Land, Sovereignty, and the Unfinished Question of Privatization in Chechnya

fisso Lascia un commento

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria from Soviet Collapse to Postwar Re-Bureaucratization

Introduction

The question of land privatization in Chechnya cannot be understood as a merely technical issue of post-Soviet economic transition. In the Chechen case, land was never simply an asset to be registered, transferred, leased, or sold. It was a national patrimony, a source of historical memory, a foundation of communal identity, a battlefield of state-building, and, after 1994, one of the many casualties of war.

Between 1991 and 1999, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria did not develop a liberal land market comparable to that emerging in the Russian Federation. Nor did it complete a coherent agrarian reform. The available evidence instead points to a more complex and internally contradictory model: a sovereignty-first economic doctrine, constitutionally open to private property in general, but deeply reluctant to commodify land, natural resources, or strategic assets.

This article argues that the failure of land privatization in independent Chechnya was not merely the result of administrative weakness or wartime destruction. Those factors were decisive, but they came later. At the origin of the process stood a political choice. Dzhokhar Dudayev and much of the independence leadership regarded rapid privatization, especially of land and strategic resources, as a danger to national survival. In their view, privatization risked opening the republic to speculation, corruption, external penetration, and the fragmentation of national wealth before the Chechen state had consolidated its sovereignty.

The result was an unfinished land regime: neither Soviet collectivism, nor Russian-style privatization, nor a fully restored customary order. It was a hybrid system, suspended between national patrimony, emergency administration, communal expectation, and the collapse of state capacity.

1. Historical Background: Land, Deportation, and the Moral Economy of Return

Chechen attitudes toward land were shaped long before the fall of the Soviet Union. Traditional Vainakh society was organized through family, teip, and tukkhum structures, in which land was tied to lineage, locality, honor, and collective survival. Customary law, or adat, regulated property disputes alongside social obligations and communal authority. In the mountain and foothill regions, the idea of land as a purely alienable commodity had only limited roots.

The Soviet period transformed these relations through collectivization. Beginning in the late 1920s, private and communal forms of landholding were absorbed into collective and state farms. For Chechens, collectivization was not experienced simply as modernization. It was remembered as another episode in the long history of imperial interference with the native relationship to land.

The trauma of the 1944 deportation deepened this perception. When Chechens and Ingush were exiled to Central Asia, their republic was dissolved, their villages emptied, and their homes and lands redistributed. Upon return after 1957, many found themselves effectively “immigrants in their own homes.” Housing, farmland, and administrative control had passed into other hands. The struggle for land was therefore inseparable from the struggle to recover historical dignity.

This memory mattered in 1991. The national movement did not approach land as a neutral sector of economic reform. Land was part of the historical body of the nation.

2. The Soviet Inheritance and the Structural Crisis of Agriculture

By the late Soviet period, Checheno-Ingushetia had a distorted economic structure. Oil, refining, and petrochemical industries dominated the economy, while agriculture remained weak, dependent, and undercapitalized. The countryside was largely Chechen, while Russians were disproportionately represented in industry, administration, and urban employment.

The agricultural sector was especially fragile. It had long depended on Soviet subsidies, controlled prices, access to fuel, machinery, and lubricants, and centralized procurement systems. Once the Soviet framework collapsed, the sector faced a structural crisis. Agricultural enterprises accumulated enormous debts; much of this debt was not accidental but systemic, arising from dependence on fuel, lubricants, and state support.

In principle, three policies could have addressed the crisis: agrarian reform, land privatization, and the elimination of subsidies. But this was exactly the path Dudayev opposed. This point is essential. The Chechen leadership was not unaware of the agricultural problem. On the contrary, the problem was known and discussed. The state simply refused to resolve it through the Russian-style market solution.

This refusal distinguished Ichkeria from the Russian Federation. In Russia, land reform and privatization were part of a broader project of economic liberalization. In Chechnya, the leadership feared that liberalization without consolidated sovereignty would produce not freedom, but predation.

3. Sovereignty Before Privatization

The earliest Chechen political texts placed land and natural resources within a national-patrimonial framework. The sovereignty discourse of 1990–1991 described land, subsoil, airspace, water, and natural resources as the property of the people. This formula did not exclude private economic activity, but it subordinated it to the collective ownership of the nation.

The 1992 Constitution of the Chechen Republic introduced a more differentiated property regime. It recognized private and state property, and it guaranteed economic freedoms. Yet it continued to define land and natural resources in their natural state as the patrimony of the people, to be granted for possession and use according to law. This was not a straightforward constitutionalization of private land ownership.

The distinction is crucial. Private property could exist. Enterprise could exist. Trade could exist. But land and strategic resources were not simply objects for unrestricted market circulation.

This made the Chechen model fundamentally different from the Russian one. The question was not whether Chechnya would have a market economy. It was whether the national territory itself could be turned into a market before the state had secured its independence.

4. Dudayev’s Anti-Privatization Position

The strongest new evidence from the broader research archive concerns Dudayev’s position. He did not merely delay privatization. He opposed it as a political danger. Dudayev and many others feared that privatization would allow “small profiteers” to parcel out national wealth for private advantage, leaving the country in poverty. This interpretation helps explain why the Chechen leadership resisted the liberal reform path even when economic conditions were deteriorating.

Dudayev’s position was not irrational in context. Chechnya’s economy was heavily concentrated around oil and refining. Other sectors, especially agriculture, required investment that the state did not possess. If privatization had been implemented quickly, it could have produced the same oligarchic dynamics seen in Russia, but in a much smaller and more vulnerable republic.

There was also a geopolitical concern. A weak, unrecognized Chechen state could not guarantee that privatized land, infrastructure, or industrial assets would remain under genuinely national control. Privatization could become a mechanism for Russian economic re-penetration. Thus, Dudayev’s anti-privatization stance must be understood as part of a broader doctrine: sovereignty first, market later.

5. Institutional Ambiguity: The State Committee on Privatization and Its Liquidation

The documentary record shows that the Chechen authorities dismantled or reorganized the institutional machinery that could have implemented classical privatization. In February 1992, the State Committee on Privatization and Antimonopoly Policy was liquidated, and its documentation was transferred to the Ministry of Economy and Finance.

This does not mean that no private economic activity existed. On the contrary, the early 1990s saw an explosion of informal trade, private initiative, smuggling, and local appropriation. But it does mean that the state moved away from a standardized privatization apparatus.

This point changes the interpretation of Ichkeria’s economic history. The issue was not simply that the Chechen state was too weak to conduct privatization. It was also that the leadership did not want to reproduce the Russian privatization model.

The result was a paradox: the formal privatization process was blocked, but informal appropriation flourished.

6. Agriculture: The Unresolved Core of Land Reform

The agricultural sector reveals the contradiction most clearly. Soviet collective and state farms were no longer functioning efficiently, but they were not replaced by a coherent private land system. Subsidies continued in one form or another. Debts mounted. Productivity fell. Machinery deteriorated. Fuel shortages worsened.

The population increasingly retreated from Grozny and other urban centers toward villages and rural networks, where land could provide subsistence. But the collapse of the collective farm system did not automatically produce orderly land ownership. Instead, it opened the way to looting, local redistribution, customary claims, and semi-formal occupation.

In some northern plains districts, mechanized agriculture survived in reduced form. Elsewhere, the decline of state farms created a vacuum filled by family networks and local power.

