X Close

Vladimir Putin’s immigrant army Ethnic minorities are being forced onto the battlefield

Migrant workers aren't safe on Russian soil. Getty Images

Migrant workers aren't safe on Russian soil. Getty Images


July 22, 2024   5 mins

Two and a half years of full-scale war in Ukraine have devastated Moscow’s invading forces. As many as 500,000 soldiers — 2% of Russian men between the ages of 20 and 50 — may have been killed or seriously wounded. Russian social media networks are alight with stories of terrible conditions at the front, where troops with cursory training and substandard equipment are tossed into battle. Comparisons are drawn with the life expectancy during the Second World War, when at some times the average soldier survived mere days. Receiving the dreaded povestka — the Russian army’s enlistment paper — is all but a death sentence.

Despite all this, Moscow by means fair and foul continues to find soldiers to cover its losses. The Russian state’s biggest challenge remains not replacing men but equipment, and its army continues to hold a significant manpower advantage over its Ukrainian opposition. But the Kremlin’s recruitment strategy is not limited to forcing its own citizens into uniform. It has found a way to marry an imperial Soviet tradition and 21st-century global capitalism to make joining the Russian army an appealing choice for many foreigners. Soldiers from Somalia, Syria and other friendly nations are an occasional sight at the front, but the largest contingent of foreign fighters hail from the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

Russia has long been a draw for Central Asian immigrants. As many as five million Central Asians may currently be residing in Russia compared to 1.3 million in the next most popular destination, Germany. The history of Russia-Central Asian military enlistment, moreover, is a long one. Prior to the collapse of the USSR, when Moscow ruled the entirety of Central Asia, millions of soldiers from the region served in conflicts on behalf of their Soviet masters. From the Second World War to Afghanistan, Soviet Russia used its Central Asian population as a source of disposable military material. And Central Asian soldiers tended to die more often than their Russian peers: Kazakhs were one and a half times more likely than Russians to be killed in the Second World War, a fact never mentioned in today’s jingoistic Putinist war propaganda.

After independence in 1991, post-Soviet Russia’s wars in Chechnya and Georgia had to be fought without troops from its neighbours. But since February 2022, Moscow has been seeking to bolster its ranks with Central Asian immigrants. Terrified migrants received povestki on the first day of the full-scale invasion, and many sought help from all but powerless local lawyers and NGOs. Media reports — and heavily publicised scandals back home in Central Asia — have drawn attention to the Russian army’s brutal press ganging of new arrivals and to numerous cases of workers tricked into enlisting.

And yet, foreign soldiers tend to cause less trouble politically. While the Kremlin’s mass mobilisation of its citizens in September 2022 was successful in terms of recruitment numbers, it sparked disquiet among privileged and hitherto “safe” residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Since then, efforts to recruit Central Asians have become more frequent and more violent. Any migrant who sets foot on Russian soil risks being hastily rounded up and packed off to the front in Ukraine, ready to join the ranks of the fallen in an early grave.

“Any migrant who sets foot on Russian soil risks being packed off to the front in Ukraine, ready to join the ranks of the fallen in an early grave.”

The irony is that Russia’s war is portrayed in propaganda as an ethnonationalist crusade to reunite Muscovites with their Ukrainian “brothers”. It is, according to the rhetoric, a war fought to save white Russians from the “epidemic” of Westernism — with all its connotations of queerness, blackness, and other “non-traditional” values — emanating from Ukraine. The heroes of the war feted on television and at official ceremonies are, almost to a man, white Russians. Meanwhile, ethnic minorities — Muslims recruited at home and abroad — bear the brunt of the worst fighting. Yet despite it all, Central Asian migrants keep coming to Russia. And, more bizarrely still, they keep choosing to enlist in the Russian army.

What might be driving one of the most downtrodden ethnic groups in the region to voluntarily risk their lives in Moscow’s war? The chance of earning a life-changing sum of money is the obvious motivation. Moscow promises volunteers more than $2,000 a month in wages. When the average salary in Kyrgyzstan is less than $400 a month, that offer might give any young Kyrgyz pause for thought — even if their country’s authorities officially forbid them to take up the offer and Moscow does not always pay out.

But, more than a short-term pay-out, Moscow promises to make good on the old immigrant dream. Over the past two years, the route to Russian citizenship — and long-term socioeconomic security, assuming the fighting in Ukraine can be navigated safely — has become easier and easier for volunteers. In its desperate hunt for bodies, the Kremlin has binned more and more rules preventing Central Asians from becoming citizens. Today, a volunteer has a path to a passport after just a few months spent in the Russian army: a simple quid pro quo that suits both parties, even if the power imbalance is self-evident. Moscow, the old imperial centre, is still a land of unrivalled economic opportunity in the region.

It’s impossible to say how effective these tactics have been in terms of raw numbers, as Moscow does not release official statistics about the size and composition of its army. However, the evidence suggests that plenty of Central Asians are, by force or choice, landing in the ranks of Putin’s army in Ukraine. Hundreds are dying, but still their compatriots keep coming, with 1.3 million arriving in the first quarter of 2023 and similar numbers since.

In this way, Moscow has established a new type of capitalist imperialism. In some ways, its hold over its regions resembles the old Soviet system, when citizen-comrades dreamed of coming to the imperial metropolis of Moscow to realise dreams of upward mobility in a rigid social hierarchy. But this old-fashioned relationship between the empire and its peripheries is married to a 21st century globalism. In the Soviet era, movement between and within nations was tightly controlled. Today, though, sovereignty is no boundary to a greater power siphoning off the human resources of a neighbour. This is taken to a new, brutal extent by Moscow’s military recruitment tactics, which turn Central Asians into mercenaries-cum-economic migrants. In Europe, such free movement is an opportunity for richer Western nations to draw on their Eastern neighbours for cheap labour; in Russia, it provides the manpower for a 20th century “meatgrinder”.

