Archivi tag: RUssia

Past, present and future – Francesco Benedetti Interviews Inal Sharip (Part 1)

Lascia un commento

Inal Sharip is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ichkeria. Born in 1971, he is a chess champion, a film director and producer, and between the first and second Chechen wars he was Deputy Minister of Culture and head of the Film Department.

Being born in 1971, You had the opportunity to observe the evolution of the situation in Chechnya from the independence until the outbreak of the war in 1994. What was the climate in the country in those years? And what impression did you have of Dudaev’s government?

I lived in Grozny until I graduated from university in 1993. Then I went to Moscow to take my first steps in the cinema.  I remember Grozny as an ordinary post-Soviet city no different from other cities in the former USSR or Eastern Europe. As in other cities of the post-Soviet space there was an economic difficult situation. But Dzhokhar Dudayev began to stimulate medium and small businesses and abolished taxes and duties on imported goods. Direct flights were also established from Grozny to cities in the United Arab Emirates and other cities in eastern countries from where the goods were transported. Thanks to this Grozny became in a short time the trade center of the North Caucasus.

When the war started, I was in Moscow, taking my first steps in documentary filmmaking. Many things fade from memory, but what I remember well is the anxiety of realizing that terrible events were coming. Many of my feelings were portrayed in one of my first movies, “My Grozny City”.  The piercing pain of what was done to my hometown, which remained only in my memory.

Inal Sharip, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ichkeria

How did you spend the two years of war? And what did you do after?

At the first opportunity I came to Grozny. I established a secret connection with Akhmed Zakayev. (I met Akhmed Zakayev when I was writing music for the theater, in 1992. We were introduced by our mutual friend, Hussein Guzuev, a theater director. Before the war, Dzhokhar Dudayev appointed him director of television and he was one of the first to be killed at the beginning of the First Chechen War. Akhmed was then a theater artist and became at first chairman of the Chechen Union of Theater Workers. A few months before the war started, Dzhokhar Dudayev appointed Zakayev Minister of Culture. When the war started, Akhmed led the people’s militia.) And he coordinated his activities while in Moscow and Grozny. After the first war, Akhmed returned to work as Minister of Culture and invited me to be Deputy Minister.

Akhmed appointed me head of the Department of Cinematography of the Chechen Republic with the rank of Deputy Minister of Culture. I worked there for about a year. Maskhadov then created a commission on education, science and culture (a prototype of the UNESCO commission) to work on accession and cooperation with UNESCO, and to search for and return cultural property from museums that the Russians had illegally exported to Russia in violation of all international conventions. I was appointed head of this commission. Before leaving Chechnya, I was in charge of this commission.

I was the only member of the commission. It was I who initiated the creation of this commission, because we had to enter international organizations, and UNESCO was an organization we could enter, although without the right to vote in this organization at the first stage. In addition, the Russians have taken many museum exhibits out of Chechnya. Including paintings, a collection of 17th-18th century edged weapons, etc. It was necessary to track them down and return them. The international UNESCO conventions that regulate this kind of situation were an ideal tool, given that Russia had ratified all UNESCO conventions. Maskhadov wrote a decree creating this commission and appointing me to head it. Other than that, I received nothing, no funding, no office, nothing. Few among the military at that time understood the significance of this organization. At that time, everything was focused on the military aspect. That’s why I couldn’t hire people. I could work without a salary, other people could not.

Akhmed Zakayev in 1996

Speaking of the period between 1996 and 1999, what was your impression of the situation? In your opinion, was the Maskhadov government doing a good job? What was the general opinion of the people, in your opinion?

This is one of the most difficult periods in the history of modern Chechnya. Of course, Maskhadov’s government was not ideal, but we must understand the situation it found itself in. Russia was secretly preparing for a second war. It was actively recruiting agents from among the supporters of independence. It was deliberately corrupting Chechen officials. Russian special services were in direct contact with independent commanders of military units, persuading them to commit criminal acts. Russian agents in the Middle East, who specialize in working in the Islamic world, were redirected to Chechnya to split Chechen society along religious lines. In the conditions of post-war devastation and economic crisis, Russia managed to split Chechen society. Of course, at that time few people understood what was really happening. I also did not understand and did not like many things, so in 1998 I left Chechnya and returned to film production.

Now that we have collected information, we see how many FSB agents have infiltrated Chechen society, and we can draw conclusions. Suffice it to say that the Chief Mufti of Chechnya Kadyrov was an FSB agent, but no one talked about it at the time, and the leaders of Chechnya trusted him. In addition, it should be noted that few in Maskhadov’s government understood how world politics actually worked, both in the West and in the East, since there was no international experience. There was no information, no Internet. There was great trust in the Muslim world, based on the myth of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there was no understanding that the governments and intelligence services of most Muslim countries were using religion for their own political and geopolitical interests. Perhaps historians will analyze this period of Chechen history more deeply in the future, but today we can say for sure that Maskhadov was under great pressure from all sides, primarily with the goal of splitting Chechen society.

Boris Eltsin and Vladimir Putin

In 1999, Russia invaded Chechnya for the second time. Shortly before, Vladimir Putin had appeared on the political scene. Do you remember how public opinion experienced his rise to power?

At that time, Russians were tired of crime, corruption and disorder. It seems that discrimination against democracy was deliberate and directed by someone. Of course, what happened in Russia in the nineties has nothing to do with democracy, but it was presented to the people as democratic processes. That is why the people began to miss a strong authoritarian leader, like Stalin, Andropov and others who were leaders of the USSR. A situation was created when the people wanted to get their master back, who would determine their fate for them. In exchange, the new master had to restore order and feed the people. That is why the explosions of apartment buildings, Putin’s harsh rhetoric, all this is part of the scenario of creating a new authoritarian leader of Russia. It should be noted, I say this as a director, that Putin was not the best candidate for this role. He does not have natural charisma. But the circumstances developed in such a way that he was chosen as a collective decision of several influential groups in the Kremlin.

Putin, at the beginning of his career, was a compromise figure for different Kremlin clans. Every Russian billionaire or oligarch has a KGB-FSB general as his head of security. The KGB-FSB nominated three presidential candidates: Primakov, Stepashin, Putin. All of them were from the KGB and all of them were presidential candidates. The least known person, who did not have his own team and was considered harmless for different clans, was Putin, and he was elected. In 25 years, he created his clan, dealt with other clans and now he is the undisputed master in the Kremlin. The problem is that over these 25 years, Russian propaganda has been cultivating Great Russian chauvinism in the people. Chauvinism is constantly present in the Russian people, so cultivating Great Russian chauvinism in the people was not difficult. Putin has created for himself a Putin electorate, which was created for the greatness of Russia, the successor of the tsarist empire, the Soviet empire. Therefore, having removed one tsar, the people will in any case want another tsar and demand revenge for the defeat in Ukraine. Quite recently, Putin said in an interview that the collapse of the USSR is a great geopolitical tragedy. He said this because this is the mood of the people and he expressed the opinion of the Russian people. Therefore, the matter is much more complicated than in one person.

Yes, for a period of time for several years the war may stop, but then preparations for a military revenge in Ukraine will begin. Russians will never forgive the defeat in Ukraine. Just as they could not forgive the defeat from Chechnya in 1996. When they signed a peace treaty with Chechnya, at the same moment they began to prepare for the Second Chechen War. The same will happen in Ukraine. Russia must lose and transform into another democratic state. For example, the leader of the Russian opposition Navalny, who was killed in prison, did not recognize Crimea as Ukrainian. Because in the future he planned to participate in the presidential election campaign, and he must be guided by the opinion of the people. And 90 percent of the population of Russia considers Crimea to be Russia.

So, if I understand correctly, power in Russia is organized as an alliance of clans, and the President is the one who “moderates” the relations between clans. And in this system the FSB is a “clanized” apparatus or is it in competition with these clans?

This was the case before the war in Ukraine. Each major clan had its own people in the FSB leadership. But there was also an FSB clan that included both former and current FSB officers. All this was done with Putin’s approval. Putin was interested in creating a situation where different clans opposed him, and he was at the center of this structure and was an arbiter. In this way, he ensures his own security, and the clans were interested in Putin. But the war in Ukraine changed the balance of power in Russia. Prigozhin’s march on Moscow had a particular impact on these changes. Today, the FSB controls almost everything in Russia. With Shoigu’s departure from the Ministry of Defense, the FSB began a purge of generals and thus the FSB took control of the army. The only person the FSB cannot defeat yet is Kadyrov. Putin supports Kadyrov so that at least someone inside Russia would oppose the FSB. But I assume that the FSB will achieve its goal, and sooner or later the FSB will defeat Kadyrov.

Ramzan Kadyrov hugs Vladimir Putin

Why, in your opinion, does it (the FSB) not control Kadyrov?

Because Putin is interested in this. Putin knows what the KGB and the FSB are, and he knows that they can play their game at any moment. Putin and his clan have stolen hundreds of billions of dollars. Some “patriotic” generals may not like this, and they may try to stage a coup. Therefore, he is trying to minimize the risks. To do this, he must separate the different clans and do everything so that they do not unite. There are Chechen generals in the FSB who have always served Russia and whom the FSB would like to put in charge of Chechnya. But the FSB is not succeeding, because Putin has placed his bet on Kadyrov, whom he allows to commit any crimes, which helps strengthen him. The FSB was counting on the fact that Ramzan Kadyrov and his father are temporary workers, whom they are temporarily using to transfer the Chechen people’s struggle for independence from Russia into a civil war between Chechens. Kadyrov is not a career FSB employee, he is pursuing his own independent policy in the republic, which the FSB does not like.

In this regard, clashes between the FSB and Kadyrov’s men are constantly taking place in Russia, in which Putin has to act as an arbitrator. But so far there has not been a single situation where Putin has infringed on Kadyrov’s interests. The FSB expects that Putin will have to hand over Kadyrov sooner or later. But there is no doubt that Putin will have to choose between the FSB and Kadyrov. The FSB is getting stronger because of the war in Ukraine and is a state-forming institution, so I have no doubt that they will defeat Kadyrov in the future.

Fighting for a new “August 6”: Francesco Benedetti interviews Aset Sabdulaeva (Part II of “Ichkeria Generation”)

Lascia un commento

You told me that you moved to Canada in 2004. Where did you go to live?  Has the Canadian government helped you find accommodation and a form of livelihood?

Given the fact that our files were accepted by Canadian immigration authorities, we received the permanent residence cards right away when we landed in the Canadian airport. We landed in Halifax. Two weeks later upon our arrival, we moved to Québec because my mother knew Canadian filmmaker Helen Doyle. Helen was working on a documentary movie about my mother that was released in 2008. The name of the documentary is Birlyant, a chechen story.

When we arrived in Canada, the government gave us 4 000 cad$. But we had to pay back to the government the amount for plane tickets. We rented an apartment, and I was enrolled into a special language class, classe d’accueil.

The first time, I must admit, was very difficult. We had to start everything from zero. I didn’t have friends at school, I didn’t speak French at all. The first week of school, I had a conflict with one Russian guy, Maxim, who used to call me a “terrorist” every time he passed in the corridor during break-time. I went to complain to the director of the school. Later, my sister and my mother came – he stopped his verbal harassment. Even now, when I think about this guy, I feel awkward.

I spent 2 years in classe d’accueil, then I was transferred into regular class. It was very hard to study the French language. When I finally graduated from school and then from Cegep (French collage), I started to appreciate my years in university. I met wonderful people and wonderful professors.

Aset Sabdulaeva, Deputy Foreign Minister of the ChRI Government

Was Canadian society aware of what was happening in Chechnya? How did people you know react to your situation? Have you found people’s willingness to support you in your integration journey?

Canadian society was aware of what was happening in Chechnya. For example, in daily free journals “Metro” that were distributed every morning in the subway and in public buses to people, I often read short articles about Chechnya. However, I didn’t see any concrete steps made by Canadian society or the Canadian government to help Chechnya. Canadian society had a distant look on everything. Even now, Canadians think that their “far away” geography will protect them from any threat. They seem to lack understanding in geopolitics.

Canada has a history of immigration. It has organizations that deal with immigrants. There are government programs that grant social housing and social aid. People are generally open to immigrants, and they react to immigration as a normal process. The filmmaker, Helen, who knew my mom helped us. She and her husband helped me to get enrolled into a very good high school. I’m grateful to them. Apart from them, no one. My family dealt with everything on its own.

When did you start to feel the need to engage in politics, serving the cause of Chechen independence?

I was always on the side of Ichkeria. However, I started to actively take part in politicssince 2022, the year when Russia illegally invaded Ukraine.

The result of the war in Ukraine will change the balance of power in Eastern Europe. When Russia loses this war, it will be the end of the Russian Empire and the beginning of decolonization of captive nations. Without concrete changes in the center of the Empire, the Chechen Republic won’t be able to reestablish its democratic state because our people don’t have enough resources and capabilities for that. But our government can support Ukraine and is supporting Ukraine in all possible terms and that will help the process of disintegration of the Russian Empire. I want to contribute to the process of de-occupation of my motherland and disintegration of the Russian Empire and that is why I’m motivated to work for the government of Ichkeria.

Also, I know that the truth is on our side. The Chechen government of Ichkeria in exile is defending the legitimate right to self-determination of our people. The Chechen people already made a choice to build a sovereign country, and this choice was democratically articulated in the referendum in 1990. When the USSR made legislative reforms recognizing the right to self-determination of peoples, the Supreme Soviet of Checheno-Ingush republic adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty on 27 November 1990. Our sovereignty was proclaimed in full accordance with USSR laws and with norms and principles of international law.  The statehood of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is crystally clear and undoubtedly legitimate. The legitimacy of our state was further reinforced, when the Russian Federation and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria concluded the Peace Treaty in 1997 where both parties were designated as subjects of international law. The Peace Treaty is published on the official website of the United Nations (UN).