This is where the Chechen land question becomes especially difficult to classify. The republic did not maintain the Soviet system intact. But neither did it create a legal market in agricultural land. The countryside moved toward de facto decentralization without de jure privatization.

7. The Role of Customary Law

Customary law did not replace state law, but it became increasingly important as state capacity weakened. The collapse of collective farms and the absence of a clear privatization regime allowed local communities to rely on familiar mechanisms of allocation, mediation, and legitimacy.

This did not necessarily mean a romantic return to an ancient order. Customary structures could stabilize disputes, but they could also reinforce local hierarchies, clan influence, and unequal access. Still, they offered a form of social regulation where formal institutions were absent or contested.

The independence period therefore produced a layered land regime:

  1. constitutional patrimony of the people;
  2. state administration of strategic resources;
  3. partial or informal private use;
  4. customary allocation and recognition;
  5. growing coercion by armed actors.

No single model prevailed.

8. Oil, Land, and Strategic Control

Although the article focuses on land privatization, Chechnya’s land question cannot be separated from oil. Oil wells, pipelines, refineries, storage areas, and transport corridors were all territorial assets. Control over them was control over the fiscal basis of the state.

Since late 1991, Dudayev placed oil exports under direct presidential authorization. This was part of the same logic that shaped his position on land: strategic resources had to remain under national control. In practice, however, the government struggled to enforce this control. Theft from pipelines, illegal withdrawals, looting of tankers, and collusion by guards became endemic.

The Dudayev government responded by centralizing production and distribution. One major refining facility, the Lenin Refinery, became the core of production, while other plants were closed. Storage and distribution were also centralized in a guarded zone near Grozny’s Zavodskoy district. This produced some short-term success: theft reportedly decreased, and the state regained access to revenue.

But centralization also had political costs. The opposition accused Dudayev of treating oil as a personal asset and using strategic resources to strengthen presidential power. Whether or not the accusations of personal enrichment were justified, the political effect was real: economic sovereignty became inseparable from accusations of authoritarianism.

This dynamic helps explain land policy as well. If land and resources were too important to privatize, they also became too important to leave outside presidential control.

9. Parliament, Presidency, and the Political Economy of State-Building

The land question was embedded in a broader institutional conflict between the presidency and parliament. Dudayev sought to centralize authority in order to defend independence and prevent Russian penetration. Parliamentary critics accused him of violating constitutional procedures, duplicating institutions, appointing loyalists, and replacing elected local authority with presidential structures.

This conflict mattered for land administration. A functioning land reform would have required stable institutions, local authorities, cadastral bodies, courts, and enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the state was torn between competing centers of power.

Dudayev also dismantled parts of the old Soviet administrative system and replaced them with prefectures. Parliament objected, since the Constitution provided for elected regional governors. The executive justified centralization as necessary for state survival. The legislature saw it as authoritarian drift.

In such a context, land privatization was almost impossible. The legal question “who owns the land?” could not be answered while the political question “who represents the state?” remained unresolved.

10. The State Commission for Land Resources and Management

One important institutional detail is the existence of a State Commission for Land Resources and Management. During the Russian-backed Hadjiev administration in 1995, Ibragim Dzhandarov was listed as chairman of this commission, and the source notes that he had held the same post under Dudayev.

This is a significant clue. It shows that the land question was not absent from the state apparatus. There was a dedicated institutional structure responsible for land resources and territorial management. Yet the available evidence suggests that this institution did not succeed in creating a stable land regime.

Its continuity from the Dudayev period into the Hadjiev government is also revealing. Moscow-backed authorities did not simply invent land administration from scratch. They reused personnel and structures inherited from the independence period. This suggests that despite political rupture, administrative continuity existed at least in fragments.

However, under wartime occupation, such institutions could hardly operate as neutral organs of land governance. They functioned within competing claims: Ichkerian legality, Russian federal authority, collaborationist administration, military occupation, and local survival economies.

11. War and the Collapse of Property Order

The First Russo-Chechen War transformed the land question. From December 1994 onward, land reform ceased to be a policy problem and became part of wartime survival.

Russian bombardment destroyed cities, villages, archives, infrastructure, and administrative continuity. Grozny, the center of bureaucracy and record-keeping, was devastated. Property claims became difficult or impossible to verify. Many people fled, leaving houses, plots, documents, and livestock behind.

The destruction of records had long-term consequences. Even where ownership or use rights had existed, they were often no longer documentary. Claims survived through memory, witnesses, family networks, or force.

The war also militarized property relations. Vehicles, buildings, fuel, and other assets were requisitioned for the war effort. Dudayev’s orders included the expropriation of vehicles that had once belonged to the government but had been privatized in the early 1990s. This demonstrates that even the private property that had emerged before the war remained vulnerable to emergency state claims.

In wartime Ichkeria, property became conditional upon survival.

12. Occupation, Collaborationist Administration, and Land Governance

The Russian-backed Hadjiev government attempted to reconstruct civilian authority in occupied areas. Its cabinet included figures from the old Soviet nomenklatura, anti-Dudayev opposition, and former Dudayev officials. It also included a chairman of the State Commission for Land Resources and Management.

This government was politically weak and widely discredited, but it reveals Moscow’s preferred model: not immediate liberalization, but administrative restoration under Russian control. Oil infrastructure, reconstruction funds, housing, and land administration were all tied to the attempt to build a loyal Chechen authority within the Russian state.

However, corruption, looting, military impunity, and black-market activity undermined this effort. Reconstruction resources were misappropriated. Warehouses were looted. Oil infrastructure was exploited by both official and unofficial actors. Land governance could not be separated from the broader breakdown of legality.

Thus, by 1995–1996, Chechnya contained overlapping property regimes:

  • Dudayev’s wartime Ichkerian authority;
  • Russian military occupation;
  • Hadjiev’s collaborationist administration;
  • local customary control;
  • black-market appropriation;
  • armed requisition.

The land question had become fragmented beyond institutional control.

13. Interwar Ichkeria, 1996–1999: Victory Without Reconstruction

The Khasavyurt Accords ended the First Russo-Chechen War but did not create the conditions for stable land reform. Ichkeria regained de facto independence, but the state was exhausted. Institutions were weak, the economy shattered, armed groups powerful, and international recognition absent.

The Maskhadov government inherited an impossible problem: how to rebuild a country without money, secure borders, functioning courts, reliable archives, or a monopoly of force.

Land privatization under such conditions would have required an administrative capacity the state did not possess. It would also have risked igniting disputes among displaced families, returning refugees, armed commanders, local elites, and communities whose prewar claims had been destroyed or transformed by war.

The interwar state therefore failed to settle the land question. It could not restore Soviet collectivism, could not implement liberal privatization, and could not fully regulate customary or armed control.

This was not merely policy failure. It was the consequence of attempting state reconstruction in the ruins of a war fought against a vastly superior power.

14. Interpretation: Why Chechnya Did Not Privatize Land

The evidence supports five main conclusions.

First, independent Chechnya did not follow the Russian privatization model because its leadership did not trust that model. Dudayev saw privatization as a mechanism through which national wealth could be captured by profiteers, criminal groups, or external interests.

Second, land privatization was discussed as a possible solution to agricultural collapse, but it was rejected. This means the absence of land reform was not simply accidental.

Third, Chechnya’s constitutional framework recognized private property but preserved land and natural resources as the patrimony of the people. This created a hybrid doctrine: private economic activity without full commodification of the national territory.

