X Close

Can Putin survive a Chechen civil war? A bloody battle would distract Russia from Ukraine

It's not looking good for Ramzan Kadyrov. Sergei Savostyanov/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

It's not looking good for Ramzan Kadyrov. Sergei Savostyanov/Pool/AFP/Getty Images


May 7, 2024   5 mins

Is Chechnya preparing for a bloody succession battle? According to reports, Ramzan Kadyrov, the ruthless leader of Russia’s Chechnya region, is suffering from a fatal pancreas condition. Although rumours about his health have cropped up repeatedly in recent years, this time things do not look good. Neither the Kremlin nor its counterpart in Grozny have been able to dispel the sense that Chechnya may be about to face a turning point — one that may provide an opportunity for Vladimir Putin’s opponents to get the better of Russia in Ukraine.

Chechnya has for two centuries been a thorn in imperial Moscow’s side. Over and over again, its people have revolted against the imposition of Christian Orthodox power and dragged Russia into protracted and bloody conflicts. The first of these post-Soviet conflicts, which ran from 1994 to 1996, saw Russian troops humiliated. Boris Yeltsin, who had staked his reputation on reasserting control over the region, saw his reputation permanently damaged. Worse, Russians themselves were humbled. A decade earlier, they had been vying for global supremacy with Washington. Now, they could not even win a war against a separatist rabble in their own backyard.

When in late 1999 Putin, then a young and straight-talking upstart, stormed into the halls of power, he promised to bring Chechnya back into the fold at any cost. Launching a new war, he sent his troops into the breakaway region with carte blanche to exterminate and destroy. Almost a decade of fighting left more than 50,000 civilians dead and Grozny razed. Widespread criminality — looting, rape and murder — by Russian troops at the front went mostly unpunished.

Into this maelstrom of violence stepped a young Ramzan Kadyrov, one of many former insurgents turned pro-Russian fighters. Appointed by Putin to lead the territory in 2007, his 17 years in power have been characterised by an awkward combination of Moscow-style autocracy, with various strongmen vying for favour while Kadyrov watches on, and regressive Islamism, designed through a combination of misogynism, traditionalist flourishes and militancy to appease and oppress the majority Muslim local population in equal measure.

But above all, Kadyrov has ruled in the same style as the Russian army conducted its invasion: with criminality and absolute violence. Kadyrov and his henchmen have personally been involved in torture and extrajudicial killings of political opponents and purported criminals. Brutal anti-gay purges have seen hundreds abducted, tortured and beaten — and several killed. Putin and his ally seemed to have found a solution to the age-old problem of Chechen insurgency: a flexible nationalism, ruthless violence and a mafia-like internal politics.

Imagining a post-Kadyrov Chechnya, pundits float bold hypotheses: could Kadyrov’s death provoke a bitter succession crisis that would spark another regional war? If Russian troops had to be deployed, would Putin’s reputation as the man who quelled the restive Chechens for good be ruined? Could rebellion in Chechnya even lead to a wave of revolts across the imperial peripheries, where Muslim minorities have not profited from the past two decades like their ethnic Russian peers and where local populations have borne much of the burden of fighting in Ukraine? If the wrong leader is imposed by Moscow, could demonstrations like those in Bashkortostan — another Muslim majority province where in January several thousand angry locals clashed with security services after a local activist was jailed — break out and perhaps spread? Both Kadyrov and Putin have plans in place to ensure that such disasters don’t unfold, but the situation is flammable.

Kadyrov himself seems intent on a dynastic succession. Two of his sons, the teenaged Adam and Akhmat, are being groomed for power. The 16-year-old Adam has been appointed supervisor Chechya’s Special Forces School, while his 18-year-old brother is the territory’s Minister for Youth and even attended a one-on-one meeting with Putin in 2023. The former shows the same penchant for violence as his father: Kadyrov announced he was “proud” when footage of Adam viciously beating a man who had burned a Koran went viral.

Yet neither of these stripling dauphins, who lack the support of either the public or a force of loyal foot-soldiers, would likely be able to keep control of Chechnya for long. A crowd of potential challengers, such as Kadyrov’s right-hand man Magomed Daudov, another Chechen War turncoat, and Apti Alaudinov, who commands a unit fighting in Ukraine and seems to be the Kremlin’s preferred choice, eagerly watches on. Each possesses far more significant support among Chechnya’s elites than the risible Kadyrov siblings. Should one or the other make a play for the top spot, it is hard to see the Kadyrov dynasty surviving.

Still, none of the challengers represent a separatist movement. Each has a vested interest in maintaining Putin’s support — and thus the inflow of money and, should any troubles arise, extra security services. Each would be able to rule in much the same vein as Kadyrov. Meanwhile, a fragmented separatist movement lacks the resources and manpower to mount a serious challenge. Significant opposition to Chechnya’s status as part of the Russian Federation does exist, and some Chechens are even fighting against Russia in Ukraine, but Chechnya is not the rebellious place it once was. Unlike other peripheral regions, it has not seen major protests as a result of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Even anti-Russian rebel leaders have suggested that Kadyrov’s death would not be a “game changer”.