If I had any doubt about the legitimate struggle of our people, I would step down right away. Our land is occupied, our people are being held hostage by the Russian Empire that until today keeps over 100 000 Russian soldiers on chechen soil. The way Chechen people are treated is completely unjust and unacceptable and that is why I find it  is important to defend our country, people and freedom.

What benefits do you think the deployment of ChRI armed forces alongside Ukrainian fighters can bring to the cause of independent Chechnya? And how can the Chechen diaspora in the West support their action?

The Armed Forces of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria play a key role in our resistance and they are fighting not only for Ukrainian victory and for the legitimate right to self-determination of Chechen people, but they are also fighting for the peace and security in Eastern Europe.

Russia threatens international security and is trying to destroy a sovereign Ukrainian state, Ukrainian identity, language and culture. If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will expand its boundaries to other European countries. If Hitler was not stopped in 1945, the world would be dominated by fascism. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, Russian chauvinism, that Djokhar Dudaev called russism, will reach other European countries. Lenin wanted to build a Soviet Empire where communism was the absolute ideal and where all captive nations were insignificant subjects all fused into a one big Russian nation. Putin wants to keep this Empire but replace communism with russism and exploit captive nations and their territories the same way as Soviets did.

The fact that Chechen armed forces are fighting alongside Ukrainian fighters sends a powerful message to the world: the Chechen resistance is still alive and Chechens defend Ukraine to help Ukrainian people to defeat the Russian Empire that is threatening international security. The Ukrainian Army is training our troops with high military technology. Ukraine is helping our army to update war skills, use advanced military technology and increase expertise. The Chechen Army is becoming more efficient. Our Army is paving the way for the de-occupation of Ichkeria.

The Armed Forces of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria consist of very brave men that love freedom. Most of the soldiers in our Armed Forces belong to my generation (born in 1990 +). They are doing the best they can to liberate our motherland, to stop the Russian Empire, to help Ukraine and establish peace and security in Eastern Europe. I truly admire them the same way I admire those who defended and liberated Grozny on 6 august 1996.

The chechen diaspora can do a lot of things to help our army. The first and very important thing is to raise awareness about our troops because most people in the West know about Kadyrovtsy, russian puppets fighting within Russian Army against Ukraine, but do not know much about the Armed Forces of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. The diaspora should be more open to speak about our army, about our state, about our national tragedy. Also, I find that it is important to give moral support to our troops that are sacrificing their lives for the better future of our nation. Lastly, financial aid is crucial because military and transportation equipment costs money and this equipment is necessary for efficient warfare.

What activities do you mainly do in Canada, in support of Chechen independence? And what are the main problems of the Chechen diaspora in the West?

My role as a Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs is to connect with different people and politicians, seek their support and talk to them about Chechnya. We need diplomatic support from Western countries. On 18 October 2022, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine recognized that Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a territory temporarily occupied by Russia. The main goal of our foreign policy is to find support from Western Countries and invite them to follow the example of Ukraine and recognize the occupation of the Chechen State.

The major problem of our diaspora is the lack of expression of political will. The fear of denouncing injustice, oppression and Russian occupation is  justifiable. We all have relatives in Chechnya. When Chechens express political opinions and speak against the Russian regime, the puppets of the Russian administration, kadyrovtsy, kidnap or kill relatives. Fear I think is the biggest problem. Yet, the truth is that if we want to change the status- quo of our occupied State, we must rise here, in the West.

What activities can the Chechen diaspora in the West do to influence Western society and governments, in your opinion?

The best thing that the diaspora can do is support its local Chechen leaders that are trying to get into local governments. The involvement of our local leaders into governments will help us to make hear our voices within western political establishments. For instance, soon there will be elections in Austria. We have a Chechen candidate running for a deputy office. His name is Laziz Vagaev. I’ve listened to his videos. He is highly educated person.  It is an excellent opportunity for Chechens to elect a local leader that will represent them and be capable of making hear our voice in Austrian parlement.

Last year, Chechen diaspora in Belgium had a chance to vote for a Chechen candidate. Unfortunately, our diaspora didn’t participate much in elections. Our people should support local Chechen candidates and vote for them.

Aset Sabdulaeva (center) with MEP Anna Fotyga (left) and Akhmed Zakayev (right)

Some Chechens say that one of the main risks for Chechens living abroad is Islamic radicalism, and that the government is not doing enough to distance itself from this phenomenon. Do you agree that Chechens in Europe and America are at risk of radicalization? And what is your position as a member of the government on this issue?

I disagree with this statement. Our government  is a democratic government and the rule of law is a core principle of our state.

The Russian intelligence agency (FSB) tries to drag some Chechens into radicalism, but our government is working on this problem, together with European governmental institutions. Chechens have a lot of educated and talented young people who live, work and study in Western schools, universities and companies. So I do not think that radicalization is a major problem.

It is true that we do not share the aggressive secularism of some Chechen social activists, but it does not mean that we support radicalism. Democracy gives a person the opportunity to live according to laws adopted by the majority of society. Democracy is not new to Chechen culture; it is part of our culture, and we inherited it since the 16th and 17th centuries. Chechen people lived in democracy, and we didn’t have any monarchs or social classes.  While other European nations were subjects of monarchs that had absolute power over them, Chechens lived in mountains on equal terms, with equal rights and elected the executive Council of Elders. French writer Ernest Chantre writes about this in his book “Recherches Antropologiques: Le Caucase ” (1886).

Therefore, democratic principles exist in the Chechen cultural code. But some pseudo-democrats who live today in European countries are trying to replace democracy with liberalism. Democracy is a form of government that is the basis of Chechen statehood. These individuals do not make any distinction between liberal ideology and democracy. As you know, in Europe there are a lot of political parties that build their programs/manifesto on  Christian values and ethics.

The Christian Democratic parties exist throughout the world. These parties successfully operate in Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, etc. The European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) won the elections to the European Parliament. This is normal in democracy. There is an insignificant minority of Chechen society that has not yet really understood democratic principles and is trying to impose strict secularism on the state and people. Their opinion is marginal not only for the Chechen people, but also for most European democratic countries.

Aset Sabndulaeva speaks at the Jamestown Foundation

How does the government act to keep the attention of the Chechen diaspora around the world on its activities?

Our government is transparent. We inform our diaspora about all the work we do through media resources such as Ichkeria News YouTube channel and the official government’s website www.thechechenpress.com. Also, we have the Council of Elders in Europe and official representation offices that keep close ties with local communities in different countries. 

And it is true that we do not force anything on anyone because we believe that to serve our state is a matter of honor, dignity and free choice.

23/02/1944 – The Deportation of Chechens

Lascia un commento

Today marks the anniversary of the deportation of the Chechens by Stalin in 1944. On this occasion we publish an excerpt from the first volume of “Freedom or Death!” History of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

Operation Lentil

While Israilov fought his little war against the USSR in Chechnya, the world was facing the tragedy of World War II. In June 1941, Axis forces invaded Russia and were stopped at the gates of Moscow. In the summer of the following year, Hitler directed his sights on the Caucasus, trying to cut Stalin the oil supplies needed to move his armored divisions. The German avant-gardes reached the town of Malgobek, in the extreme west of the Chechen – Inguscia RSSA. Israilov issued an “appeal to the people” in which he invited the population to welcome the invaders as allies if they saw favorably the independence of the Caucasian peoples. For their part, the Germans tried to encourage the insurrection, in order to weaken the already tried Soviet defenses,[1]. However, there were contacts with the rebels, and Israilov seemed willing to collaborate with the new occupiers, making his men available against the anti-Nazi partisan resistance, in exchange for the promise of independence.

In February 1943, following the devastating defeat at Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht withdrew from the Caucasus, abandoning the Chechen rebels to their fate. Stalin’s reaction was merciless. Towards the end of 1943, when Chechnya had returned to being the rear of the front, the Soviet dictator ordered the Minister of the Interior, Lavrentji Beria to deal once and for all with that turbulent people who, in the most difficult moment of the war, had not contributed adequately to the war effort of the USSR[2]. The question of the lack of loyalty shown by the Vaynakhs during the war was not very consistent, but it was also an excellent ideological umbrella to cover an “Ermolov-like” solution to the Caucasian problem at a time when the world was not interested in looking at what was happening in that corner of Europe.

Deportation of Chechens, 1944

Beria carried out Stalin’s order with cynical professionalism: after bringing a brigade of NKVD agents to Grozny[3], ordered his men to collect evidence of the “betrayal” of the Chechens and their neighbors Ingush. The final report drawn up by the People’s Commissars cited the presence of thirty-eight active religious sects, with about twenty thousand adherents, whose purpose was to overthrow the Soviet Union. Stalin’s relentless executioner had already cut his teeth as a persecutor first in his native Transcaucasia (where he had administered the purges) then in Poland, and in the Baltic countries (where he had completed the purge of intellectuals and bourgeois) thus, after putting his military machine to the test by completing two “small” ethnic cleanings in Kabardino – Balkaria and in Karachai – Circassia, he decided to develop that of the Chechens for the end of winter.

Between December 1943 and January 1944, one hundred and twenty thousand men between soldiers and NKVD officials were stationed in Chechnya, officially to support the reconstruction and prepare the harvest. Transport vehicles and freight trains were herded in military warehouses and railway stations, while soldiers set up garrisons across the country. In the night between 22 and 23 February, the so-called Operation Lentil began, which went down in history with the Russian term of Chechevitza and the Chechen term of Ardakhar: within a day three quarters of the entire Chechen people – Ingush were loaded onto trains goods and shipped to Central Asia. In the following days the same fate struck the last quarter. Anyone unable to move or resisting was executed on the spot.

Any resistance was useless. The villages in which they occurred were set on fire, and their inhabitants slaughtered. In the south of the country, where the snow was still deep and travel difficult, communists did not have too many problems forcing the populations to march in the snow to reach their destinations. The elderly, children and the disabled ended up shot or abandoned to their fate[4]. For those who got to the trains alive, a three-week death journey began. Crammed beyond belief in leaded wagons with no toilets, they set out on a three-thousand-kilometer journey across the snowy steppe, surviving on what little they had managed to take with them.[5]. Between 10 and 20% of the deportees died during the crossing. The survivors were dumped in bulk and forced to build themselves shelters and huts on the fringes of collective farms for which they would be the lowest form of labor. The Soviet government imposed compulsory stay on them. Every month the exiles would have had to report to the authorities and declare their presence, on pain of a 20-year sentence of forced labor.

Area of deportation of Chechen people

Nothing remained of the Chechen – Ingushetia: the republic was dissolved, its districts were annexed to neighboring republics or transformed into Oblast, provinces without identity. All the cultural heritage of the Chechens was destroyed: mosques and Islamic centers were demolished, and their stones became building material. Even the stems that adorned the cemeteries were removed and used for the construction of houses, government buildings, even stables and pigsties. The tyaptari, the teip chronicles written on parchment and preserved by the elders, were burned or transferred to the Moscow archives. The depopulated country was filled with war refugees. From the regions most devastated by the conflict, hundreds of thousands of Russians were placed in a Grozny, which has now become a ghost town. Only a handful of survivors, who remained in Chechnya by chance or because they escaped their tormentors, continued to live in hiding in the Mountains. Israilov himself managed to escape arrest until December 24, 1944, when he was identified by the police and killed in a shooting. For all the others, an ordeal began that would last thirteen years, until Stalin’s death.

The deportees had to face the terrible conditions of nullity among populations who barely had to feed themselves. The death rate from disease and malnutrition soon reached dramatic levels. In the three-year period 1944 – 1947 alone, one hundred and fifty thousand people died, about a quarter of the population. The survivors lived in collective lodgings in which up to fifteen families were accommodated, mostly without stable employment and without resources. Those without a job wandered across the steppe in search of animal carcasses, or wild herbs, or tried to steal food from collective farms. Anyone who managed to get a job in one of these could hope to make ends meet:[6].

On hopes that the exile was a temporary punitive measure, and that sooner or later the central government would consider their guilt extinguished, the Supreme Soviet came to put a tombstone. In a special decree it was established that

In order to determine the accommodation regime for deported populations […] it is to be considered perpetual, with no right of return […].

The Chechens were forced to sign the decree one by one.

The deportation memorial built by Dzhokhar Dudayev. Kadyrov had it demolished in 2014. for further information, read the article on the memorial in the “approfondimenti” section

The sons of Ardakhar

Deprived of their land and their customs, the Chechens tried to preserve their identity by handing down their stories orally and entrusting themselves to the elderly, who in the absence of anything else had become the only custodians of shared memory. Thanks to the traditions transmitted from generation to generation, Adat and Islam were kept alive in the uses and customs. The Soviet government tried to eradicate both, opening schools of ideological education and infiltrating the KGB among the Islamic communities, but the national sentiment of the Chechens did not fail and indeed strengthened in the resistance to the emancipation programs launched by the authorities. The distance from the homeland and the lack of written sources produced a simplified, idealized and mythologizing story, which would become the creed of that generation that would reach maturity in the early 1990s[7].