Fourth, institutional conflict between the presidency and parliament, followed by war, made coherent reform impossible. Even if political will had existed, the administrative machinery was too unstable.

Fifth, after 1994, war transformed land from an economic problem into a survival problem. Displacement, destruction, requisition, looting, and the loss of records destroyed the practical basis for orderly privatization.

Conclusion

The history of land privatization in Chechnya is the history of an unfinished state.

In the early 1990s, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria stood at the intersection of three possible futures. It could have followed Russia into rapid privatization. It could have preserved a modified Soviet system. Or it could have built a distinct national model rooted in popular ownership, limited private property, and strategic state control.

Dudayev chose the third path, but he never had the time, institutions, recognition, or peace necessary to make it work.

The result was not a coherent alternative economy, but an unresolved hybrid. Land remained symbolically national, administratively contested, socially communal, economically underproductive, and increasingly vulnerable to informal seizure. Agriculture collapsed under debt and subsidy dependence. Oil was centralized but also looted. State institutions multiplied but weakened. Parliament and presidency clashed. Then war destroyed the remaining foundations of legality.

The central conclusion is therefore precise: the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria did not fail to privatize land simply because it lacked capacity. It also refused to privatize land in the Russian sense because its leadership feared that privatization would destroy the very sovereignty independence was meant to secure.

After 1999, Russian rule restored legal bureaucracy but not genuine property security. Land ceased to be the patrimony of a self-proclaimed nation and became part of an authoritarian system of administrative control, reconstruction patronage, and political dependency.

The land question in Chechnya was never merely about property.

It was about sovereignty, memory, survival, and the right of a people to decide whether its land could be sold before its state had even been allowed to exist.

Trade Unions in Chechnya, from Gorbachev to Kadyrov

fisso Lascia un commento

Trade Unionism in Chechnya Between the Soviet System, State Collapse, and War (1989–2001)

From socialist welfare management to institutional breakdown: the trajectory of a social actor in conditions of systemic collapse.

Introduction

Trade unionism in Chechnya during the 1990s represents one of the most anomalous cases in the post-Soviet space. Unlike other former Soviet republics, where trade unions underwent a relatively linear transformation into representative labor organizations, in Chechnya they operated under conditions of extreme state discontinuity: the dissolution of the Soviet order, the emergence of a non-recognized state, systemic economic collapse, internal political conflict, and eventually full-scale war.

In this context, trade unions ceased to function as stable social actors and instead assumed a hybrid and unstable role, oscillating between welfare administration, political mobilization, and institutional survival.

The Soviet Legacy

By the late 1980s, trade unions in the Chechen-Ingush ASSR were fully integrated into the Soviet system. They did not represent workers against power; rather, they operated within the state apparatus, performing functions such as:

-welfare management (sanatoriums, vacations, housing)

-distribution of social benefits

-administrative mediation

-organizational and disciplinary control

Their model was structurally non-confrontational.[1]

In 1990, this system was reorganized into what would become the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), which inherited the institutional structure and assets of Soviet trade unionism.[2] However, with the collapse of the USSR, the fundamental premise — the state as employer — disappeared.

The facade of the “Red Hammer” factory in Grozny

1991–1992: Suspension and Restoration

With the rise of Dzhokhar Dudayev and the proclamation of Chechen independence, trade unions were perceived as ambiguous institutions: remnants of the Soviet past, yet also potentially autonomous centers of power. According to union sources, in 1991 the Chechen Parliament formally suspended trade union activity [3]. Only on 1 September 1992, following a legal dispute, were trade unions allowed to resume operations. In July 1992, the Third Congress of Trade Unions elected Ramzan Ampukaev as chairman of the Federation. Among the emerging leaders was Magomed Mamatiev, who would later play a key role in attempts to reconstruct the union movement.

1993: From Social Conflict to Political Crisis

The economic crisis of 1993 — marked by unpaid wages, pension arrears, and financial instability — pushed trade unions into a more active role. After a three-day strike, a demonstration was organized in Grozny on 15 April 1993. According to Mamatiev: “We organized a one-day protest… then the demonstration was taken over by others.”[4] Other sources suggest that the protest quickly escalated into a political confrontation, with demands for the resignation of the president and institutional reform.[5] The consequences were decisive:

-loss of union control over social insurance

-depletion of resources

-political marginalization

Thus, 1993 marked the transition of trade unions from social actors to politically contested institutions.

Magomed Mamatiev

War and Disintegration (1994–1996)

The First Chechen War led to the near-total collapse of trade union structures.

Organizations survived only in residual form:

-reduced administrative capacity

-passive management of assets

-absence of effective representation

Nevertheless, minimal organizational continuity allowed for later reconstruction attempts.

1996–1999: Failed Reconstruction

Following the Khasavyurt Accords (1996) and the presidency of Aslan Maskhadov, efforts were made to rebuild state institutions. Magomed Mamatiev emerged as a central figure in attempts to revive trade unionism. However, these efforts faced structural constraints:

-lack of a functioning economy

-weak state institutions

-increasing militarization of society

In 1999, Mamatiev’s group promoted the creation of a non-sectoral trade union structure (bezotraslevoy sovprof), attempting to move beyond the Soviet model. This initiative, supported by figures such as Khusein Akhmadov, led to the emergence of the so-called “mamatievtsy”, representing the last organized attempt to establish autonomous trade unionism in Ichkeria.[6]

Trade Unions and Sharia

In 1998, during the institutional introduction of Sharia law, a parliamentary commission proposed the dissolution of trade unions. Their survival was ensured by the intervention of the Muftiate led by Akhmad Kadyrov, which declared trade union statutes compatible with Islamic law.[7] This episode highlights the precarious position of trade unions:

-not fully integrated into the state

-required to justify their legitimacy in a shifting normative framework

1999–2001: Forced Reintegration

With the outbreak of the Second Chechen War, trade union activity was again suspended. In November 1999, Russian military authorities ordered the abolition of Ichkerian legislation and the suspension of social organizations. In April 2000, trade unions were re-registered under Russian law, initiating reintegration into the FNPR framework[8]. However, internal divisions persisted, and activities were restricted. In 2001, congresses were banned within Chechnya.  Trade unions survived, but without political autonomy.

Ramzan Ampukaev, today “reconciled” with the Kadyrov regime

Mamatiev and Unionism Without a Base

Magomed Mamatiev’s trajectory encapsulates the contradictions of Chechen trade unionism.

Key features:

-Soviet professional background

-social orientation

-support for Maskhadov’s state-building project

-Structural limitations:

-absence of economic base

-institutional fragility

-dominance of military actors

Mamatiev represents an attempt to transform trade unionism into a socio-political actor in a context where the material conditions for such transformation did not exist.

Conclusion

Chechen trade unionism in the 1990s cannot be understood as either a continuation of the Soviet model or a transition toward Western labor representation. It constitutes a distinct phenomenon: trade unionism under conditions of state collapse. Its defining characteristics include:

-loss of economic function

-temporary politicization

-progressive marginalization

-eventual reintegration into an external system (FNPR)

This trajectory reflects the critical traits of the state-building in Chechnya: even deeply rooted institutions failed to survive the combined pressures of economic collapse, political conflict, and war.

Yet within this process, figures such as Mamatiev embody an alternative vision — one that sought to construct not only a sovereign state, but a social state.

Notes

[^1]: On the structure and function of Soviet trade unions, see general literature on Soviet labor institutions and welfare distribution mechanisms.

