another idiot, I thought — how in the world you might know what the plan is!).
But in fact it’s a very thorough and deep look at the issue. I guess a stylistic analysis would show that the first and last paragrahs belong to one author and the rest is to another.

Dan Croitoru
Dan Croitoru
2 years ago

Another article from the bed wetting liberal magazine. Something closer to the truth: after 8 years of genocide against the Russian minority in Donbas and almost a complete takeover of Ukr by western funded crooks Russia had no choice but to intervene. It had no intention to take Kiev but had to position nearby in case the West invades.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Dan Croitoru
Dan Croitoru
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

…you don’t even engage with the argument. Silently and fearfully careful not to melt, you depose your dislikes… ha ha ha ha ha ha. C’mon warriors for freedom, that’s all you can do? Dislike and try to censor?

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

Be careful, the censorship on UnHerd in recent weeks has been absolutely dreadful. Far too many erudite commentators have simply ‘vanished’.

However let’s hear more about the 8 years of genocide, a few facts and figures would be a good start. Perhaps also something about the Ukraine’s first attempt at real independence in 1917 might also be useful.
’.

Dan Croitoru
Dan Croitoru
2 years ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

1917? Really? You can find about the Donbas genocide (from before 2010) on the web (of course not on neo-con/neo-lib sites such as UnHerd). For example, look for Donbas documentary (I think is now available on YT – Donbass – 2016. Documentary Anne-Laure Bonnel) I hope they did not remove it. Btw, they refused the screening of this doc on any TV channel in Europe.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

1917. Ukraine gained quasi independence thanks to the Imperial German Army led by that military genius, one Max Hoffman.
Thanks for the YT info, I shall explore.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

8 years? It is a wonder there are any Russian speakers left! You haven’t actually provided any arguments, though you do tell a number of outright lies. Then again, you are a pro-Putin troll, or judging by your weird language, an outright nutter.

Shelling Kharkov, a Russian speaking city, to smithereens. What a brilliant policy promoting the brotherhood of the East Slav peoples!

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

It is a shame we can’t contribute to the wide ranging debate going on in Russia, that land of freedom, rather than this western hellhole. And of course we know how Putin is famed for his humanitarian interventions in Chechnya, Syria and now Ukraine.

There, as we all know, he constantly demonstrates his love of the East Slav and especially Russian speaking population of Kharkov by providing copious supplies and aid – oh no, he DOESN’T?! What the hell do you mean, he shells the city to smithereens?! You are a western liar!! Or, if you are not then the local commanders must be to blame!

Hail Putin, the glorious freedom loving leader of the Eastern Slavs (plus various Muslims etc..)

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Nobody ever got shot going over the Berlin Wall to climb into the promised land of East Germany and it’s the same today. Plenty will criticise the West and Western democracies and leaders..not one would leave to live in Russia- let alone go there and criticise that leader.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

weird

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

Are we bed wetters or are we crooks?. Something of a contradiction there I feel…