Among the hundreds of thousands of deportees who suffered the sad fate of exile was a child named Dzhokhar. He was born on February 15, 1944, nine days before Stalin ordered the deportation of all his people. Thirteenth son of Musa Dudaev, veterinarian, and his second wife Rabiat, he lived his childhood in a pariah community, considered unworthy to participate in the great socialist project, marginalized and closed in on itself. When his father died, leaving behind a large and resourceless family, his mother was allowed to move to the city of Shymkent in southern Kazakhstan, where the climate was milder and there was greater demand for labor. Dzhokhar, who had taken the dedication to study from his father, managed to complete primary school with merit[8]. With no higher education institutions available, he tried to support the family by working where possible, to bring home something that could alleviate his mother’s fatigue. It was in this situation that the news of Stalin’s death caught him. It was March 5, 1953, and the Chechens had been in exile for nine years.

The new Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, launched a series of measures aimed at softening the iron fist with which the regime had governed the USSR in recent decades, which in the following years would take the name of De-Stalinization. The first step was to get rid of Stalin’s loyalists, starting with the hateful Beria, who was tried and put to the wall within a few months to the delight of the Chechens and all the other deported peoples. The second was to forgive the enemies of the state that the tyrant had persecuted. From 1954, therefore, the status of special settler was revoked for all Chechens under the age of sixteen, allowing them for the first time to move from their forced home to work and study. In August 1955 this freedom was also recognized to teachers, to war decorated, to women married with Russians and to invalids. For all others the restrictions persisted, but the penalty for abusive abandonment of the settlements was reduced from 20 to 5 years of forced labor. The number of convictions dropped significantly, going from eight thousand in 1949 to just twenty-five in 1954.

Finally, on July 16, 1956, the long night of Ardakhar officially ended. By decree of the Supreme Soviet, the ban on returning to the lands of origin was officially lifted. On January 9 of the following year the Chechen – Ingush RSSA  was re-established, to which all the districts that made it up were re-annexed except for one, that of Prigorodny, on the border with North Ossetia.

The Soviet government, aware that a mass return of Chechens would create many problems, tried to govern the phenomenon by setting up a sort of waiting list that would stagger the resettlement, but the impatience of Chechens and Ingushes to return to their homes was not negotiable and already in 1957, in the face of 17,000 authorizations, at least fifty thousand people returned home. During 1958 the exodus became torrential, with the return of 340,000 deportees, mostly without employment, education and economic resources, and by 1959 83% of the Chechens and 72% of the Ingush were on a permanent basis within the ancient borders. Local governments were unable to handle such a massive influx of people, and district governors asked Moscow for help.[9].

The ancient inhabitants of Chechen – Ingushetia turned into “immigrants in their own homes”, ending up occupying the lowest positions of a social pyramid at the top of which were the Russians, to whom Stalin had given their houses and lands. This situation soon produced a sort of “apartheid” between the Russians, who held the monopoly of industry and administration, and the Chechens, who made up most of the agricultural labor or, at worst, were unemployed, forced to do seasonal work. underpaid and without protections[10]. It didn’t take long before the friction between the two peoples escalated into violence: on August 23, 1958, an Ingush killed a Russian in a brawl. It was the spark that ignited an anti – Chechen pogrom during which dozens of people were lynched, some public buildings were set on fire and that only the intervention of the army was able to quell.

Obviously not all Russians opposed the integration of the Chechens. Many residents made some plots of their private land available to the new arrivals, and in the schools the teachers’ efforts in the preparation of the young Chechens were great and selfless. The central government promoted the image of a Chechen – Ingushetia where cultural differences were respected and where different ethnic groups collaborated in the realization of socialism in peace and harmony. For this to be effectively achieved by Moscow, huge economic resources began to arrive for the construction of housing, schools, cultural centers and health services. In short, the budget of the Chechen-Ingush RSSA became dependent on the generous donations of Moscow, which came to represent even 80% of the public budget, triggering a phenomenon of financial dependence which, as we will see, would have given its bitter fruits thirty years later.

[1] Operation Schamil – Planned and implemented between August and September 1942, it involved sending small groups of commandos and saboteurs beyond the front lines. Their goal was to protect the oil infrastructure from planned destruction by the Red Army in the event of a withdrawal from Chechnya. In the summer of 1942 five groups of raiders, totaling 57 men, were parachuted over the front line. Some made contact with Israilov’s anti-Soviet resistance, others occupied the refineries, assuming a defensive position pending the arrival of the German armored divisions. The failure of the summer offensive in the Caucasus and the formidable defense offered by the Russians in Stalingrad prevented the Axis units from advancing to Grozny.

[2] Stalin’s judgment did not take into consideration the sacrifice of tens of thousands of Caucasians in the battles that the Red Army had fought against the Germans: Chechens had been the first fallen of the Soviet army, heroically defended the position in the siege of Brest. Chechen was Khanpasha Nuradilov, a very skilled sniper during the Battle of Stalingrad and also Chechens would have been Movlad Bisaitov, the first soldier to meet the allies on the Elbe River and Hakim Ismailov, who together with his team was the one who hoisted the red flag on the ruins of the Reichstag. Over the course of the conflict, more than 1000 Chechens would be rewarded for their fighting actions.

[3] NKVD – Narodnyj komissariat vnutrennich del (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) was the organization responsible for state security during the Soviet period. Born from the ashes of the Tsarist imperial police, he took control of both detention facilities and branches of the police, including the notorious political police. The NKVD was the armed arm of Stalin’s policy of terror. In 1946 the organization was transformed into the Ministry of Internal Affairs, while its political police section was renamed the State Security Committee, known as the KGB.

[4] Particularly bloody was a massacre that many Chechens still remember today. In the village of Khaibakh, in the mountainous Galanchozh district, snow prevented any movement. But Beria’s orders were clear and rather than disappoint his superior, the NKVD officer operating in the area, Colonel Gveshiani, ordered the elimination of anyone unable to cope with the march. Hundreds of people were gathered in a barn, where they were executed.

[5] In a report to “Comrade Stalin” Beria wrote: Between 23 and 29 February 478,479 people, including 91,259 Ingush, were concentrated and loaded onto trains. 177 trains have been filled, 152 of these have already been sent to the resettlement sites. […] 6,000 Chechens from the Galanchozh district still remain not. rearranged due to heavy snow and the impracticability of the roads. However, their removal will be completed in the next two days […] During the operation 1016 anti-Soviet elements were arrested. A few days later, in a second report, Beria reported that at the end of Operation Lentil, 650,000 people had been “successfully” deported.

[6]In addition to food, there was a lack of clothes. In January 1945 the assistant to the President of the Assembly of People’s Commissars wrote in his report: The situation of the clothes and shoes of the special settlers has completely deteriorated. Even without taking into account all those who are unable to work, children are practically naked, and as a result disease causes high mortality rates. The absence of clothing prevents many of the healthy young people from being used in agricultural activities.

[7] As historians Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal have noted: The experience of deportation was a collective experience based on ethnic criteria […] Thirteen years of exile undoubtedly gave the Chechens, for the first time, the sense of a common identity. The proximity of the Chechens in the deportation has become legendary for themselves.

[8] Considering the fact that in those years only sixteen thousand Chechen children out of fifty thousand had access to some form of basic education, Dzhokhar Dudaev could say he was lucky to have had the opportunity to study.

[9]Even in 1958, one year after Khrushchev’s “forgiveness”, only a fifth of Chechens had managed to obtain a home. For the others, makeshift lodgings remained in industrial complexes, in dilapidated huts or in the ruins of ancient farms on the plateaus and mountains. Even at the employment level, the situation remained critical for a long time: due to low schooling, most Chechens did not possess the necessary qualifications to obtain the best jobs in the country’s factories and refineries, and the distrust with which local managers, all ethnic Russians, they looked at them made integration even more difficult. The school gap was very high: in 1959, compared to 8696 skilled workers of Russian origin, there were 177 Chechens occupying the same position,

[10] The reader who wants to deepen the question of the Chechen economic system – Ingush in the Soviet period can find two detailed insights on the blog www.ichkeria.net entitled The agricultural economy of ChRI.

Assalto al Palazzo Presidenziale – Estratto da “Libertà o Morte! Volume II”

Lascia un commento

Quello che sarebbe passato alla storia come il “fiasco di Capodanno” fu un disastro per Grachev e un trionfo di Dudaev. Ma soprattutto fu il mito fondativo della resistenza.  Più tardi, alla fine della guerra, il governo indipendentista avrebbe istituito un ordine di medaglie dedicato a coloro che avevano combattuto in quei giorni, l’Ordine del Difensore di Grozny[1]. Mentre i ceceni vivevano la loro prima giornata di gloria, a Mosca Grachev iniziava a prendere coscienza di aver fatto fare ad Eltsin una figuraccia planetaria. Davanti alle telecamere il Ministro della Difesa rimase apparentemente ottimista, al punto da dichiarare che l’operazione era stata un sostanziale successo[2]. Non poteva esserci niente di più falso, e lo sapeva bene, perché ancora il 2 gennaio i russi erano impegnati a salvare i loro reparti rimasti assediati in città, e niente faceva pensare ad una risoluzione veloce della battaglia[3]. Se non altro, comunque, la disfatta costrinse il comando russo a cambiare tattica, a cominciare dall’organigramma delle forze in campo. La responsabilità del fallimento venne addossata ai comandanti sul campo, che vennero in gran parte sostituiti, mentre il Gruppo d’Assalto Nord e Nord – Est vennero fusi in un solo Gruppo d’Assalto Nord al comando del Generale Rochlin, l’unico che avesse salvato la faccia in quell’operazione così maldestramente condotta. Le colonne federali furono riorganizzate in piccoli reparti appoggiati da carri armati ed elicotteri, dotate di maggiore mobilità e più prudenti nell’avanzare verso il centro cittadino. Abbandonata l’idea di un rapido blitz vittorioso, il comando del Raggruppamento delle Forze Unite tornò coi piedi per terra, e prima di tutto si occupò di salvare le unità ancora assediate nel centro cittadino. I rinforzi richiamati da tutti i distretti militari poco prima dell’assalto furono inviati a consolidare le posizioni faticosamente conquistate: nel corso dei primi giorni di Gennaio le unità federali riuscirono a tenere una precaria linea del fronte che dall’ospedale, a Nord, correva fino alla stazione ferroviaria, lambendo la piazza del mercato centrale cittadino. I mezzi corazzati rimasti operativi furono frettolosamente ritirati dalla zona di combattimento e disposti a supporto della fanteria, la quale da quel momento in poi avrebbe avanzato casa per casa. Nessuna azione offensiva fu intrapresa prima che artiglieria ed aeronautica avessero annichilito le posizioni (probabili o effettive) dalle quali i cecchini ed i tiratori di RPG nemici avrebbero potuto colpire. La strategia cambiò radicalmente: anziché puntare tutti verso il centro, i reparti federali avrebbero conquistato i distretti uno ad uno, aprendosi la strada lentamente.

. Il 4 gennaio, dopo 48 ore di incessante bombardamento, l’attacco alla città riprese ed i reparti federali tentarono di sfondare il fronte lungo tutto l’arco compreso tra la stazione ferroviaria (ovest) l’ospedale (nord) e la base di Khankala (est). I bombardamenti si concentrarono sui quartieri residenziali nel centro cittadino, ancora occupati dai dudaeviti. La tragedia umanitaria che l’attacco stava generando ne fu ulteriormente amplificata, e la pressione mediatica su Eltsin cominciò a farsi forte, al punto che questi decise di sospendere i bombardamenti dal 5 Gennaio. Intanto continuavano ad affluire rinforzi dalle basi navali del Baltico e del Pacifico, e numerosi reggimenti di fanteria di marina prendevano posizione nelle retrovie, mentre i difensori schieravano unità fresche, come gli uomini del Battaglione Naursk, i quali erano riusciti a calare dal nord del Paese tra il 3 ed il 4 Gennaio[4]. Tra il 5 ed il 10 gennaio i combattimenti si svilupparono lungo tutta la linea del fronte, fino al bombardamento da parte dell’artiglieria russa di un ospedale psichiatrico dove sembrava che fosse presente un nucleo di combattenti indipendentisti. Il bombardamento provocò lo sdegno della comunità internazionale e mise in imbarazzo Eltsin, che propose pubblicamente una “tregua umanitaria” per permettere lo sfollamento dei civili rimasti in città. Il 9 sembrò che le parti fossero riuscite ad accordarsi per un cessate – il – fuoco di 48 ore, durante il quale poter raccogliere morti e feriti e scambiarsi i prigionieri. 13 Prigionieri russi in mano cecena vennero restituiti alle autorità federali, mentre i dudaeviti approfittavano della tregua per far affluire in città nuovo equipaggiamento. Tuttavia, come le telecamere si furono allontanate, Eltsin rimpiazzò la sua tregua con un “ultimatum” per il disarmo delle milizie, e già dalle prime ore del 10 gennaio l’artiglieria russa ricominciò a bombardare la città[5]. Il Gruppo di Battaglia Est, ribattezzato Gruppo di Battaglia Sud – Est, ebbe l’incarico di chiudere il braccio destro della tenaglia occupando i quartieri meridionali, con l’obiettivo di completare l’accerchiamento e mettere Grozny sotto assedio.