[^2]: Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), institutional continuity from Soviet trade unions.

[^3]: Internal Chechen trade union historical accounts (post-2000 publications).

[^4]: Interview with Magomed Mamatiev, Golos Chechenskoy Respubliki, No. 3 (20995), 24–31 January 1997.

[^5]: Accounts of the April 15, 1993 Grozny demonstration in Russian-language sources.

[^6]: Trade union historical publications (post-2000) referencing the “mamatievtsy” initiative.

[^7]: Trade union histories documenting interaction with Islamic legal institutions in late Ichkeria.

[^8]: Post-2000 accounts of trade union re-registration under Russian administration.

Il Primo ministro ceceno in esilio Zakayev ha consegnato a Europa Radicale massima onorificenza alla memoria di Antonio Russo

fisso Lascia un commento

Zakayev: “quanto accade in Ucraina è ennesima tappa del colonialismo russo, iniziato negli anni ’90 da Eltsin. Putin deve essere giudicato all’Aja per i suoi crimini; non per vendetta ma per giustizia”.

Si è tenuto al “Polo del ‘900” di Torino il convegno “Dalla Cecenia all’Ucraina”, in cui è intervenuto anche il primo ministro in esilio della Repubblica cecena di Ickeria, Akhmed Zakayev, per la prima volta a Torino. Insieme a lui lo storico Francesco Benedetti e il giornalista Andrea Braschayko.

Nel suo intervento Zakayev ha ripercorso in modo analitico e preciso tutte le aggressioni militari compiute già negli anni ’90 del secolo scorso dalla Federazione Russa contro gli Stati vicini (Inguscezia, Azerbaigian, Moldova, Cecenia, Georgia); le guerre coloniali russe di Eltsin furono la riproposizione dell’imperialismo sovietico, senza alcuna soluzione di continuità. Putin ha preso il testimone da Eltsin e ha continuato l’opera: seconda guerra cecena, occupazione del 20% della Georgia, occupazione del 20% dell’Ucraina (senza dimenticare il fondamentale appoggio militare al regime siriano del criminale Assad).


Zakayev ha poi ribadito che la Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aia deve processare Vladimir Putin per i suoi crimini, “non per vendetta ma per impedire a Putin di commettere altri crimini e per impedire ad altri di imitare Putin”. E a proposito di crimini russi, al termine del suo intervento, Zakayev ha consegnato nelle mani di Igor Boni (presidente di Europa Radicale) la piu’ alta onorificenza cecena, assegnata (alla memoria) ad Antonio Russo, giornalista di Radio Radicale, ucciso barbaramente in Georgia nel 2000 mentre stava documentando i crimini russi nella vicina Cecenia.

Igor Boni e Silvja Manzi hanno dichiarato:


“Dobbiamo ringraziare Akhmed Zakayev tre volte. La prima perché, dopo oltre trent’anni di lotta incessante per il diritto alla vita del suo Paese, non ha perso una briciola della sua intelligenza politica e della sua passione civile. La seconda per i riconoscimenti reiterati all’impegno dei radicali per la difesa dei valori di libertà e democrazia dalla minaccia putiniana.

Ma soprattutto ringraziamo Zakayev per non avere dimenticato Antonio Russo, “un radicale giornalista” (come lo definì Pannella). E questo proprio nel momento in cui Radio Radicale lotta per la propria sopravvivenza, che è la sopravvivenza di un enorme patrimonio di informazione e conoscenza. Consegneremo l’onorificenza alla direzione di Radio Radicale, per arricchire tale patrimonio”.

Salman Abuev – From Independence to Collaboration

fisso Lascia un commento

The story of Salman Abuev – a Chechen soldier and official – embodies the contradictions of Chechnya in the 1990s. A distinguished fighter in the First Chechen War, Abuev was honored as a national hero of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, only to be branded a traitor after joining the pro-Russian side. He became a key collaborator of Akhmat Kadyrov during the Second Chechen War, and was killed in an ambush in September 2001. Below is a biographical profile that traces his career, contextualizing it within the Chechen conflict and reporting the assessments of both sides.

Background and Education

Salman Abuev was likely born in 1962, originally from the village of Alleroy in the Kurchaloy district. We lack detailed information on his early education, but his figure emerged during the First Russo-Chechen War (1994-1996). Abuev immediately joined the pro-independence camp and fought in the Ichkerian Army, reaching the rank of colonel. He distinguished himself for his military merits during the conflict, earning the respect of the state’s leaders: at the end of the war, the new president, Aslan Maskhadov, promoted him to the rank of Brigadier General and awarded him the “Honor of the Nation” decoration, one of the ChRI’s highest decorations. This decoration—conferred personally by Maskhadov—attested to Abuev’s courage and dedication in the struggle for independence.

Aslan Maskhadov (right) and Alexander Lebed (left) at the sign of Khasavyurt Accords (30 August 1996)

With the peace that followed the Khasavürt Accords and the election of Maskhadov (1997), Abuev initially became involved in the power structures of the newly independent republic. For a short time, he served as chief of the Kurchaloy district police, his home region. Subsequently, in the spring of 1997, Maskhadov promoted him to a more senior role, appointing him head of the Department for the Protection of State Property, an office primarily responsible for combating oil theft and illegal refining, endemic scourges of the postwar Chechen economy. This position, also known by its Russian acronym DOGO, was particularly prestigious, as it placed Abuev in charge of protecting the entire national oil sector. In this capacity, he also commanded an armed unit tasked with guarding extraction facilities and suppressing illicit trafficking.

Military and Political Career

Despite his prominent role in post-war Ichkeria, Abuev clashed with some of Maskhadov’s leadership. In particular, according to Russian sources, he openly criticized Maskhadov for the growing tolerance of radical Islamist groups (the “Wahhabites”) in Chechnya in the late 1990s. These political frictions strained his relationship with the president. On April 5, 1999, Abuev was dismissed from his post as head of the State Property Department by Maskhadov, because he was deemed “incapable of putting an end to oil theft.” As a result, he was demoted to lower-level positions: Maskhadov transferred him to head a district police department (according to some sources in the Gudermes district, according to others back in Kurchaloy). During this period, operating in the field far from the capital, Abuev encountered the climate of growing instability and became better acquainted with Akhmat Kadyrov, then Mufti of Chechnya. In Gudermes, Kadyrov—despite being part of Maskhadov’s government—was taking increasingly critical stances and paving the way for a possible agreement with Moscow.

In August 1999, the situation escalated: the armed incursions of commanders Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab into Dagestan drew a clear condemnation from Kadyrov. Kadyrov and Abuev, now allies, issued a political ultimatum to Maskhadov, declaring that they would cease supporting him unless he publicly condemned the actions of the guerrillas who had entered Dagestan. This was the breaking point: at the outbreak of the Second Russo-Chechen War (October 1999), Abuev made his final choice, siding with Akhmat Kadyrov on the Russian side.

Akhmat (left) and Ramzan (right) Kadyrov

In the fall of 1999, Abuev—now Brigadier General—and Sulim Yamadaev (another influential local commander) withdrew their units from Gudermes, allowing Russian troops to take control without a fight. This act amounted to a surrender of Chechen territory’s second largest city and was a key event: in response, President Maskhadov accused Kadyrov, Abuev, and the Yamadaev brothers of treason, while the Ichkeria Sharia Court sentenced them in absentia to death for high treason. Abuev switched sides in the conflict: he publicly repudiated Maskhadov in the very first days of the Russian operation and declared his support for Mufti Kadyrov, who would become the head of the pro-Russian interim administration in June 2000.