Ironically, Central Asia itself has become the recipient of an outflow of Russian migrants. Educated and wealthy young Russian exiles are setting up cafes, IT firms and other businesses in what were once the imperial peripheries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where visas are easily available and Russian is still widely spoken. The Kremlin is getting a raw deal: in return for a flood of bodies to be sacrificed in war today, the best of its young generation are leaving and taking tomorrow’s economy with them.

However, a growing number of Central Asians are increasingly disgruntled with this untenable situation. As their governments vacillate over relations with the Kremlin, sections of society are buoyed by anti-Russian and national pride movements. Indeed, it’s likely that many of the young immigrants in Russia itself are only there for the money and would much rather be at home. In the years ahead, perhaps, the youngest Central Asian generation will follow in the footsteps of their Ukrainian peers and thoroughly reject not just Russian influence at home but the lure of the imperial metropolis as an immigration destination. Moscow cannot count on Central Asia as its recruit reservoir forever.


Dr. Ian Garner is assistant professor of totalitarian studies at the Pilecki Institute in Warsaw. His latest book is Z Generation: Russia’s Fascist Youth (Hurst).

irgarner

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

12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin M
Martin M
3 months ago

Dying in a ditch in Ukraine doesn’t seem fun, but ultimately, if these people are enlisting, it is their business.

William Amos
William Amos
3 months ago

Two and a half years of full-scale war in Ukraine have devastated Moscow’s invading forces. As many as 500,000 soldiers — 2% of Russian men between the ages of 20 and 50 — may have been killed or seriously wounded. 

A typographical error, surely? It is ten times the amount that the BBC has cited as recently as last month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68819853

Ian Garner
Ian Garner
3 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

The BBC’s stat is for *confirmed deaths*; the supporting source is a (fairly reasonable) projection of deaths + serious injuries.

William Cameron
William Cameron
3 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

The BBC report was dead not dead and injured.

Glynis Roache
Glynis Roache
3 months ago

I read this article with a level of queasiness because, during the heyday of the British Empire, the UK’s military recruitment practices were less than scrupulous. Many ruses were used to entice men into the regular army, which was a non-conscripted force (although there was a county quota system for the militia). Publicans, tricksters and recruiting parties would scour the country to lure men into regiments, often slipping a shilling into the drink of an unsuspecting patron at the local pub. Drinking the drink and thus accepting the King’s/Queen’s shilling’ was legally binding. As a result, tankards were frequently made with glass bottoms. Many years ago, we inherited such an antique pewter tankard which is actually how I originally learnt of the practice. 
Apparently, the moral calibre of the men in the British army at that time was variable because they were frequently drawn from the desperate, the drunken and what might have been called the ‘dastardly’. Wellington famously called them the ‘scum of the earth’. After their training, he reputedly said : ‘I don’t know what effect these men will have upon the enemy but, by God, they frighten me’. 
In recounting Wellington’s opinions from another century, I intend in no way to impugn or malign the characters of the immigrant recruits to the Russian army. Men in the throes of circumstance will do what they feel they have to do, Unfortunately for them, so will Empires.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
3 months ago
Reply to  Glynis Roache

So you’re saying a practice that Britain did 200 years ago (and has long since stopped) was highly immoral, and using that as a defence of the Russians who use similarly dubious methods today?
If the Russians started burning witches would you try and excuse them for it because we did the same in the Middle Ages?

Glynis Roache
Glynis Roache
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I’m not saying that at all. You’ve misinterpreted the last few lines. I’m saying that the aspirations of Empire building can sideline moral behaviour!

Tony Price
Tony Price
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I don’t think that he is saying that at all, just making the parallels. My thought on reading the article was the comparison with the Roman Empire – recruits from all over the Empire attracted by: regular income, albeit small, which was unusual then; pension and land at the end of service; citizenship at the end of service (key); possibility of promotion and thus social advancement. The problem then was that the indentured service was for 25 years, but 50% of soldiers made it. Sadly if you didn’t go you have missed the splendid exhibition at the British Museum on life in the Roman Army, but one of Mary Beard’s wonderful recent ‘Being Roman’ series on that subject is still there on BBC Sounds.

Steve White
Steve White
3 months ago

Ian, I can’t wait for you to put on a uniform and get in there and fight on the front lines. No doubt you’ll make quick work of such an ineffectual Russian military. I think you’re the game changer the Western hegemon has been looking for in Project Ukraine. They really need you to help secure all that BlackRock investment.

jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago

This is the reality of real life as people experienced it for thousands of years. Us Boomer generation,the world we were born into,and the society we were born into seemed timeless and how it had always been and how it would always be – only even better. We knew that life in the past was tough and unfair but our forebears struggled,fought and sometimes died so we wouldn’t have to be concerned with a thing. That was history and there was no more History.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
3 months ago

This is actually only half the story. The other amazing thing is how Russians are bringing in Africans to fight on Russian frontlines, advertising in places like Ethiopia, Kenya, CAR etc – offering cheap visas and work in exchange for miltiary service

James Buchan
James Buchan
3 months ago

If, and it is a big if, figures coming out of this conflict are true then whichever way you split it spells bad news for the Russian Federation unless they are essentially losing only migrants. If they are losing, as I suspect, Buryats Balochi and Tatarstan etc then all they are doing is losing the breeding men keeping the population semi-afloat. If they are losing ethnic Russians then the nature of the Federation changes from an empire of Russians to a empire in Russia.