Nel frattempo le unità dispiegate in città avanzavano lentamente, casa per casa dirette verso il quartiere governativo. I centri nevralgici della difesa cecena in quel settore erano costituiti dall’edificio del Parlamento (ex Consiglio dei Ministri della RSSA Ceceno – Inguscia, il cosiddetto “SovMin”) dal Palazzo Presidenziale, dall’istituto pedagogico[6] e dall’Hotel Kavkaz. Il quartiere era protetto ad est dal Sunzha, mentre a sud era coperto dalla imponente struttura del circo cittadino, che gli indipendentisti utilizzavano come una sorta di bunker. L’unico modo per approcciare le posizioni cecene senza rischiare di finire in trappola era avanzando da Nord. Questo accesso era protetto dall’Istituto Petrolifero di Grozny, un imponente complesso di tre palazzi al centro del quale svettava un corpo centrale di dodici piani, soprannominato “Candela”[7]. Il 7 Gennaio elementi del 45° Reggimento Aviotrasportato, giunti da pochi giorni in supporto alle unità di prima linea, assaltarono l’edificio. La battaglia infuriò a fasi alterne per tre giorni, durante i quali l’edificio fu preso, poi riperso, poi ripreso nuovamente. Consapevoli che la perdita dell’Istituto Petrolifero avrebbe aperto la strada ai federali per la conquista dell’intero quartiere, gli indipendentisti reagirono rabbiosamente, alternando contrattacchi in massa a fitti bombardamenti con i mortai. Fu in uno di questi bombardamenti che perse la vita il primo di numerosi alti ufficiali russi caduti in questa guerra. Centrato da un colpo di mortaio cadde il Generale Viktor Vorobyov (omonimo del già citato Edvard Vorobyov) mentre, al comando di un’unità OMON del Ministero degli Interni, si apprestava a costituire un posto di blocco dietro al grande edificio principale. Dopo essersi assicurati il controllo delle rovine dell’Istituto Petrolifero i federali arrestarono l’avanzata, lasciando spazio ad un imponente bombardamento aereo e di artiglieria non soltanto sulla guarnigione a difesa della città, ma lungo tutto il fronte, comprese le retrovie a Sud e sui centri montani del paese. 

artiglieria federale in azione

I difensori si trincerarono all’interno dei fatiscenti edifici del quartiere governativo, supportati da contingenti provenienti dall’altra sponda del Sunzha che all’occorrenza intervenivano a bloccare gli sporadici attacchi dell’esercito federale[8]. La sera del 12 gennaio il Generale Rochlin, ordinò l’assalto al Sovmin[9]. Nella notte un reparto di paracadutisti della 98a Divisione Aviotrasportata riuscì a raggiungere la base dell’edificio. La struttura era stata pesantemente bombardata, e per i ceceni era stato quasi impossibile rifornire le unità a difesa dell’edificio nelle 48 ore precedenti. Alle 5:30 del mattino gli attaccanti assaltarono il palazzo, ma i ceceni asserragliati ai piani superiori reagirono prontamente, riuscendo a bloccare l’assalto e provocando tra i paracadutisti numerosi morti e feriti. Nel frattempo Maskhadov richiamava da Sud tutte le forze disponibili per respingere l’attacco: qualora il Sovmin fosse caduto, il Palazzo Presidenziale avrebbe potuto essere colpito direttamente, e non sarebbe stato più possibile rifornire la guarnigione che vi era asserragliata[10]. Dall’edificio, infatti, era possibile tenere sotto tiro il grande ponte sul Sunzha che collegava il Quartier Generale alla parte orientale di Grozny.

Nella tarda mattinata del 13 i paracadutisti russi iniziarono ad essere supportati da consistenti reparti corazzati, affiancati dalla fanteria ordinaria e dai fanti di marina del 33° reggimento, appena giunto sul campo di battaglia. Le unità raccolte da Basayev in Piazza Minutka ed inviate di rinforzo verso il Palazzo Presidenziale tentarono inutilmente di sloggiare i federali, lanciando violenti attacchi fino al 19 Gennaio, in uno scontro casa per casa e stanza per stanza senza esclusione di colpi[11].  Nel corso dei giorni, tuttavia, le controffensive cecene si esaurirono, man mano che i reparti federali assalivano gli edifici circostanti il Sovmin, come l’Ispettorato di Polizia Fiscale, subito ad est dell’edificio, aumentando così la copertura delle unità poste alla sua difesa[12]. I federali riuscirono ad aver ragione dei contrattacchi dei ceceni soltanto dopo alcuni giorni di intensi combattimenti. Il 19 gennaio, fallita l’ultima controffensiva cecena, Rochlin potè dichiarare di aver preso il Sovmin. Da questa posizione i russi potevano facilmente assediare il Palazzo Presidenziale. Nel corso dei giorni precedenti questo era stato colpito incessantemente dall’artiglieria e dall’aeronautica, al ritmo di un colpo al secondo, e due potenti bombe a detonazione ritardata erano penetrate fin nei sotterranei dell’edificio, dove si trovavano i centri di comunicazione, il comando e l’ospedale da campo, sventrando il palazzo.  A complicare ulteriormente la posizione dei difensori occorse, all’alba del 19, la conquista dell’Hotel Kavkaz e la cattura del vicino ponte sul Sunzha. I pochi reparti della Guardia Presidenziale ancora operativi, asserragliati tra le imponenti rovine del Reskom, non avrebbero potuto resistere a lungo. Già alcuni giorni prima la squadra speciale della Guardia (i cosiddetti “Leoni di Dudaev”), al comando di Apti Takhaev, era stata distrutta in un contrattacco nel distretto di Boronovka, a nordovest del Quartier Generale[13]. Se voleva salvare i resti delle sue forze d’élite, Maskhadov avrebbe dovuto tirarle fuori da quella che stava diventando ogni giorno di più una bara di cemento. Così il comandante ceceno. che non aveva mai abbandonato la posizione, si decise ad andarsene sfruttando l’ultimo corridoio aperto in mezzo alle unità federali. Basayev coordinò efficacemente il ritiro della maggior parte dei reparti combattenti sulla sponda destra del Sunzha, organizzando una solida linea di difesa[14]. Il giorno successivo i soldati di Eltsin innalzarono sul pennone la bandiera russa[15]. La presa del Palazzo fu poco più che un successo politico. Per prenderlo i russi avevano sacrificato più di un migliaio di uomini, centinaia di mezzi corazzati, sparato decine di migliaia di proiettili d’artiglieria ed impiegato una marea di aerei ed elicotteri. E alla fine, a dirla tutta, lo avevano preso perché erano stati i ceceni ad abbandonarlo. La battaglia per la presa della sponda occidentale del Sunzha aveva richiesto l’impiego di quasi la totalità delle forze federali, dando il tempo a Dudaev di organizzare una solida linea a sud della capitale.

truppe russe nei pressi delle rovine del Palazzo Presidenziale

Il Presidente ceceno si ritirò senza fretta a Shali, dove pose la capitale provvisoria della Repubblica. In città rimase Basayev, ormai divenuto una leggenda vivente, con l’ordine di rallentare i federali quanto più possibile. Maskhadov si ritirò ad Argun, ponendovi il suo Quartier Generale[16]. A Mosca, la notizia della cattura del Palazzo Presidenziale fu accolta con grande ottimismo: Eltsin tenne un discorso pubblico nel quale associò la presa del Palazzo Presidenziale alla imminente cessazione delle ostilità. La realtà era ben diversa: l’esercito federale era riuscito a prendere a malapena un terzo della città, giacché il grosso di Grozny si estende oltre la sponda orientale del fiume. E dall’altra parte c’era Basayev, con una nutrita guarnigione di almeno 1.500 uomini (cui si aggiungevano altre centinaia di volontari) deciso a tirare avanti la difesa della città il tempo necessario a far sì che Maskhadov potesse completare il dispiegamento del fronte meridionale. Il successo di cui parlava Eltsin (costato comunque tra i 500 e i 1000 morti e tra i 1.500 ed i 5.000 feriti) non era sufficiente neanche a dichiarare di aver preso Grozny, tantomeno di aver prodotto la cessazione delle ostilità. La maggior parte del territorio ceceno rimaneva saldamente nelle mani degli indipendentisti, e la vittoria sul campo era ancora ben lontana da venire[17].

[1] Il lettore che volesse approfondire il tema dei premi di stato della ChRI può consultare la sezione Premi della Repubblica sul sito www.ichkeria.net.

[2] Il 2 Gennaio, Grachev dichiarò alla stampa che l’operazione per la presa della città si sarebbe conclusa in non più di cinque, sei giorni. Il 9 Gennaio, quando ormai era chiaro che le sue ottimistiche previsioni non stavano trovando riscontro nella realtà sul campo, parlando ad una conferenza stampa ad Alma – Ata, il Ministro della Difesa ebbe a dichiarare che L’operazione per prendere la città era stata preparata in tempi molto brevi, ed è stata eseguita con perdite minime […] E le perdite, voglio dirvelo francamente, si sono verificate solo perché una parte dei comandanti di grado inferiore ha vacillato. Si aspettavano una vittoria facile e poi, semplicemente, avevano ceduto sotto pressione […]. Un cambio di prospettiva apparentemente minimo, ma che rivelava la presa d’atto che il blitz fosse fallito, e che la conquista della città avrebbe richiesto tempi e sforzi molto maggiori.

[3] Come ebbe a dire successivamente il Generale Rokhlin, che da questo momento in poi avrebbe avuto l’onere principale nella conquista di Grozny: Il piano operativo, sviluppato da Grachev e da Kvashnin, divenne di fatto un piano per la morte delle truppe. Oggi posso dire con assoluta certezza che questo non fu suffragato da alcun calcolo operativo – tattico. Un piano del genere ha un nome molto preciso: una scommessa. E considerando che come risultato della sua attuazione sono morte centinaia di persone, fu un gioco d’azzardo criminale.

[4] Secondo quanto riportatomi da Apti Batalov in una delle nostre conversazioni, il Battaglione, forte di 97 uomini, raggiunse prima Gudermes, dove fu accolto dal Prefetto locale Salman Raduev e sistemato nella Casa dei Ferrovieri, poi si diresse verso il Palazzo Presidenziale, sfruttando la tregua appena dichiarata, e raggiungendo la posizione nella tarda serata del 5.

[5] Secondo quanto ricordò Aslan Maskhadov nel suo libro elettorale L’Onore è più caro della vita: Una volta, nel Gennaio 1995, Dudaev mi disse di essere d’accordo con Chernomyrdin di cessare le ostilità per 48 ore. “Prendi contatto con Babichev” mi disse “e concorda sulla rimozione dei cadaveri ed il salvataggio dei feriti gravi”. Contattai Babichev e gli ripetei che questa era la volontà di Dudaev e di Chernomyrdin. Babichev mi disse che mi avrebbe ricontattato entro 30 minuti. Poi mi chiamò e abbastanza seriamente, con la voce di un presentatore televisivo, disse: “Le condizioni sono le seguenti. Una bandiera bianca viene appesa al Palazzo Presidenziale, i capispalla vengono rimossi, le armi non vengono portate con voi, uscite con le mani alzate e dirigetevi verso Via Rosa Luxembourg…” Ho ascoltato con difficoltà queste chiacchiere, come i deliri di un pazzo, e moto educatamente l’ho mandato dove di solito ti mandano i contadini russi. A quanto pare neanche Babichev gradì la mia risposta, ed il fuoco più intenso di tutte le armi fu aperto sul Palazzo Presidenziale.

[6] In questo edificio, secondo quanto riportatomi da Apti Batalov, si era asserragliato il Battaglione Naursk. Secondo i suoi ricordi, i suoi uomini tennero la posizione fino al 19 Gennaio.

[7] L’Istituto Petrolifero di Grozny era una vera e propria istituzione non soltanto in Cecenia, ma in tutta la Russia. Fondato nel 1920, era stato per decenni il punto di riferimento negli studi tecnici relativi all’estrazione ed alla produzione di idrocarburi. Presso le sue strutture si erano formati circa cinquantamila studenti, tra i quali illustri personaggi politici dell’URSS. La costruzione, alta e massiccia, fu utilizzata dai indipendentisti per difendere da posizione favorevole il quartiere governativo, e la sua cattura avrebbe provvisto i federali di un’ottima posizione di osservazione e di tiro sulle difese cecene. Per questo motivo il complesso fu al centro degli scontri per la presa della città, finendo completamente distrutto prima dai bombardamenti, poi dai violenti scontri combattutisi al suo interno.

[8] Un episodio degno di nota esplicativo della situazione strategica al 10 Gennaio 1995 è riportato da Dodge Billignsley nel suo Fangs of the lone wolf. Il 10 Gennaio i reparti avanzati federali occupavano l’edificio del Servizio di Sicurezza Nazionale (ex KGB) e sparavano dalla piazza del mercato direttamente contro il Reskom (nome originale del Palazzo Presidenziale). Altri mezzi corazzati stazionavano nei pressi dell’Hotel Kavkaz, a pochi metri dal principale ponte sul Sunzha (il ponte su Via Lenin, oggi Putin Avenue), coprendo l’avanzata della fanteria che stava tentando di occupare l’edificio. Al di là del ponte si trovava un drappello di indipendentisti intenzionato a portare supporto a Maskhadov, attaccando i carri appostati all’Hotel Kavkaz. Il piccolo reparto si divise in due: metà avrebbe continuato ad occupare la posizione, l’altra metà avrebbe attraversato il fiume a nuoto, avrebbe attaccato i carri e si sarebbe nuovamente ritirata. L’azione ebbe successo, uno dei due veicoli fu colpito dagli RPG e saltò in aria, mentre l’altro si ritirò velocemente al coperto. In questo modo l’azione offensiva russa subì un certo rallentamento, costringendo i federali a tenersi alla larga dagli argini del fiume onde evitare di finire nuovamente sotto attacco da parte degli incursori ceceni. Azioni di questo tipo si susseguirono fino al 18 Gennaio quando, caduto il Sovmin, la difesa del Palazzo Presidenziale perse di senso strategico e gli indipendentisti si ritirarono al di là del fiume.