Within the nascent collaborationist government, Abuev soon became one of the few former high-ranking separatist commanders to switch sides. Moscow, however, did not place complete trust in these figures: in 2000, Abuev was even arrested by the federal military, perhaps on suspicion of double-dealing. Akhmat Kadyrov had to intervene at the highest levels—apparently with the direct support of the Kremlin—to secure his release. This demonstrates the ambiguity of Abuev’s position in those months: by now unwelcome to the separatists, he was not yet fully integrated into the new pro-Russian system. Kadyrov, however, considered him a highly valued collaborator and personal friend; he took him with him on sensitive political missions, such as a trip to Strasbourg to the Council of Europe, where Abuev and Kadyrov appeared side by side to denounce the Maskhadov government. Abuev also championed a conciliatory stance: he appeared on local TV urging Chechen guerrillas to lay down their arms and return to civilian life, following the Kremlin’s previously dictated strategy of thinning out separatist lines through calls for reconciliation and individual amnesties.

Sulim Yamadaev

Shift to the pro-Russian front

In the second half of 2000, with Russian control over lowland Chechnya consolidated, Kadyrov began appointing his own trusted personnel to local administrations. Salman Abuev, though disliked by his former comrades, had military experience and knowledge of the territory, as well as personal ties with Kadyrov. Kadyrov lobbied for a prominent role in the new apparatus: after much persuasion, in August 2001 he obtained Moscow’s approval to appoint Abuev as head of the Internal Affairs Department (OVD) for the Kurchaloy district. Paradoxically, Abuev found himself holding almost the same position he had held under Maskhadov (head of the district police), but this time within the pro-Russian administration.

According to local accounts, a dramatic event convinced Abuev to accept this assignment and become actively involved in the field: in August 2001, during a large-scale “zachistka” (anti-partisan roundup) operation conducted by federal forces in his home village of Alleroy, many civilians were subjected to abuse and violence. Shocked by what had happened to his community, Abuev decided to take over the leadership of the district police to protect the local population and restore a modicum of order. As a former commander known and feared in the area, he acted with a certain autonomy towards both Maskhadov’s men and the federal military, attempting to apply the law impartially. During the few weeks he was in charge in Kurchaloy, he took courageous initiatives: for example, he ordered the temporary detention facility (IVS) to be moved from the military komendatura base—where civilians were often mistreated—to a building under the civilian jurisdiction of his OVD, “as required by law.” He also insisted on dismantling a notorious military checkpoint between Kurchaloy and the nearby village of Mayrtup, notorious for extorting passersby. These moves earned him the favor of some residents, tired of the security forces’ excesses, but angered some elements of the federal apparatus, whose presence guaranteed Abuev a modicum of protection.

Shortly before his death, Abuev had a public clash with the local FSB chief: as witnesses in Alleroy reported, the Chechen general rebuked the FSB officer for his brutal methods against civilians and declared that he would not tolerate further abuse, threatening to turn directly to FSB director Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow if necessary. This episode highlights how Abuev was balancing two fronts: on the one hand, he sought to demonstrate loyalty to the Russians by ensuring order; on the other, he maintained a firm stance in defending the population, attracting enmity both among the separatist ranks and among some circles of the federal forces.

Kurchaloy District (in red)

Death

On the evening of September 20, 2001, about a month after taking office in Kurchaloy, Salman Abuev was ambushed. While driving home with his younger brother and several fellow police officers, his vehicle was attacked by a group of armed, masked men near the road between Kurchaloy and Mayrtup. The attackers opened fire at close range, riddling the car with bullets and killing Abuev instantly along with six people accompanying him. Among the victims were Salman’s brother, Ayub Abuev (18), and several officers originally from Alleroy (Sultan Temirbulatov, Sultan Usmanov, Yusup Darshaev), as well as two other local police officers. According to some reports, Abuev attempted to retaliate by firing several shots with his service pistol, possibly wounding one of the attackers, but was overwhelmed by the crossfire. A few minutes later, other OVD officers from Kurchaloy arrived, but they too were ambushed.

Abuev’s elimination was a severe blow to Akhmat Kadyrov: Salman was one of the very few former commanders of the ChRI army who had defected to his side. Kadyrov personally visited the village for the funeral, but the ceremony was marked by tensions – Russian soldiers at the Alleroy checkpoint blocked access to the funeral procession for a long time, leaving dozens of people who had come to pay their respects stranded. Abuev’s murder by the rebels was part of a spiral of targeted violence against pro-Moscow administration officials: just six days later, Kurchaloy’s deputy district commander, Sheikh Dugaev, was also assassinated, and in the following weeks, other local officials suffered the same fate. This campaign had a specific purpose: to intimidate and “morally” undermine Akhmat Kadyrov, systematically depriving him of his most valuable collaborators and discouraging any further defectors.

Historical Assessment

On the political and propaganda levels, Salman Abuev was viewed diametrically opposed by the two warring sides. For the Republic of Ichkeria, Abuev was now a renegade: the Maskhadov government formally removed him from all ranks and honors previously awarded to him, including revoking his title of “Honor of the Nation” and posthumously demoting him. As already mentioned, an Islamic court had sentenced him to death in 1999, and his killing was greeted by separatists as the execution of a traitor. On the pro-Russian side, however, Abuev was presented as an example of a Chechen patriot who had abandoned the extremist cause to embrace the path of peace under the Federation.

Ramzan Kadyrov on Abuev’s grave

Akhmat Kadyrov publicly mourned his passing, calling it a grave personal and political loss, and praised Abuev’s courage in fighting the “terrorists” to the point of ultimate sacrifice. Local government sources emphasized that Abuev had died “in the line of duty” while resisting an ambush by a numerically superior terrorist group. In subsequent years, Chechen officials remembered Abuev as a “hero,” and commemorations in his honor were held in Kurchaloy; Ramzan Kadyrov himself (Akhmat’s son) visited his grave.

Olivier Dupuis and Chechnya: the European voice that refused to bow to Moscow

Lascia un commento

On May 4, Olivier Dupuis, former Radical Member of the European Parliament, passed away. An atypical and often isolated figure in the European political landscape, his death has largely gone unnoticed in public debate. Yet for those who have followed the history of Chechnya, it marks the loss of one of the very few European voices who, in the most difficult years, maintained a coherent, lucid, and countercurrent position.

Dupuis was not merely a parliamentarian. He was, in the fullest sense of the word, an activist for the rights of peoples.

A Radical consistency

A member of the Partito Radicale, close to figures such as Marco Pannella and Emma Bonino, Dupuis belonged to a very specific political tradition: that of nonviolent struggles, self-determination of peoples, and the defense of human rights even when it meant political isolation.

Chechnya, in this path, was not an exception. It was a consequence.

Portrait of Olivier DUPUIS MEP

Chechnya in its darkest hour

During the Second Chechen War, while much of Europe chose diplomatic caution or silence, Dupuis took a clear stance.

He openly denounced Russian military operations, the systematic human rights violations and the destruction of Grozny, and entire civilian communities

At a time when the dominant narrative tended to reduce the conflict to an internal Russian matter or a mere fight against terrorism, Dupuis insisted on a fundamental point: Chechnya was прежде всего an international political issue.

Support for the leadership of Ichkeria

One of the most significant aspects of his engagement was his relationship with the leadership of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, particularly Aslan Maskhadov.