The real danger for the Kremlin, then, is in Chechnya’s various power blocks engaging in an internal struggle so violent that it threatens regional stability. Unlike in the Nineties and 2000s, they would not fight for secession but for power. In a territory where mountainous and sparsely populated territory provides the perfect platform for guerilla warfare, and where performative masculine violence — showcased in regular mass demonstrations of Chechen military might — and traumatised veterans dominate political culture, such a conflict could easily spiral out of control. Perhaps the only way for Putin to restore order would be to deploy Russian troops en masse — and even then, judging by past wars, the conflict would not be resolved quickly.

That said, such a low-level conflict would not be regime ending. Putin’s propagandists would beat the patriotic drum, claiming that one or other (or all) sides were being funded by the usual enemies: the CIA, Islamic extremists, Ukraine. The conflict would be painted as just another example of how the West is trying to smash Russia apart — and thus proof that Putin remains the only man who knows how to face down this existential threat. It would fan the flames of anti-Muslim xenophobia, long nurtured by the Kremlin as a convenient means of rallying racial hatred for political ends and at a peak following the government’s handling of the Crocus City Hall terrorist attacks, rather than anti-Putin rebellion. Many Russians welcomed the sight of visibly brutalised Tajik Muslims appearing in court following the Crocus attacks; a wave of spontaneous victimisation of Central Asians has followed. In this febrile atmosphere, Chechens could easily receive the same sort of treatment.

In this case, Putin might emerge with his reputation intact or even enhanced. But a period of instability following Kadyrov’s death could also be a golden opportunity for Russia’s opponents to seriously weaken the Russian president. A military venture in Chechnya would hoover up significant money, manpower and materiel — all in short supply after two years of war in Ukraine. Just as the Russian army is gearing up for a big summer campaign to break through its stagnant position in eastern Ukraine, it could be drawn into a long and bloody war in Chechnya.

All Russia’s opponents need to do is fuel the ambitions of Kadyrov’s potential successors and encourage them to plot and commit violence against one another. Even providing arms to the handful of separatists operating in Chechnya or perhaps those fighting in Ukraine, if they were willing to return home to combat Putin, might be a viable option if it were to seriously disrupt Moscow’s war on Ukraine. Such a course of action would be cheap, has the potential to save Ukrainian lives, and might give Putin pause for thought as he weighs up his options vis-à-vis Kyiv. Kadyrov’s death might be the gifthorse a war-fatigued Western world is looking for.


Ian Garner is a historian and analyst of Russian culture and war propaganda. 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

28 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
10 days ago

Yeah I know Chechnya is a geopolitical powder keg and complete mess. Honestly though this reads as nothing more than hopeful whining now that predictions of Russian regime change and Ukrainian battlefield victory have proven to be laughably short sighted.

Martin M
Martin M
10 days ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I’m not sure that any of this will lead to significant problems for Russia, but anything at all that leads to any problems for Russia is a good thing, surely?

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
9 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Sure, but could have bad consequences for us as well. Chechen extremists don’t always stay in Checnya – they come to Europe (see France and Samuel Paty killing) and USA (boston marathon) and commit terrorist attacks there

0 0
0 0
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Surely things were better before when Europe was allowed to do business with Russia? For those in Europe certainly. For the US too although they thought they could do better. Only the Russians seem to be doing better now that they rely on themselves than they did before when they traded more with us. So, watch out what you wish for.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
10 days ago

Horrible “realpolitik” article which basically uses the Chechens who suffered a pretty brutal war within living memory as a pawn for the West’s interests. The casualties would be terrible now Russia knows what to do to stop terrorists (i.e. dont give a monkeys about civilian deaths). There is no hope of a Chechen victory. It would be less likely than in Ukraine as we couldn’t plausibly send weapons to them in the same way.

El Uro
El Uro
10 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Don’t worry. Chechens have enough Russian weapons

Martin M
Martin M
10 days ago
Reply to  El Uro

Some Russian weapons are good (AK47s). Some Russian weapons are not so good (its tanks).

Martin M
Martin M
10 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

I doubt that Russia has “given a monkeys” about civilian deaths (including those of its own civilians) at any point in its history.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
10 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

I sort of agree but then everyone was like that back in the day pretty much. What is different now is that the Russians have learnt that actually trying to kill civilians is the way to destroy insurgencies. They didn’t do it in Afghanistan and lost but did it in Chechnya and (helping their proxies) in Syria and won. The equation is simple – civilian destruction brings insurgents to their knees. The West’s “hearts and minds” approach is a stop gap at best.

Martin M
Martin M
10 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Maybe, but Russians have always been at the front of the pack when it comes to committing war crimes.