[9] Lo spettacolo che i russi si trovarono davanti quando giunsero ai piedi dell’edificio fu straziante, secondo quanto riporta lo stesso Rochlin: “Alla vigilia dell’assalto i militanti avevano appeso i cadaveri dei nostri soldati alle finestre […] Nei primi giorni dell’assalto scoprimmo una fossa comune piena di paracadutisti, i cui cadaveri erano stati decapitati. Successivamente trovarono cadaveri dei nostri soldati con lo stomaco strappato, pieno di paglia, con le membra recise e tracce di altre profanazioni. I dottori, esaminando i cadaveri, hanno affermato che stavano martoriando persone ancora vive.”

[10] Come abbiamo detto il Palazzo Presidenziale non era soltanto un edificio simbolico per gli indipendentisti. Nel bunker al di sotto dell’imponente struttura si trovava il Quartier Generale ceceno, e da lì Maskhadov diramava gli ordini alle unità che difendevano il quartiere governativo.

[11] Lo scontro assunse caratteri di inaudita ferocia, tale da far saltare i nervi ai soldati. Il  Tenente Colonnello Victor Pavlov, Vicecomandante del 33° Reggimento Fanti di Marina, scrisse nelle sue memorie: Il personale del gruppo d’assalto, che teneva la difesa del Consiglio dei Ministri […]si è rivolto al comandante del gruppo, Maggiore Cherevashenko, chiedendo di poter lasciare la posizione […] con enormi sforzi Cherevashenko riuscì a impedirlo […] i soldati giacevano negli scantinati del Consiglio dei Ministri, non mangiavano né bevevano, si rifiutavano persino di portar fuori i loro compagni feriti. Ci sono stati casi di esaurimento psicologico tra i soldati. Quindi il soldato G. […] ha dichiarato che non poteva più tollerare una situazione del genere ed ha minacciato di sparare a tutti […].

[12] Il 16 Gennaio, alle ore 5:20, i canali radio registrarono una conversazione tra Ruslan Gelayev (in codice “Angel  – 1”) e Maskhadov (in codice “Ciclone”). In essa il Capo di Stato Maggiore ceceno confessava all’altro di aver appena assistito alla prima battaglia perduta.

[13] Le circostanze della morte di Apti Takhaev mi sono stare riportate dall’attuale Segretario di Stato della ChRI, Abdullah Ortakhanov.

[14] Secondo quanto riferitomi da Ilyas Akhmadov, il ritiro delle forze cecene sulla sponda destra del fiume fu anche frutto di un “effetto domino” determinato dalla peculiare organizzazione delle forze combattenti: Il tempismo della nostra ritirata da una sponda all’altra del Sunzha è stato in parte non intenzionale. Avremmo potuto resistere ancora un po’. C’erano molti gruppi diversi che correvano sparando a qualsiasi nemico potessero vedere. Alcune di queste unità non provenivano dalla città ed erano venute a combattere per 3-4 giorni, per poi ritirarsi nelle loro case e riposare una settimana nel loro villaggio. Quando un’unità schierata stabilmente in città chiedeva dove stavano andando, era imbarazzante dire “stiamo andando a casa”, quindi i volontari rispondevano: “abbiamo un ordine di Maskhadov di ritirarci”. Senza alcun modo per verificarlo e senza motivo di dubitare della loro spiegazione, anche l’altra unità si ritirava attraverso il Sunzha. Questo ha accelerato il passaggio sull’altra sponda.

[15] Non si sa se per coincidenza o per scelta, la squadra che salì sul tetto del Palazzo Presidenziale per issarvi il tricolore russo apparteneva al 33° Reggimento Motorizzato, la stessa unità che aveva issato la bandiera rossa sulle rovine del Reichstag alla fine della Battaglia di Berlino.

[16] Là lo raggiunse un giovane laureato in Scienze Politiche, che per qualche tempo aveva servito al Ministero degli Esteri, e che ora si metteva a disposizione della resistenza armata: Ilyas Akhmadov. Di lui parleremo approfonditamente più avanti e nei prossimi volumi di quest’opera.

[17] Per visualizzare la Battaglia di Grozny, vedi la carta tematica E.

“The Future of the North Caucasus” – Francesco Benedetti at the European Parliament

Lascia un commento

Last November 8th Francesco Benedetti was called to speak at the conference “The Future of the Northern Caucasus”, organized by the MEP Anna Fotyga. Below we report his speech, filmed by @INEWS cameras

The speeches of all the conference participants are available on the INEWS YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@INEWSI ) and on the website https://www.caucasusfree.com

English Transcription of the speech

Good evening to all present

Thank you, Minister.

Over the past decade, a series of political and military crises have crossed the world. Visualizing them on the map, we can identify a “line of friction” that starting from Finland runs from North to South through Eastern Europe, reaches the Caucasus, crosses the Middle East and then wedges into Africa, cutting it from East to West. If the hot spots on this front are currently Ukraine, Nagorno Karabakh, Syria and Palestine, no less concern is aroused by its secondary segments, such as the Russian Federation, Belarus, Georgia, Iraq, Libya and the West African Republics. The Caucasus is one of the pieces of this front.

The war unleashed by Putin in February 2022 against Ukraine has exposed the Russian Federation to the risk of a collapse. This would give the North Caucasus republics an opportunity to reassess their position in a regional association along the lines of the North Caucasus Mountain Republic. Similar projects, after all, were theorized as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s, notably by Dzhokhar Dudaev and Zviad Gamsakhurdia, and with them a vast movement of opinion that had animated debates, discussions, and projects. I can try to make a modest contribution by bringing to your attention my own experience as a citizen of a member state of a supranational union, at whose main institution, the European Parliament, we find ourselves right now.

European Union has been established, given itself a Parliament, created legislative, governing and supervisory bodies, procedures and regulations of all kinds, social, economic and cultural projects of the highest order. However, at this very moment, when a solid and strong Europe, capable of influencing the course of world events and protecting the interests of European citizens would be needed more than ever, the Union is revealing some difficulties.

Personally, I believe that the problem lies mainly in the fact that even today, seventy-four years after the establishment of the Council of Europe, the European Union does not have a “Mission.” European citizens feel part of a larger community than that of the nation to which they belong, but they do not know how to recognize its “depth,” so they call themselves first “French” “Spanish” “German,” then “European.” Precisely from this problem I try to translate the discussion to the North Caucasus.

A union of North – Caucasian republics can be a viable curb on the imperial pretensions of neighboring powers, and Russia in particular. Moreover, it could grant the republics that would compose it greater specific weight in international fora, and start a process of building a Caucasian identity that, as an outside observer, I trace already exists in a rather pronounced way. A defensive purpose, however, cannot be a sufficient “mission.”

I believe that the project of a unification of the North Caucasus, fascinating and potentially successful in itself, must be accompanied by deep reflection regarding what its “mission” in history should be. If until a few decades ago new states arose out of opportunity, embodying the national ambitions of peoples, today we are witnessing the emergence of new states out of necessity. The end of the U.S.-led unipolar world, the rise of new world powers, and the agglomeration of economic power and demographic weight makes the “small homelands” so irrelevant that they are forced to consort if they want to avoid becoming pawns in the great international power games.

What need, then, should guide the creation of a Confederation of the Peoples of the North Caucasus? What historical mission should it set itself? What added value should it bring to the Caucasian community, and to the human community at large? On what distinctive features should it be articulated? To put it even more simply: how will a citizen of Dzhokhar, Magas, or Machackala feel honored to be a Citizen of the Caucasus? I believe that the ability of the peoples of the North Caucasus to erect a solid institution, capable of guaranteeing them a future of freedom and prosperity, will depend on the attention paid to these questions.

My time is up, thank you for your attention.

A post-Russian world: Francesco Benedetti interviews Oleg Magaletsky

Lascia un commento

Oleg Magaletsky is a specialist in strategic development, organizational changes, innovations, scaling and management of organizations, teams and ideas (both in commercial and non-commercial segments)
Since childhood, he has been interested in history, economics, psychology, literature, political science, and social geography.


Oleg Magaletsky


When and how did the idea of a forum of free nations arise?

The idea to create a platform of the Free Nations Post-Russia Forum arose as a reflection on the beginning of the full-scale aggression of imperial Muscovy against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, as a result of the analysis of the situation, the confidence increased that the only real option to achieve long-term peace in Europe (and all of Northern Eurasia) is maximally controlled , non-violent and complete Decolonization of the last European empire (currently in the form of a terrorist state, the so-called “Russian Federation”)

From your point of view, Russia is a “nineteenth-century” colonial empire, comparable to the European ones dismantled after the Second World War. In what sense can the Russian Federation be defined as a “colonial empire”?

Although according to the form and declarations de jure imperial Muscovy is the (Russian) Federation (according to the “Constitution”), where the regions have subjectivity and citizens have equal rights, in fact de facto, by all outward signs Muscovy is just a classic continental empire model of the second half of the 19th century, with a clear empire, a metropolis (Moscow) and the rest of the territories (both conventionally “internal” and external) – colonies, whose resources are only exploited by the metropolis for its own “shine” and external aggressions, exercising effective control over the colonies, making it impossible there is sustainable economic development, holding back continuous progress, prohibiting linguistic, cultural and national development/identification.
In fact, the only thing that today unites Sakha and Cherkessia, Buryatia and Ingushetia ets. – this is only a repressive apparatus (“vertical”) and colonial exploitation by the Kremlin. There are no substantive horizontal connections, which is also characteristic of the imperialism of the past century, the last example of which in Europe today remains Russia.

Does supporting the reasons of the nations subjected to Russian colonial rule mean, in your opinion, denying the existence of Russia as such?

To some extent.
The concept of “Russia” is a hybrid, a simulacrum, created purely for propaganda purposes, to justify imperialism and the enslavement of inferior nations and regions.
The de-imperialization of Muscovy will also liberate it, allowing it to turn into a number of independent, compatible and free national and/or regional entities, some of which will be able to return to their own, primarily Finno-Hungarian, roots in their own identification.

the post – Russian space according to the Forum

Is there, in your opinion, a part of Russian society that would be willing to do without its empire in favor of a community of free nations in a nuclear-free “post-Russian” area?

Yes, there are such people, moreover, their number is not only growing, the very “quality” composition of supporters of the corresponding views and actions is important: these are intellectual, organizational and managerial elites (in the good sense of the word), these are people capable of analysis and understanding cause-and-effect relationships.
It is obvious to them that Putin is not the cause, but the consequence of the problems, and their very essence lies precisely in the imperial nature of the modern “Russian” statehood, which can be changed only by radical (and not cosmetic profanation) changes through de-imperialization and decolonization.

What would be, in your opinion, the advantages for the international community in dismantling the Russian Federation? Isn’t there a risk that Moscow’s enormous nuclear arsenal would end up in the hands of many smaller countries, some of which could become small “North Koreas”?

A huge number of advantages (attaching a separate file with their thesis description), with a proactive approach and controllability of the process of Decolonization of Russia, it will be the most positive geopolitical event since the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago.
As for the “spread” of nuclear weapons, this is one of the main horrors of imperial propaganda, but as the experience of the collapse of the USSR shows – all this can be easily avoided, although free countries are not interested in having nuclear weapons (it is very expensive and impractical), only empires need them.
Both the first and the second factor were devoted to our latest public events, in particular the 8th Free Nations Post-Russia Forum in London and Paris on October 12-14 (attach its summary declaration below)

The flags of some of the nations participating in the Forum

You introduced the theme of the different behavior of empires compared to nations. Based on the reflections made for Russia, do you think it is correct to say that all empires, albeit in different forms, share the same “original sin”, and that in some way also a certain “imperial mission” which is at the origin of the state of generalized war in which most of the planet finds itself? And if so, do you think it would be appropriate to apply the same “weakening” of imperial ambitions to other “empires” too?


Of course, there are certain general characteristics, but mainly – everything depends on the specific context (time, conditions, system) and is quite individual.
At a certain historical stage, the creation of colonies (in their original form and essence during the times of ancient Greece and Rome) was a progressive and relatively positive phenomenon.
But already at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the creation of colonies in the format of the policy of imperialism with all the rationalizations like “The White Man’s Burden” took on much more grotesque and negative forms (the Belgian Congo can be mentioned as an apotheosis).
Therefore, what Muscovy is doing in the 21st year on the huge expanses from Sakha in the north to Kalmykia in the south, from Keninsberg in the west and to the occupied part of Karafuto in the east – this is an absolutely unacceptable retrograde policy for the time being, which will deal with internal repression and external military expansion from the outside.
Currently, there is no other similar state in the world, but if imperial Muscovy is not stopped now, China, Iran, etc. will most likely follow its example, that is, it may be the beginning of a renaissance of the most disgusting practices of colonial exploitation, authoritarianism and imperialism.
Therefore, it is the complete and final decolonization (preferably controlled and maximally non-leadership) of the so-called “Russian Federation” that is the key to a new architecture of collective sustainable security and peace in the entire northern hemisphere (and an effective method to stop the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran-Pyongyang MBTP Axis as a de facto already existing alliance of tyrants + their satellite regimes Maduro, Lukashenko, Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban etc.)

Talking about the benefits that the divestment of the Russian Federation could bring to the world. Russia has been on the brink of collapse several times over the last century. And yet what appears to be its main enemy, the United States, has always acted to preserve its unity. Why do you think there is this strange relationship (if you believe it exists) between these two historical enemies, yet linked by an apparent relationship of mutual necessity? And how could the United States’ point of view on this issue change?