Dupuis supported: the recognition of Maskhadov as a legitimate interlocutor, the opening of political negotiations and a clear distinction between the independence leadership and extremist drifts within the conflict

This position, already uncomfortable in the late 1990s, became openly countercurrent after the shift in the international context.

After 9/11: against simplification

After the September 11 attacks, the war in Chechnya was progressively absorbed into the global “war on terror” narrative.

Russia used this shift to legitimize its military actions. Most European capitals aligned with this perspective.

Dupuis did not.

He continued to distinguish between jihadist terrorism, real but limited, and the Chechen independence struggle, which he considered politically legitimate

This distinction, which today may seem self-evident to many analysts, was far from obvious at the time—and came at a political cost.

An isolated voice

Perhaps the most defining trait of his action was precisely his isolation.

Dupuis did not represent a majority line. On the contrary, the European Union avoided confrontation with Moscow, governments prioritized stability and economic relations, while the Chechen issue was gradually marginalized

In this context, his position was never opportunistic. It was a position of principle.

And for this very reason, it carries particular historical value today.

A bridge between Europe and Chechnya

For the Chechen cause, Dupuis was more than just a supporter.

He was:

  • a point of contact with European institutions
  • a voice capable of translating the Chechen issue into the language of international rights
  • one of the few European politicians who refused to reduce the conflict to terrorism

At a time when Ichkeria was being erased from public discourse, Dupuis helped preserve its political dimension.

Legacy

Today, many of his insights appear clearer:

  • the instrumentalization of terrorism by states
  • Europe’s difficulty in confronting Russia
  • the marginalization of self-determination struggles when they become inconvenient

Dupuis saw all this in advance.

And he consciously chose not to conform.

The tightrope walker

To remember him today are also the words of his wife—simple and powerful—perhaps capturing better than any political analysis the essence of who he was:

Chers si chers amis
Chères
Si Chères amies

Notre Olivier
S’en est allé
Très apaisé

Notre Olivier
S’est envolé
Le cœur léger

Le Funambule
Cheveux au vent
Danse
Sur
Son
Fil…

The tightrope walker.

It is a striking image, because it precisely captures what Dupuis was: a man in balance, suspended between principles and realpolitik, between political solitude and fidelity to his ideals.

In a Europe that, then as now, often chooses the comfort of silence, Olivier Dupuis chose to remain on the wire.

And never to step down.

My fate is the fate of my people – Interview with Magomed Mamatiev

Lascia un commento


(Golos Chechenskoy Respubliki newspaper, No. 3 (20995), January 24–31, 1997)

Today we present to our readers a conversation with the hero of many articles published in our newspaper in the 1960s and 1970s, civil engineer Magomed Mamatiev, a candidate for deputy to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic in Electoral District No. 3 “Olympic” of the Leninsky District of Grozny.


Correspondent: Magomed, tell us briefly about yourself.

Magomed Mamatiev: I am 55 years old, I come from the village of Valerik, I have a higher education—a degree in construction from the Oil Institute—and I worked my way up from bricklayer to head of the construction department. I am currently vice president of the Federation of Trade Unions of the Chechen Republic. I have been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and two medals.


Correspondent: You belong to the generation that lived through the tragedy of 1944; did you perhaps think that all our problems were behind us?


Magomed Mamatiev: Our family ended up in the coldest region of Kazakhstan, the Kustanai region. My father was arrested in 1949 along with a learned alim for singing nazmy, and later my mother as well for cutting down three trees when the barn roof collapsed. The five of us children—the oldest was 14 and the youngest a newborn—were left on our own. We were saved from hunger and cold by the kindness of people, both Chechens and Russians.
In September 1959, I enrolled at the Grozny Oil Institute. Studying was easy. For today’s youth, most of whom pretend to study, I want to say that we didn’t know what it meant to pay money for a test or an exam. And we didn’t even have any money. Sometimes we went without food for days. We unloaded carts full of potatoes, onions, and coal at night. We constantly felt the teachers’ distrust of our knowledge. They graded our knowledge one point lower than students of other nationalities. We had to prove our worth through our diligence and hard work.
Like all my peers, my childhood was stolen from me, and we were left with a hungry and difficult youth.
After graduating from high school, I had to spend three months knocking on the doors of construction companies that, according to the ads, were looking for skilled workers. They asked me to fill out application forms and then politely turned me down. After three months, I met the kindest person, my new mentor Baskhanov Umar (Dala gechdoyla tsunna), who
hired me as a foreman and started my new working life.

Correspondent: In almost every country, trade unions are called upon to protect the interests of workers. Naturally, friction arises between them and the authorities on many issues. You and your colleagues led the union leadership in 1992. How did your relations with those in power develop?

Magomed Mamatiev: Numerous measures were adopted and efforts were made to foster cooperation between enterprises and all branches of the Republic’s government. However, none of the issues raised during meetings and by union activists were resolved. Wage arrears increased; pensions, salaries, and other benefits were not paid.

Correspondent: In the spring of 1993, a demonstration organized by the unions began in Grozny. Many are inclined to believe that this demonstration—that is, you and your comrades—is responsible for the subsequent negative events of 1993. What can you say to your opponents?

Magomed Mamatiev: Before the demonstration, the unions called a three-day strike demanding the cancellation of arrears on wages, pensions, and other social benefits, and warned the government that if these issues were not resolved, they would organize a demonstration. No response. We tried to meet with the President, but it didn’t work out. After receiving authorization for the demonstration from the mayor’s office, we organized a one-day protest and concluded the union demonstration at the scheduled time. Subsequently, the demonstration was led by local and municipal officials.
As you say, some politicians blamed union leaders for the subsequent clashes with their former associates. And our president and colleague Ampukaev Ramzan, declared an enemy by these “some,” organized massive rallies and protest marches against the entry of Russian troops into the Polish cities of Warsaw and Krakow.
And no one speaks of the military action in late December 1993, when the Presidential Palace was surrounded by tanks, armored vehicles, and troops.

Correspondent: Who do you believe is responsible for the national tragedies?

Magomed Mamatiev: There are many. Briefly, here are a few. Foremost among those responsible for our tragedy are the gray-bearded “Hajji pilgrims,” whom our President called sailors. These people did everything possible and impossible to divide our society into teips, virds, and nationalities. Having imagined themselves to be leaders of the people, they eventually began to interfere in state affairs. Some of the current candidates for the presidency have supported these pilgrims.
Usman Imaev did everything to exacerbate the confrontation between the President and Parliament; the main fault of this “man” is the complete destruction of the foundations of the Chechen state: its finances. After Russia abolished the 1991–1992 banknotes effective August 25, 1993, Imaev decided to keep this currency in circulation in the Republic until November 1, and for this worthless paper, the sale of everything that had not yet been sold began. This worthless paper was purchased in neighboring regions and republics at 102% of face value and delivered to Imaev’s bank for 30% of the cost. The remaining 70% of the cost was covered by Imaev and others like him.
According to some sources, loans totaling over 800 billion rubles were disbursed in the Republic starting in November 1993. And this is precisely where Imaev’s scheme was developed. Using forged documents from guarantor companies—whose executives received 5–10% of the loan amount—the lender paid Imaev 20% in dollars, and the National Bank transferred the loan amount to one of the commercial banks. These banks, in turn, transferred this sum to any address in the former Soviet Union for 15–20% of the loan amount.
And it is no coincidence that the National Bank and other banks were the first to be destroyed during the war. According to eyewitnesses, all the streets and squares of destroyed Grozny were littered with Imaev’s scrap paper.
In the same camp are Taymaz Abubakarov, Yeraghi Mamodayev with his team, the Albakovs, and, of course, Zavgaev’s team.
Here lies a vast field of activity for the Sharia court.