0 0
0 0
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Far behind the US now and the British before. Far behind.

Peter Shevlin
Peter Shevlin
23 hours ago
Reply to  0 0

So you say Boris.

Peter B
Peter B
9 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Pretty sure plenty of innocent Afghan civilians got killed by the Russians.
But what you appear to be saying is that the Russians have figured out that committing war crimes – deliberate slaughter of civilians – is they way forward here. Did I get that right ?
And you seem to imply that this is “progress”.
Is this a strategy you think we should have followed in Northern Ireland ? Or Israel today in Gaza ?

El Uro
El Uro
9 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Afghanistan – minimum 600.000 victims

0 0
0 0
4 days ago
Reply to  El Uro

Mainly a direct and indirect result of Islamists recruited and formed by Washington.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

What governments do?

Peter B
Peter B
9 days ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

It’s nothing to do with the West !!!
The Caucasus doesn’t need any help from us. Ethnic and tribal feuding is what they do best in that region. Fortunately a field in which we have little expertise (so far …).
If you have any actual evidence of the West intervening in Chechnya, please do give it. I’ve never seen any.
The West has clearly intervened in some places where it would have done better to stay out. I don’t see us ever being stupid enough to poke the Caucasus though. Leave the mess to the Russians.

0 0
0 0
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

Start with Brezhinskys autobiography. He brags about it

A D Kent
A D Kent
10 days ago

The final paragraph of this piece is chilling in the way that it blandly discusses the prospects of fermenting another catastrophic war. I’m sure the author wishes to remain analytical, dispassionate and all that, but it reads as borderline sociopathic.

Garner states without moral comment that the unleashing of another conflict would be an acceptable policy proposition if it could save an unspecified number of Ukrainian lives. There doesn’t appear to be any grounding to this moral equation that goes much further than ‘because Putin’.

Otherwise this piece does seem to be doing some ground-work for another little regime change operation – typically framing the local power as despotic and brutal. All of which may be true, but then again I wonder which of these cities the author may feel safer strolling around in right now: Baghdad, Damascus, Kabul, Tripoli or Grozny.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 days ago
Reply to  A D Kent

There’s a porous “borderline” between Machiavellian “realpolitik” and sociopathy.

Peter B
Peter B
9 days ago
Reply to  A D Kent

They will fight amongst themselves anyway. That’s what happens when a warlord dictator dies and there’s a power vacuum. Nothing we do – or do not do – will make any difference to that.
There is no need – and no sense – in us getting involved. Leave this particular **** show to the Russians. They broke it. They can clean it up.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 days ago
Reply to  A D Kent

Or New York City, it comes to that.

John Riordan
John Riordan
9 days ago
Reply to  A D Kent

My thoughts exactly. Nobody of sense and compassion could seriously want Chechnya to descend back into the violent hell it used to be, just because it might help the West in its desire to defeat Russia in Ukraine? I mean, we’re already doing that by treating Ukrainians themselves as nothing more than a numbers game, which is bad enough without deciding that we can chuck another country on the bonfire too.

Don’t get me wrong: I support Ukraine and think the West should do more to assist its campaign against Russian aggression. But really, it’s enough of a mess as it is without this new nonsense.

j watson
j watson
9 days ago

You read about the Kadyrov regime and just further understand why Ukraine fights. That’s the sort of society they’d end up with too. And thus why we must support them

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
9 days ago

Whatever happens with Chechnya, can we please stop with this fantasy: “one that may provide an opportunity for Vladimir Putin’s opponents to get the better of Russia in Ukraine.” ——-> A half-million or more Ukrainians are already dead and the country is a mess. We, the West, have done quite enough in pursuing this wholly avoidable conflict.
All Russia’s opponents need to do is fuel the ambitions of Kadyrov’s potential successors and encourage them to plot and commit violence against one another. ——-> Is this supposed to be an example of claiming the moral high ground, encouraging people to kill each other? Seriously? This obsession with Russia while the West implodes is quite the distraction. People like the author are rather cavalier about the lives of other people

Citizen Diversity
Citizen Diversity
9 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Rather like Imperial Germany fantasising that Mexico could join the Central Powers and attack the USA.
Is this all the West has left? Destroy one territory in order to save another? Acting like Guy Fawkes and using the lives of the Chechens as gunpowder. And, notably, hoping that religious divisions can be exploited; something that would be condemned in the UK or the USA.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 days ago

Kadyrov outlasted Susan Sontag. Just sayin’

0 0
0 0
4 days ago

Fifty years ago, Brezhinsky bought into Bernard Lewis’s idea of recruiting and forming Islamists to nibble at the Soviet Union and they’ve kept at it since even after 9:11 showed there can be blowback. In a misplaced tribute act to Mackinder, US neocons carry on to keep Europe and Russia apart whatever the cost even though Bush, Burns and Schroeder showed it was possible to do business wirh Putin. Good business. Too good for some, apparently.