This is not so characteristic of US politics, as it is of bureaucracy and politicians in general – they are a priori extremely inert, not inclined to change and seek to preserve the status quo, even if it is negative (and changes are positive), in particular, this was the case during the collapse of the USSR, when the Bush administration (as well as Reagan before that) did everything possible and impossible to save this communist Frankenstein as a single state. But they were not the only ones who did this (the rest of the free states, from France and Britain to Japan and Canada, acted in fact in the same direction), besides, at that time the USSR was not so much an enemy as a former opponent (and in 1917- 1920 was not an enemy of the USA at all)
i.e., the situation with the desire to “leave Russia united and indivisible” is not an exception (as is the attitude of the US Department of State to this issue), but rather a geopolitical (unfortunately) “rule”: a similar attitude was applied to the division of Yugoslavia (even to Croatia and Slovenia’s “European friends” tried to prevent it from gaining independence), as we see now with regard to the enemies of the free world, China and Iran – the independence of Kurdistan is not recognized, Taiwan is in an unclear status, occupied Tiber and Eastern Turkestan are not being helped, etc.
That is, it is sad. But there is also a positive – regardless of the desire of an inert and spineless bureaucracy and blind politicians without a vision and strategy – the dynamics and logic of history determine the determinism of certain processes, such as the entropy of weak and large empires, so – they are doomed to be dismantled (regardless of the wishes of Bush, Kissinger, Sullivan, Burns, etc.)

The speakers at the seventh forum held in Japan last August

What would be the fate of the Russian communities in the new subjects that would be born following the dismantling of the Russian Federation?


Probably, it will be different. Future independent states will have different paths and structures, very different from each other, there will be significant regional integration (with current neighbors outside the perimeter)
Probably, the main trend will be integration and the creation of new political nations, where ethnic origin will not play a key role, and the main factor will be precisely citizenship and values;

Recent history presents us with numerous scenarios of civil war, or wars between states that arose following the collapse of the Soviet system throughout Eastern Europe, as well as in the former USSR. How would it be possible, from your point of view, to prevent the crumbling of the Russian empire from causing a myriad of these small conflicts, or ethnic cleansing against the old Russophile elites who governed, and partly still govern, the territory?


In fact, by the standards of history, the collapse of the USSR was virtually bloodless, violence was minimal. And where it was (as in the case of Bosnia and Kosovo during the breakup of Yugoslavia), their source and cause was precisely the revanchism of the former metropolis (Serbia and Russia, respectively).
Some conflicts in which Russia did not take an open and direct part (such as the Armenian-Azebarjan war) were deepened and artificially supported by it (divide and conquer), so as soon as there were opportunities to reduce its influence, the conflicts quickly escalated (what we actually observe there now).
There are no panaceas, but there are definitely conditions that can reduce the likelihood of conflicts (because the new states are not interested in this, they need to deal with their own state building and development, in particular:
1. Maximum integration of new states into both global and regional institutions with the participation of the leading states of the region (which can be temporary “moderators” in case of problems)
2. Eliminating the grounds for revanchism in the former metropolis through (double-parallel) both economic integration and military deterrence
3. Comprehensive involvement of the free world in the reconstruction programs of the newly independent states of the post-Russian space.



Based on the statements, the forum identifies itself as a non-violent, democratic, anti-authoritarian, as well as anti-imperialist organization. Let’s start from the first of the characteristics mentioned, non-violence as an approach to political struggle. How do you think you will be able to convince the Moscow government to recognize the reasons of the subjugated nations, through the instrument of non-violence?

Many recipes and tools demonstrate the experience of liberating both Central European states and the USSR from communism 30 years ago.
At the same time, our emphasis on nonviolent actions (which have a significant arsenal of acts of sabotage, strikes, manifestos, etc.) does not exclude some elements of violent resistance, but we are talking about the fact that the corresponding acts of direct (in particular, violent) countermeasures should be maximally limited, controlled, justified, effective and targeted.
One of the best ways to do this is the synchronization and coordination of the actions of national liberation and anti-colonial movements – alternate losses in the war against Ukraine and its own size – the empire simply cannot physically prevent simultaneous secessions.

8) The Forum defines itself, as we were saying, as an organization based on respect for democratic principles. What does it mean, from your point of view, to carry out a “democratic” fight against Russian imperialism?

We consider it unnecessary to “reinvent the wheel”, that is, we share all the main liberal and humanistic values ​​characteristic (and underlying) of NATO and the EU (with the exception, unfortunately, of Turkey and Hungary, whose authoritarian governments are increasingly in the opposite direction), in particular – freedom of will, freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, distribution of branches of power, limitation of terms of tenure in public positions, civil and civil accountability, prerogative of international law, absence of censorship, etc.

Being anti-authoritarian is certainly identified among the founding values of the Forum. This is particularly evident in your policy document, in which the forum states that “post-Russian” countries would seek cooperation from all countries, except China, which is currently under an authoritarian regime. How can the Forum ensure that some of the political realities that emerge from the fragmentation of the Russian Federation do not end up becoming bridgeheads for Chinese authoritarianism instead?

Of course, we cannot provide guarantees, as the future is uncertain and realities are dynamic.
However, we can support the existing opportunities and conditions, which is that now the leaders of the national liberation and anti-colonial movements have an anti-China position, and if the states of the free world will maintain open political, economic and cultural ties with it, their integration into global/regional markets and institutions,  they will not have no reason to drift away from cooperation with the EU, USA, NATO, Japan, etc. in the direction of the PRC.

One of the most interesting themes regarding your program is that of replacing the “territorial” element, which often inspires policies of greatness to the detriment of neighboring countries, with a system of international law based on populations and on compromise between nations, oriented towards the well-being of peoples rather than nationalist claims. Could you explain this “revolutionary” point of your program better?

In our opinion, it is important to learn from previous experience, trying to avoid repeating mistakes. A very eloquent example is the refancism and revisionism of Serbia, which affected not only Bosnia and Kosovo, but above all itself, after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
In the modern post-industrial world, the size and resources actually do not matter (and if they do, the bigger they are, the more difficult it is), because the main capital is people and their intellectual potential. At the same time, good neighborly relations and open borders create much more opportunities than an additional piece of “historic land” where people will die, military expenditures will increase, and trade will be complicated.
In addition, the very concept of “historical lands”, like “historical justice”, is very subjective and ambiguous, in contrast to international law and already existing borders (in particular, still “internal” administrative ones, as in the case of the Russian Federation), that is, if to summarize, our view is directed to the future, not the past, to collective security and cooperation (in particular with/within the EU and NATO), and not to ethnic irredentism.

Do you believe that the solution of replacing the Russian Federation with an open confederation, modeled on the European Union, for example, or directly integrated into it, could solve the problem of irredentism? And could Moskovia be part of this subject, in your opinion, without returning to hegemonise it in the long term?

Since Russia itself is a 100% artificial and unnatural entity, any attempt to change this Frankenstein will bring the same results.
Post-Russian spaces (in the plural), as well as their future independent states, are completely different and distinct, and each will have its own path – for Buryatia, Sakha, the Pacific Federation, interaction with Japan, Mongolia, Korea, etc. is much more natural, and not Moscow for Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Astrakhan – with Kazakhstan and Turkey, not Moscow, Ingria and Keningsberg are part of the Baltic region, some states (including the Federation of Zalesye, which will include Moscow as a former metropolis if it chooses Austria as a “benchmark” example) may eventually become members of the EU and NATO, – this is a very likely way)

Another cornerstone of the thought behind the Forum is the rejection of the so-called “Realpolitik”, which leads democratic and liberal regimes to enter into agreements of convenience with authoritarian, or fundamentalist, regimes for tactical purposes. Does the rejection of realpolitik therefore mean embracing a system of ethical values? If so, what could these values be?

Exactly. In the pursuit of minor tactical advantages, cooperating with dictators, murderers and tyrants, we all lose much more by legitimizing and aiding their aggressive and dangerous (especially for the free world, not only their own citizens) systems.
The ethical principles of both internal and external politics have long been formed, this is the basis of our (Western civilization), which has its roots in Athens and Rome, through the Renaissance and, above all, the political ideas of the Enlightenment (Locke, Kant, Montexieu, etc.) to the New Age with the General Declarations and human rights and the founding documents of the United Nations.
To be very general and to cut short, the categorical imperatives formed by Kant should apply to states, as well as to individuals.

GAZA LIKE GROZNY: IMPERIALISM HAS ONLY ONE FACE

Lascia un commento


Reading in the newspapers about the tragic bloody events that are taking place in Palestine is like watching the remake of a film that humanity has already seen many times, along that terrible trail of blood that is the history of imperialism. Anyone who knows the recent history of Chechnya will be able to identify the similarities between the war unleashed by Russia against Ichkeria in 1999 and the one unleashed by Israel against Palestine a few days ago. The genesis and development of both these products of imperialism seem to be almost overlapping.


Let’s start with geography. The Gaza Strip borders on two parts with the State of Israel, on another with the Mediterranean Sea and finally with Egypt, via the Rafah crossing. As we know, Israel has blocked both the land and sea borders, forcing Gaza into a de facto siege through which Tel Aviv literally maintains the right of life and death over the two and a half million Palestinians who live there. Chechnya in 1999 was also in the same situation: surrounded on three out of four sides by the Russian Federation, it could only count on a precarious mountain road, the Itum Khale – Shatili highway, to evade the economic blockade to which Moscow had subjected the country since since 1997.

Chechnya is closed on three sides by Russia, and has only one alternative border, with Georgia, via a narrow mountain pass


From a political point of view, the Gaza Strip should be part of an independent Palestinian state, recognized by Israel and the UN, but even today the government in Tel Aviv (According to the Israelis and their American protectors, Jerusalem) has not accomplished no step in this direction, preferring to consider that territory a sort of “no man’s land” to be administered with periodic military “pacification” incursions. Chechnya in 1999 also lived in a “suspended” state similar to that of Gaza. The Russian Federation, which had signed a Peace Treaty with the Chechen government, had never ratified the country’s independence, and persisted in considering it a subject of the federation, threatening any government that implemented a recognition procedure with serious retaliation. of the independence of Ichkeria.

Since 2008, the Gaza Strip has been de facto governed by Hamas. It is an extremist party, responsible for numerous terrorist actions already before October 2023, and considered a terrorist organization by most Western countries. Its power is essentially based on the desperation in which Israel artificially keeps the Palestinian population, forced to live in a state of severe overcrowding, with an income approximately 75 times lower than that of Israeli citizens, forced to ration water, food, medicines and electricity and to pray to the Israeli occupiers to be able to leave that “large ghetto” that is the Strip. A situation very similar to that experienced in Chechnya in 1999, when the weak Maskhadov government, democratically elected, operated under the blackmail of armed militias of Islamist orientation, without being able to counter the warlords’ belligerence with the social policies necessary to revive the fate of the population and distance them from the flattery of the more radicals. Also in this case the invader of the moment, Russia, did not provide war reparations to restore the economy that it had devastated with the invasion of 1994 – 1996, delaying or blocking the payment of pensions and allowances to citizens Chechens and, as in the case of Gaza, by making the country dependent on electricity supplies, it fomented a population reduced to poverty, pushing it into the arms of fundamentalism.

Gaza is closed on three sides by Israel, and has only one alternative border, with Egypt, via the Rafah crossing


Exactly as happened in October 2023 in Gaza, in August 1999 a small army of sappers, led by the Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev, carried out a raid deep into Dagestan, with the intention of promoting a general uprising against Russian power and establish an Islamic emirate. In this case the objectives are slightly different (Hamas declared that the action was aimed solely at hitting the Israeli army and demonstrating the vulnerability of the State of Israel) but the dynamics are surprisingly similar: penetrated almost without encountering resistance, evidently to due to a relaxation of security measures that almost seems to have been caused intentionally, Basayev’s men, like those of Hamas, advanced for several kilometers before being blocked by a rapid (perhaps too) rapid military deployment and driven back into Chechnya. A “suicidal” action that seemed tailor-made to give Russia a casus belli and justify a new invasion. To complete the picture came a series of terrorist attacks against condominiums in various Russian cities (for which it has not yet been clarified who and why carried them out) which caused the death of three hundred people and the wounding of another 1000, causing a wave of popular indignation that the rising star of Russian politics, Vladimir Putin, was able to skilfully ride, winning the presidency of the Federation on the promise of “killing terrorists even in the toilet”.

Hamas militants

Upon closer inspection, even the terrible massacre carried out by Hamas has its “political beneficiaries”. It is surprising that, even in this case, Tel Aviv’s legendary security services failed so spectacularly to prevent the attack, they who have always been so diligent in infiltrating spies, in hunting down enemies of the state in any part of the globe, and in preventing hostile actions against Israel. While less surprising, unfortunately, is the political advantage achieved by Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the midst of a crisis of consensus until a few days earlier, and now back in the saddle with an “emergency government” that can finally have a free hand in “resolving” the problem Palestinian with the methods most similar to the narrow nationalism that the Prime Minister represents.


But the analogies do not end here: the military operation unleashed by Israel to avenge its deaths has a disproportion that is comparable only to that used by Putin against Chechnya. Today as then, after a total blockade of the borders and a terrorist campaign against the civilian population (with missiles launched on the markets, columns of refugees targeted, water and electricity services cut, humanitarian aid blocked) it is declared that the aim is not to punish a people and carry out a genocide, but “create a buffer zone”, a “cordon sanitaire” that safeguards the attacker from the response of the attacked. And in the meantime the civilian population is advised to “leave”. Where? It’s not important. For what civilian lives are worth, they can go and die of thirst in some basement. If the Israeli Defense Minister generically defined the target of the invasion as “human animals”, in the Kremlin the Chechens were seen no differently.