Correspondent: 16 presidential candidates. Isn’t that too many for our small republic? And in general, who do you prefer? I can’t insist on an answer to the last question…

Magomed Mamatiev: Whether many or not so many. After all, there are only five main contenders. I would vote for any of them if they were the only candidate.
But I see Aslan Maskhadov as the President of the Republic. I don’t know him personally, but I know Vakha Arsanov. Due to my professional responsibilities, I had to attend parliamentary sessions and learn the positions of all the deputies on issues related to building an independent state. I got the impression that Vakha was an honest and decent person who cares deeply about our future.
I am certain that Arsanov would never have agreed to run in the elections alongside Maskhadov if he had doubted his integrity and his intentions to build an independent Chechen state.

Correspondent: What motivated you to run in the parliamentary elections?

Magomed Mamatiev: The only thing that motivated me to run in the parliamentary elections was the hope that we would build a free and socially oriented state.
If I briefly discuss the program and the concrete legislative initiatives I intend to implement in the interest of the workers of the Chechen Republic, then, obviously, they will focus on the implementation of the principles of a social state.

Correspondent: And one last question. What is your vision for state-building and the role of trade unions?

Magomed Mamatiev: I intend to work on these priority issues if the voters of District No. 3 “Olympic” show their trust in me and elect me as their deputy to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic.
I appeal to voters to come out and vote for our future—not for me, but for our President Aslan Maskhadov. Together we will win!

Justice Denied – A Report from the North Caucaus

Lascia un commento

The report “Justice Denied in the North Caucasus” represents one of the most comprehensive and well-documented analyses of the human rights situation in the North Caucasus region over the past decades.

Based on the work of the Natalia Estemirova Documentation Center (NEDC), the document collects and examines dozens of emblematic cases of killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, and torture that occurred in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan from the 1990s up to recent years.


The picture that emerges is deeply alarming: not only because of the systematic nature of these violations, but above all due to the near-total absence of justice. Investigations are often incomplete, suspended, or never initiated. In numerous cases, even when the European Court of Human Rights has recognized violations and responsibility, Russian authorities have failed to implement its judgments, reinforcing a climate of structural impunity.


Particularly significant is the fact that many of the victims are journalists, human rights activists, and lawyers—key figures in any free and democratic society. Through both quantitative data and detailed case analysis, the report documents thousands of violations recorded between 2010 and 2018, confirming that the problem does not belong to the past, but continues to define the region’s present.


This document therefore stands as an essential resource for understanding not only the situation in the North Caucasus, but also the structural limits of the rule of law in the Russian Federation.

The reader can find the whole document in our Bibliography section.

Inal Sharip on Kyiv Post – “Kadyrov and Chechnya: Putin’s Black Swans”

Lascia un commento

The opinion piece published by the Kyiv Post under the title “Kadyrov and Chechnya – Putin’s Black Swans” offers a critical reading of the growing vulnerability of Vladimir Putin’s regime in light of the “Kadyrov factor” and Russia’s internal political condition.

The author, Inal Sherip — a cultural studies scholar and political figure within the Chechen diaspora — argues that Ramzan Kadyrov should no longer be seen merely as a loyal ally of the Kremlin, but increasingly as a source of fragility for Putin’s system itself. The article opens by examining the recent “surprises” (so-called black swans) confronting Putin — diplomatic failures, international pressure, and military deadlock — and explains how, in this context, Kadyrov’s role has become increasingly problematic.

Inal Sharip, Foreign Minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

Sherip traces the evolution of the political project that, over the years, led to the construction of a personal power apparatus around Kadyrov — initially designed as a tool for Moscow’s control over the Caucasus — and shows how this same apparatus now risks turning into a “toxic asset.” The reasons are multiple: the growing cultural and religious autonomy of Chechnya’s leadership from Russia’s official narrative, its ties with Gulf states, and the ostentatious concentration of power and wealth.

At the core of the analysis lies the hypothesis that the potential disappearance or weakening of Kadyrov — whether due to health issues or internal conflict — could trigger a chain reaction capable of undermining Russia’s internal power balances themselves: from the redistribution of federal security forces, to an intense succession struggle within Kadyrov’s inner circle, to the opening of new spaces for intervention by Russia’s central security services, such as the FSB.

Ultimately, Sherip advances a non-conventional but compelling interpretation: Putin’s dependence on figures like Kadyrov is no longer merely a coercive advantage, but a potential breaking point for the stability of his own system of power — an internal “black swan” that could accelerate far broader dynamics of instability.

The full article is available at:

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/67997

Alkhazur Abuev – The weak men of the Maskhadov’s Army

Lascia un commento

Background and education

A career officer in the Soviet Navy, Alkhazur Abuev (also transliterated as Olkhazur Abuev) was born in the Chechen-Ingush Socialist Republic in the first half of the 1950s.

In 1972, he graduated from the M. V. Frunze Higher Naval Academy in Leningrad, a prestigious Soviet Navy academy, obtaining the rank of Captain First Rank (капитан первого ранга). He served in the Black Sea Fleet and later in the Caspian Flotilla, where he held technical and staff positions.

He left his military career in the early 1990s, during the collapse of the USSR, and returned to Chechnya, apparently in March 1992, where he was immediately appointed by President Dzhokhar Dudaev to the organizational chart of the nascent Chechen national army, obtaining the position of deputy head of the Operational Directorate of the Armed Forces General Staff and, from June 1993, head of the same directorate. At the outbreak of the First Russian-Chechen War, however, Abuev did not take up arms but left the country.

Maskhadov’s Army

Upon his return to his homeland, he was called back by President Aslan Maskhadov to help reorganize the regular army, which, according to the plans of the new head of state, was to be called the National Guard and consist of eight specialized regiments. Maskhadov appointed Abuev Chief of Staff immediately after his election as President. According to Timur Muzaev’s reconstruction, on March 13, 1997, Maskhadov established the National Guard, and on May 15, 1997, Abuev signed the general reorganization of the army, abolishing the previous front commands and centralizing the chain of command.

The Chechen National Guard in 1997

The measures taken by the new Chief of Staff had their own abstract logic and were in line with the President’s desire to professionalize the army, but they did not take into account the important changes that had affected the armed forces during the war. Dudaev’s death had accentuated the tendency of units to rally around their field commanders, and Abuev appeared to be ‘disconnected’ from the natural hierarchies that were forming. The new General Staff’s claim to establish a professional system in an army that resembled more an advanced popular militia than a classic armed force clashed with the convictions (and interests) of many field commanders, who preferred to consider their units in ‘permanent mobilization’, both because they were convinced that war with Russia would soon resume and because they wanted to maintain the privileges and impunity that some of them had acquired.

The friction between Abuev, who was pushing for the demobilization of the armed units, and the main brigade generals, who wanted to avoid it, led to an institutional crisis that, in October 1998, resulted in Abuev’s resignation. He was replaced by Maskhadov with the “veteran” Abubakar Bantaev.