Basayev’s militiamen about to invade Dagestan


There is one thing that Gaza and Grozny do not have in common: the name of those who destroyed them. Yet the reason behind the martyrdom of Chechens and Palestinians is the same: the arrogance of a people that claims to crush another, implementing all the tools, legal and illicit, moral and immoral, to pursue its goal. Which is nothing other than imperialism, the political sublimation of arrogance, of cynicism, of selfishness elevated to a cult of the self, capable of bending and deforming every political, civil and moral virtue. These days, the Putin who unleashed the genocide of the Chechens is outraged by the Palestinian genocide unleashed by the Israelis, who in turn were outraged when Putin bombed refugees or tortured them in the filter camps. Each of these characters, in Moscow as in Tel Aviv, in Beijing as in Washington, accuses the others of being “the evil empire”. But the truth is that the Empire is itself “evil”, and that there are no “good empires”.

September 6, 1991 – Assault to the Supreme Soviet

Lascia un commento

On the thirty-second anniversary of Chechen independence, we publish an excerpt from the first volume of “Freedom or Death! History of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria” which retraces the events that led to the dissolution of the Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet, and the proclamation of independence.

————–

In early September, the echo of the August Putsch began to fade in Moscow and the main Russian cities, and Yeltsin was able to return to rest his gaze on the turbulent peripheries of the empire. Chechnya had gone into a state of turmoil, but the Russian president did not give too much weight to the alarming reports from the local Supreme Soviet. He was convinced that all that noise was nothing more than an anti-caste regurgitation as had been seen so many at that time in the USSR. He thought that it would be enough to replace Zavgaev with someone else to be able to calm the hearts of the people and restore Chechnya – Ingushetia to social peace. So he thought of Salambek Hadjiev, a professor who had made headlines a few months earlier, when he was appointed Minister of Chemical and Oil Industry of the Soviet government. Born in Kazakhstan, Hadjiev had earned a position in academia, graduating from the Grozny Petroleum Institute and then working on it until he became its director. A prolific researcher, he was a member of the Academy of Sciences, as well as one of the leading experts in the petrochemical sector in all of Russia. Known for being a moderate anti-militarist (he was head of the Committee for Chemical Weapons and Disarmament) he represented in all respects the “mature” alter ego of the leader Dudaev. Yeltsin appreciated him because he could speak to both intellectuals and entrepreneurs, had a modern vision of the state and was a hard worker. He seemed to have all the credentials to compete with the General, who had his nice uniform, good rhetoric and little else on his side. The idea of ​​replacing Zavgaev with Hadjiev also pleased the President of the Supreme Soviet Khasbulatov, who, as we have seen, certainly did not like the current First Secretary. Hadjiev, on the other hand, was a man of high intellectual qualities like him (who was a professor) and like him he had a moderate and reformist vision. Arranging one of “his” people in power in Chechnya would also have been convenient for him in terms of elections, so he worked to ensure that the change took place as soon as possible.

Khasbulatov then headed to Chechnya to secure a painless changing of the guard. His notoriety, now that he was at the top of the Soviet state, his culture and his political ability would have allowed him to oust his hateful rival and to install a viable alternative that averted civil war and favored his position. However, there was to be reckoned with the nationalists, who grew up in the shadow of the crisis and rebelled during the coup.

To vanquish them, Khasbulatov drew up a plan. From his point of view, the nationalists were an amalgam of disillusioned, desperate and opportunists, held together by a vanguard of young idealists unable to rule the beast they were raising. Faced on the terrain of political debate, most likely they would have ended up being reduced to a residual fraction. Only the context, according to him, allowed them to occupy the scene. Despair and lack of alternatives were the ingredients of the mixture that threatened to break out the revolution. To neutralize the threat it was necessary to “change the air”: the opposition had strengthened against Zavgaev and his corrupt regime, getting him out of the way was the first step. There was to replace him with someone who had good numbers. And Hadjiev seemed the right one. The solution, however, he could not descend from above. It was necessary to establish an alternative consensus front to Dudaev and for this it took time. The nationalists had conquered the streets riding the wave of the institutional crisis. Getting them bogged down in a political diatribe by letting time pass, while the situation normalized, would have deprived the Dudaevites (as the supporters of the General began to call themselves) the ground under their feet. As socio-political conditions stabilized, the desperate would be less and less desperate, the disillusioned less and less disillusioned. People would have listened to those who called for calm and reforms rather than revolution and war, and the radicals would be marginalized. Finally, with a good democratic election, the moderates would have won and the revolutionaries would have lost.

Doku Zavgayev

A perfect plan, in theory, which, however, was based on two significant variables. The first: that Dudaev and his people were too afraid to force their hand, thus leaving the initiative to him. The second: that the situation in Moscow did not degenerate further. And Khasbulatov, unfortunately for him, could not control either the first or the second. Yet somewhere we had to start and so, from 23 August, the President of the Supreme Soviet went to Grozny, accompanied by Hadjiev, with the intention of killing Zavgaev. In a turbulent meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, to the First Secretary who begged him to authorize the proclamation of a state of emergency and to disperse the opposition, Khasbulatov replied that the use of force was absolutely to be avoided, and that the solution of the crisis should be political, which meant only one thing: resignation.

Having cornered Zavgaev, he went to test his opponent. His first conversation with Dudaev seemed to be promising: the General welcomed him with affability and agreed to his proposal to dissolve the Supreme Soviet and replace it with a provisional administration to ferry the country into the elections. Satisfied, he returned to Moscow convinced that he had brought home a good point. The real goal, however, was achieved by the leader of the nationalists. Discovering Khasbulatov’s cards, he was now clear that no one would raise a finger to defend the legitimate government of Chechnya – Ingushetia: a casus belli would be enough to force the hand and take control of the institutions. Thus, while Moscow was toasting to the happy solution of the crisis, in Grozny the Dudaevites took control of the city and besieged the government, now without an army to defend it. Nevertheless, Zavgaev did not intend to give up. His abdication could only have been imposed by a vote of the Supreme Soviet, and almost none of the deputies had any intention of endorsing it, considering that a moment later the Soviet itself would be dissolved. Thus the situation remained at a standstill for a few days, with the government not resigning and the nationalists not abandoning the streets.

Between 28 and 30 August Dudaev began to test Moscow’s reactions: the National Guard broke into numerous public buildings, occupying them and displacing anyone who opposed them. Not a breath came from Moscow. Then the General ordered the establishment of armed patrols to guard the streets, and once again there was no reaction. Chaos was taking over the country and nobody seemed to care that much[1].

On September 1, Dudaev called the third session of the Congress. The National Guard presided over the assembly. Armed volunteers erected barricades all around. A group of militiamen entered in the Sovmin, occupied it and lowered the flag of the Chechen-Ingush RSSA, hoisting the green banner of Islam in its place. There was no trace of the moderates: ousted in the June session, they were now unable to influence public opinion in any way. The scene was all for the great leader, who exhorted Ispolkom to declare the Supreme Soviet lapsed. The delegates promptly agreed to the proposal and declared the Executive Committee the only legitimate authority in Chechnya. Once again, the reactions from Moscow were tepid, and mostly superficial. Khasbulatov himself, underestimating the gravity of the situation, he thought that Zavgaev’s replacement would be enough to split the nationalist front in two. Now, according to him, it would be sufficient to force Zavgaev to leave and replace him with Hadjiev, or someone else, to put the radicals in the minority. In reality, what was happening in Grozny was something much more serious than the political game that Khasbulatov thought he was playing. Dudaev had almost all public opinion on his side, he had his armed guards and was setting up a real government.

Dzhokhar Dudayev surrounded by his supporters

This was absolutely clear to the First Secretary, and it was even more so when on September 3, ignoring the directives of Moscow, he attempted to introduce a state of emergency through a resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet: no police or army department answered the call. While many of the Interior Ministry Militia men had already changed sides, those who had not taken a position simply avoided moving. Defeated again, Zavgaev remained holed up in the House of Political Education, where he had barricaded himself with his followers. Finally, on the evening of September 6, the National Guard also broke in there: a handful of men led by the Vice-President of Ispolkom Yusup Soslambekov entered the building. It is not known whether it was a premeditated action or the rise of agitation, the fact is that the crowd followed the militiamen and began to devastate everything. The deputies were beaten and silenced. Soslambekov placed in front of each of them a sheet and a pen and ordered them to write their resignations in their own hand. One by one, all the deputies signed. Under the threat of being executed on the spot, Zavgaev signed a waiver in which he “voluntarily” abandoned all public offices. Only the President of the Grozny City Council, Vitaly Kutsenko, refused to sign. When questioned by Soslambekov, he replied: I will not sign. What you are doing is illegal, it is a coup! Moments later Kutsenko flew from the third floor, crashing to the ground. He would later be hospitalized, where he would die in excruciating suffering[2]. The moderates condemned the assault, disassociated themselves publicly and withdrew from the National Movement, constituting an alternative Round Table to Congress. Zavgaev was driven out of Grozny and took refuge in Upper Terek District, his native land. In Grozny, Ispolkom began to operate as a real government, setting up commissions, issuing decrees and occupying public buildings.

In Moscow the news of the insurrection was received almost with disinterest. It took four days before a government delegation, made up of the Secretary of State, Barbulis, and the Minister of Press and Information, Poltoranin, arrived in Chechnya to try to resolve the crisis. With Dudaev, the two tried a “Soviet” approach: in the roaring years of the USSR, when a person represented a danger to the Party and could not be sent to a gulag to clear his mind, he was promoted and kept good. Poltoranin and Barbulis thought that if they offered Dudaev a leading role, he might take the chance to get out of that mess in exchange for a good job and a hefty pension. Unfortunately for them the General wasn’t just smarter than they thought, but he was also more courageous and determined, and he really believed in an independent Chechnya. So the meeting ended in a stalemate.

Khasbulatov meanwhile had returned to Chechnya, where he hoped to resume negotiations with Dudaev where he had left them. The meeting between the two was resolved with a new draft agreement: the “fallen” Supreme Soviet would be dissolved, and in its place a “provisional” Soviet would be established to deal with ordinary administration pending new elections. Representatives of Congress would also have participated in this executive. Comforted by the apparent concession of the nationalist leader, the President of the Russian Supreme Soviet spoke to the masses thronged in Lenin Square. In front of a large crowd (who even spoke of a hundred thousand demonstrators) invited everyone to calm down, asked for the demonstrations to be stopped and put all the blame on Zavgaev, ordering him in absentia not to show up unless he wanted to be taken to Moscow in an iron cage. Finally, when an extraordinary assembly of the Supreme Soviet was convened, he induced the deputies to resign and to establish a Provisional Soviet of 32 members, some from the old assembly and some from the ranks of the Executive Committee. The last act of the Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet was a decree calling for new elections for the following 17 November.

The building that housed the Presidium of the Chechen – Ingush Supreme Soviet

Once again it seemed that the situation had been recovered at the last minute, and Khasbulatov set about returning to his duties in Moscow not before Dudaev had fully recommended that the agreements be respected. He did not even have time to land in the Russian capital, which was greeted by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Congress, just made to vote by Dudaev, in which Ispolkom recognized the Provisional Soviet as an expression of the will of the Congress, and warned him to go against the will expressed by it[3]. The declaration also contained an electoral calendar different from the one agreed: fearful that normalization would weaken their position, the nationalists decreed that elections would take place on October 19 and 27, respectively for the institutions of the President of the Republic and Parliament. Nobody in Moscow knew for sure which president and which parliament they were talking about: the Constitution of the Chechen-Ingush RSSA did not provide for any of these institutions. From the tone of the declaration it was now clear that the National Congress intended to proclaim full independence.

[1]The riots that broke out following the August Putsch had led to the paralysis of government departments, which was beginning to show its first harmful effects on everyday life. On August 28, about 400 inmates from the Naursk penal colony rose up, attacking the garrison of garrison, setting fire to the watchtowers, devastating the service rooms and occupying the prison facility. Two days later fifty of them, armed with handcrafted knives and weapons, occupied a wing of the building. All the others had escaped, dispersing among the demonstrators.

[2]It is unclear whether Kutsenko threw himself from the palace in a panic attack or was deliberately ousted. According to some, it was he who threw himself downstairs, beating his head against a cast iron manhole. Other versions speak of a guard of Dudaev, or of Soslambekov himself, who would have thrown him against a window when he refused to sign his resignation. Even regarding his hospitalization, the testimonies are conflicting. According to some, the angry mob attacked him, filling him with kicks and spit. Others, like Yandarbiev himself in his memoirs, say that Kutsenko was promptly picked up and taken to hospital, but he refused to be examined by any Chechen doctor for fear of being finished. As there were no Russian doctors available, he ended up in a coma, only to expire a few days later. However, the investigation into Kutsenko’s death would not have established any responsibility. The official version reported by the Prosecutor’s Office was that the President of the Grozny City Council voluntarily threw himself downstairs, frightened by the crowd.

[3]The text of the declaration, organized in sixteen programmatic points, began by condemning the Supreme Soviet, guilty of having lost the right to exercise legislative power, of having committed a betrayal of the interests of the people and of having wanted to favor the coup d’état. Some of the main political exponents of the Congress were appointed to the Provisional Soviet (Hussein Akhmadov as President, as well as other nationalists chosen from the ranks of the VDP). The Soviet would have operated in compliance with the mandate entrusted to it by Congress: if a crisis of confidence had occurred, this would have been rejected by the Executive Committee and promptly dissolved. The solidarity of parliaments around the world and of the countries that have just left the USSR was also invoked, in opposition to the attempt by the imperial forces to continue the genocide against the Chechen people.

06/09/1991 – Assalto al Soviet Supremo

Lascia un commento

Nel trentaduesimo anniversario dell’indipendenza cecena, pubblichiamo un estratto del primo volume di “Libertà o Morte! Storia della Repubblica Cecena di Ichkeria” nella quale si ripercorrono i fatti che portarono allo scioglimento del Soviet Supremo Ceceno – Inguscio, ed alla proclamazione dell’indipendenza cecena.