Retirement and final years

At the outbreak of the Second Chechen War (1999), Abuev retired to Baku, Azerbaijan, where he lived for almost ten years. On April 23, 2008, according to Kommersant and RBC News, he voluntarily surrendered to the Russian federal authorities, claiming that he had not participated in armed activities since 1999. The authorities confirmed that, despite having served as Chief of Staff in 1997-1998, he was not involved in war crimes. Akhmed Zakayev commented on his surrender as follows: “I don’t understand why he had to surrender. He could have returned home without announcing it, and there would have been no charges against him.” This position was confirmed by one of Abuev’s relatives, who commented: “In Chechnya, only the laziest or the illiterate are unaware that Olkhazar never fought against the federal forces […] Olkhazar was a naval officer and only arrived in Chechnya after the end of the first war, leaving before the start of the second military campaign. Why turn him into a militant commander?”

After a brief interrogation, he was released and not prosecuted.

Press sources indicated that he still lives in Chechnya under discreet surveillance, maintaining a low profile and staying out of public life.

The Chechen National Guard in 1999

Profile and assessment

Alkhazur Abuev was one of the most atypical figures in the Ichkerian military elite: a Soviet-trained technician, uninterested in religious or revolutionary rhetoric, focused on rebuilding a modern state military structure. He was the main architect of the attempt to transition from a guerrilla army to a regular force, which was thwarted by the fragmentation of the armed forces in 1998 and then by the second Russian invasion of Chechnya. His story—from his career in the USSR Navy to his command of the Ichkerian forces, to his retirement in Baku and surrender in 2008—reflects the trajectory of a generation of Chechen officers who sought to reconcile military professionalism and national identity, only to be crushed between the two logics.

The North Caucasus as a Frontier of European Security

Lascia un commento

Russian ambition is vulnerable in what has always been the Empire’s soft underbelly: the North Caucasus. A conference in Kyiv sets a framework for opposition to Moscow’s imperialist legacy.

The following article was written by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Inal Sharip, and published in the Kyiv Post at the following link:

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/64009

The Kyiv conference “The North Caucasus as Europe’s Security Frontier” was timed to the third anniversary of Verkhovna Rada Resolution No. 2672-IX on the temporary occupation of the territory of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (ChRI). Its core conclusion is that Europe’s stability is inseparable from the fate of the peoples of the North Caucasus; therefore, the “Caucasus track” must move from declarations to a managed policy with institutional tools and clearly defined addressees.

The lineup underscored the political weight and attention to the topic. Participants included Verkhovna Rada Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk and First Deputy Speaker Oleksandr Korniyenko; Ukraine’s third President Viktor Yushchenko; Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine; Prime Minister of the ChRI Akhmed Zakayev; MEP Rasa Jukneviciene (former Lithuanian Minister of Defense, Vice-Chair of the EPP Group in the European Parliament); former Polish Foreign Minister Anna Fotyga; as well as members of the Ukrainian parliament and international experts. Such a roster widens the frame from a national to a pan-European and transatlantic level, signaling that the North Caucasus is entering the security mainstream.

Prime Minister of ChRI Akhmed Zakayev with the third President of the Republic of Ukraine, Viktor Andrijovych Yushchenko

The normative direction of the discussion was set by the adopted Kyiv Declaration.

First, it fixes a strategic lens: the North Caucasus is a critical link in pan-European security; the threats are transnational (hybrid aggression, repression, deportations, disinformation) and require coordinated international responses. This turn implies abandoning the “all-Russia prism” in favor of viewing the North Caucasus as a distinct macro-region with its own elites and trajectory.

Second, the declaration sets an operational framework – a four-track roadmap, which makes the conversation reproducible within EU/NATO policy and at national levels:

  • Legal (universal jurisdiction, documentation of crimes, support for applications to international courts);
  • Sanctions (expansion of personal and sectoral measures for repression, mobilization, deportations, and cultural erasure);
  • Humanitarian (protection of refugees and political prisoners, access to medical and psychological care, preservation of language and culture);
  • Communications (countering disinformation, supporting independent media and expert analysis).

Third, much attention was dedicated to the Ukrainian pillar. Participants called on the Verkhovna Rada to take steps enabling “Ichkerian entities” to function within Ukraine’s legal field: recognize ChRI citizenship; provide for representation of ChRI citizens in third countries pending international recognition; grant the State Committee for the De-Occupation of the ChRI official status as an organ of national-liberation struggle; and launch a regular parliamentary dialogue. They also propose energizing cross-party caucuses and supporting draft law No. 11402 on engagement with national movements of the Russian Federation’s colonized peoples. Taken together, this moves moral-political declarations toward legally operable mechanisms.

ChRI Prime Minister Akhmed Zakayev with the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk

External addressees are divided into two groups. The first – the European Parliament, PACE/NATO PA, and national parliaments – are urged to strengthen the parliamentary dimension of de-occupation policy, initiate public hearings and evidence-gathering missions, establish systematic dialogue with national-liberation movements, and expand sanctions lists, including accountability for the use of North Caucasus natives in Russia’s war against Ukraine. The second – governments and institutions of the EU/UK/Canada/US – are encouraged to integrate North Caucasus issues into strategic reviews and deterrence plans, and to support human rights, cultural heritage, and the languages of the Caucasus peoples.

A key infrastructural outcome was the decision to build an expert network and a public monitoring panel, Caucasus Watch – a tool that links human-rights reporting, sanctions tracking, and analysis, thereby reducing information asymmetries for policymakers and regulators. A dedicated grant track is envisioned for researchers working on law, security, and culture in the North Caucasus.

The tone of the discussion was well captured by remarks from Laura Lindermann of the United States (Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and Director of Programs at the Central Asia – Caucasus Institute at the American Foreign Policy Council). She noted Russia’s “strategic retrenchment” from the South Caucasus, the shift in the mediation architecture, and the vulnerability of three pillars of control in the North – hyper-securitization, budget transfers, and personal patronage networks (including the “Kadyrov model”). The weakening of these pillars increases the risks of local conflicts and terrorism, as well as the play of external actors; hence integrating the “Caucasus track” into the core of Euro-Atlantic strategies is a matter of prevention, not reaction.

From here flows the practical logic of the Kyiv Declaration: institutionalizing subjecthood, standardizing sanctions-legal work, producing verifiable data, and advancing parliamentary diplomacy. The expected outputs fall into three baskets:

  • Legal (building out universal-jurisdiction cases and treaty-based procedures);
  • Political (consolidating inter-parliamentary formats, including channels to movements and diasporas);
  • Informational (reducing reliance on fragmentary testimony through a single data window (Caucasus Watch)).

The risks are evident: sanctions fatigue and bureaucratization; limited access to sources and witness security; competing external agendas. However, the very shift to an operational framework with clear addressees and instruments is already significant. The political will of parliaments and the cohesion of expert networks will be the key variables – both for implementing the Ukrainian pillar (including decisions on ChRI citizenship and the State Committee’s status) and for embedding the “Caucasus track” in EU/NATO strategies.

Kyiv has offered new arguments as well as a policy infrastructure, from legislation to enforcement. The trajectory ahead will be measured not by the volume of statements but by the speed of institutional steps and the quality of interagency coordination.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post. 

The text of the Declaration signed in Kyiv is available in English, Russian and Ukrainian at this link

https://thechechenpress.com/news/18829-kievskaya-deklaratsiya-o-severnom-kavkaze-kak-rubezhe-bezopasnosti-evropy-na-ukrainskom-anglijskom-i-russkom-yazykakh.html