——————

Ai primi di Settembre l’eco del Putsch di Agosto iniziò ad attenuarsi a Mosca e nelle principali città russe, ed Eltsin poté tornare a posare lo sguardo sulle turbolente periferie dell’impero. La Cecenia era passata in stato di agitazione, ma il presidente russo non dava troppo peso ai rapporti allarmanti provenienti dal Soviet Supremo locale. Egli era convinto che tutto quel baccano altro non fosse che un rigurgito anticasta come se ne erano visti tanti in quel periodo nell’URSS. Pensò che sarebbe bastato sostituire Zavgaev con qualcun altro per poter placare gli animi della gente e riportare la Cecenia – Inguscezia alla pace sociale. Così pensò a Salambek Hadjiev, un professore che era salito agli onori della cronaca qualche mese prima, quando era stato nominato Ministro dell’Industria Chimica e del Petrolio del governo sovietico. Nato in Kazakhistan, Hadjiev si era conquistato una posizione in ambito accademico, diplomandosi all’Istituto Petrolifero di Grozny e poi lavorandoci fino a diventarne direttore. Prolifico ricercatore, era membro dell’Accademia delle Scienze, nonché uno dei massimi esperti del settore petrolchimico di tutta la Russia. Noto per essere un moderato antimilitarista (era capo del Comitato per le armi chimiche ed il disarmo) rappresentava a tutti gli effetti l’alter ego “maturo” del capopopolo Dudaev. Eltsin lo apprezzava perché sapeva parlare sia agli intellettuali che agli imprenditori, aveva una visione moderna dello Stato ed era un gran lavoratore. Sembrava avere tutte le carte in regola per competere con il Generale, il quale dalle sua aveva la sua bella divisa, una buona retorica e poco altro. L’idea di sostituire Zavgaev con Hadjiev piacque anche al Presidente del Soviet Supremo Khasbulatov, che come abbiamo visto non aveva certo in simpatia l’attuale Primo Segretario. Hadjiev invece era uomo di alte qualità intellettuali come lui (che era professore) e come lui aveva una visione moderata e riformista. Sistemare uno dei “suoi” al potere in Cecenia gli avrebbe fatto anche comodo in chiave elettorale, quindi si adoperò affinché il cambio avvenisse il prima possibile.

Doku Zavgaev

Khasbulatov si diresse quindi in Cecenia per assicurarsi un indolore cambio della guardia. La sua notorietà, ora che era al vertice dello stato sovietico, la sua cultura e la sua capacità politica gli avrebbero permesso di spodestare l’odioso rivale e di installare una valida alternativa che scongiurasse la guerra civile e favorisse la sua posizione. Tuttavia c’era da fare i conti con i nazionalisti, cresciuti all’ombra della crisi ed insorti durante il colpo di stato.

Per sgominarli Khasbulatov elaborò un piano. Dal suo punto di vista i nazionalisti erano un amalgama di disillusi, disperati e opportunisti, tenuto insieme da un’avanguardia di giovani idealisti incapaci di governare la bestia che stavano allevando. Affrontati sul terreno del dibattito politico, molto probabilmente avrebbero finito per ridursi ad una frazione residuale. Solo il contesto, secondo lui, permetteva loro di occupare la scena. Disperazione e mancanza di alternative erano gli ingredienti della miscela che rischiava di far scoppiare la rivoluzione. Per neutralizzare la minaccia bisognava “cambiare aria”: l’opposizione si era rafforzata contro Zavgaev ed il suo regime corrotto, toglierlo di mezzo era il primo passo da fare. C’era da sostituirlo con qualcuno che avesse dei buoni numeri. E Hadjiev sembrava quello giusto. La soluzione, tuttavia, non poteva calare dall’alto. Era necessario costituire un fronte di consenso alternativo a Dudaev e per questo serviva tempo. I nazionalisti avevano conquistato le piazze cavalcando l’onda della crisi istituzionale. Impantanarli in una diatriba politica lasciando passare il tempo, mentre la situazione si normalizzava, avrebbe tolto ai dudaeviti (così iniziavano a chiamarsi i sostenitori del Generale) il terreno sotto ai piedi. Man mano che le condizioni sociopolitiche si fossero stabilizzate i disperati sarebbero stati sempre meno disperati, i disillusi sempre meno disillusi. La gente avrebbe prestato orecchio a chi invocava la calma e le riforme anziché la rivoluzione e la guerra, ed i radicali sarebbero stati marginalizzati. Infine, con una bella elezione democratica i moderati avrebbero vinto e i rivoluzionari avrebbero perso. Fine della partita.

Un piano perfetto, nella teoria, che però si basava su due variabili non da poco. La Pima: che Dudaev ed i suoi avessero troppa paura di forzare la mano, lasciando così l’iniziativa a lui. La seconda: che a Mosca la situazione non degenerasse ulteriormente. E Khasbulatov, purtroppo per lui, non poteva controllare né la prima né la seconda. Eppure da qualche parte si doveva pur cominciare e così, dal 23 Agosto, il Presidente del Soviet Supremo si recò a Grozny, accompagnato da Hadjiev, con l’intenzione di far fuori Zavgaev. In una turbolenta riunione del Presidium del Soviet Supremo, al Primo Segretario che lo supplicava di autorizzare la proclamazione dello stato di emergenza e di disperdere l’opposizione, Khasbulatov rispose che il ricorso alla forza era tassativamente da evitare, e che la soluzione della crisi avrebbe dovuto essere assolutamente politica, il che significava una cosa sola: dimissioni.

Dopo aver messo Zavgaev con le spalle al muro, si recò a saggiare il suo avversario. Il suo primo colloquio con Dudaev sembrò essere promettente: il Generale lo accolse con affabilità ed accondiscese alla sua proposta di sciogliere il Soviet Supremo e sostituirlo con un’amministrazione provvisoria che traghettasse il Paese elle elezioni. Soddisfatto, rientrò a Mosca convinto di aver portato a casa un bel punto. Il vero obiettivo, tuttavia, lo aveva raggiunto proprio il leader dei nazionalisti. Scoprendo le carte di Khasbulatov, egli aveva ormai chiaro che nessuno avrebbe alzato un dito per difendere il legittimo governo della Cecenia – Inguscezia: sarebbe bastato un casus belli per forzare la mano e prendere il controllo delle istituzioni. Così, mentre a Mosca si brindava alla felice soluzione della crisi, a Grozny i dudaeviti prendevano il controllo della città ed assediavano il governo, ormai privo di un esercito che lo difendesse. Ciononostante Zavgaev non intendeva darsi per vinto. La sua abdicazione avrebbe potuto essere imposta soltanto da un voto del Soviet Supremo, e quasi nessuno dei deputati aveva intenzione di avallarlo, considerato che un attimo dopo lo stesso Soviet sarebbe stato sciolto. Così la situazione rimase in stallo per alcuni giorni, con il governo che non si dimetteva ed i nazionalisti che non abbandonavano le strade.

Dzhokhar Dudaev, circondato dai suoi sostenitori

Tra il 28 ed il 30 Agosto Dudaev iniziò a testare le reazioni di Mosca: la Guardia Nazionale irruppe in numerosi edifici pubblici, occupandoli e sloggiando chiunque vi si opponesse. Da Mosca non giunse un fiato. Allora il Generale ordinò la costituzione di ronde armate che presidiassero le strade, e ancora una volta non vi fu alcuna reazione. Il caos si stava impadronendo del Paese e sembrava che a nessuno importasse più di tanto[1].

Il 1 Settembre Dudaev convocò la terza sessione del Congresso. La Guardia Nazionale presidiava l’assemblea. Tutto intorno volontari armati erigevano barricate. Un gruppo di miliziani penetrò nel Sovmin, lo occupò ed ammainò la bandiera della RSSA Ceceno – Inguscia, issando al suo posto il drappo verde dell’Islam. Dei moderati non c’era più traccia: estromessi nella sessione di Giugno, erano ormai incapaci di condizionare in qualsiasi modo l’opinione pubblica. La scena era tutta per il grande capo, il quale esortò l’Ispolkom a decretare decaduto il Soviet Supremo e ad attribuirsi i pieni poteri. I delegati prontamente aderirono alla proposta, e dichiararono il Comitato Esecutivo unica autorità legittima in Cecenia. Ancora una volta, da Mosca, le reazioni furono tiepide, e per lo più di facciata. Lo stesso Khasbulatov, sottostimando la gravità della situazione, pensò che la sostituzione di Zavgaev sarebbe stata sufficiente a spaccare in due il fronte nazionalista. Adesso, secondo lui, sarebbe bastato costringere Zavgaev ad andarsene e sostituirlo con Hadjiev, o con qualcun altro, per mettere in minoranza i radicali. In realtà quello che stava succedendo a Grozny era qualcosa di molto più serio rispetto al gioco politico che Khasbulatov pensava di portare avanti. Dudaev aveva dalla sua parte quasi tutta l’opinione pubblica, aveva le sue guardie armate e stava costituendo un vero e proprio governo.

La cosa era assolutamente chiara al Primo Segretario, e lo fu ancora di più quando il 3 Settembre, ignorando le direttive di Mosca, egli tentò di introdurre lo stato di emergenza tramite una risoluzione del Presidium del Soviet Supremo: nessun reparto della polizia o dell’esercito rispose alla chiamata. Se molti uomini della Milizia del Ministero degli Interni avevano già cambiato bandiera, quelli che non avevano preso posizione semplicemente evitarono di muoversi. Nuovamente sconfitto, Zavgaev rimase rintanato nella Casa dell’Educazione Politica, dove si era asserragliato coi suoi seguaci. La sera del 6 Settembre, infine, la Guardia Nazionale irruppe anche là dentro: un manipolo di uomini guidato dal Vicepresidente dell’Ispolkom Yusup Soslambekov penetrò nell’edificio. Non si sa se fu un’azione premeditata o il salire dell’agitazione, fatto sta che la folla seguì i miliziani e si mise a devastare ogni cosa. I deputati furono pestati e ridotti al silenzio. Soslambekov mise davanti ad ognuno di loro un foglio ed una penna, ed ordinò che scrivessero le loro dimissioni di proprio pugno. Uno ad uno, tutti i deputati firmarono. Sotto la minaccia di essere giustiziato sul posto Zavgaev firmò un atto di rinuncia nel quale abbandonava “volontariamente” tutti gli incarichi pubblici. Soltanto il Presidente del Consiglio Comunale di Grozny, Vitaly Kutsenko, si rifiutò di firmare. Interrogato da Soslambekov, rispose: Non firmerò. Quello che stai facendo è illegale, è un colpo di Stato! Qualche attimo dopo Kutsenko volò dal terzo piano, schiantandosi al suolo. Più tardi sarebbe stato ricoverato in ospedale, dove sarebbe morto tra atroci sofferenze[2]. I moderati condannarono l’assalto, si dissociarono pubblicamente e fuoriuscirono dal Movimento Nazionale, costituendo una Tavola Rotonda alternativa al Congresso. Zavgaev fu cacciato da Grozny e si rifugiò nell’Alto Terek, sua terra natale. A Grozny l’Ispolkom iniziò ad operare come un vero e proprio governo, costituendo commissioni, emanando decreti ed occupando gli edifici pubblici.

Isa Akhyadov, futuro deputato al Parlamento di seconda convocazione, sulla statua di Lenin abbattuta

A Mosca la notizia dell’insurrezione fu accolta quasi con disinteresse. Ci vollero quattro giorni prima che una delegazione governativa, formata dal Segretario di Stato, Barbulis, e dal Ministro della Stampa e dell’Informazione, Poltoranin, giungesse in Cecenia per provare a ricomporre la crisi. Con Dudaev i due tentarono un approccio “alla sovietica”: negli anni ruggenti dell’URSS, quando un personaggio rappresentava un pericolo per il Partito e non lo si poteva inviare in un gulag a schiarirsi le idee, lo si promuoveva e lo si teneva buono. Poltoranin e Barbulis pensarono che se avessero offerto un ruolo di primo piano a Dudaev questi forse avrebbe colto la possibilità di uscire da quel casino in cambio di un buon posto ed una lauta pensione. Purtroppo per loro il Generale non era solo più furbo di quanto pensassero, ma era anche più coraggioso e determinato, ed in una Cecenia indipendente ci credeva davvero. Così l’incontro si risolse in un nulla di fatto.

Khasbulatov nel frattempo era rientrato in Cecenia, dove sperava di riprendere i negoziati con Dudaev dove li aveva lasciati. L’incontro tra i due si risolse con un nuovo progetto di accordo: il Soviet Supremo “decaduto” sarebbe stato sciolto, e al suo posto si sarebbe costituito un Soviet “provvisorio” che si occupasse dell’ordinaria amministrazione in attesa di nuove elezioni. A questo esecutivo avrebbero partecipato anche esponenti del Congresso. Confortato dall’apparente concessione del leader nazionalista, il Presidente del Soviet Supremo Russo parlò alle masse assiepate in Piazza Lenin. Davanti ad una nutrita folla (che chi addirittura parlò di centomila manifestanti) invitò tutti alla calma, chiese l’interruzione delle manifestazioni ed addossò tutta la colpa a Zavgaev, intimandogli in contumacia di non rifarsi vivo a meno che non volesse essere portato a Mosca in una gabbia di ferro. Infine, convocata un’assemblea straordinaria del Soviet Supremo, indusse i deputati a dimettersi ed a costituire un Soviet Provvisorio di 32 membri, alcuni provenienti dalla vecchia assemblea e alcuni dalle file del Comitato Esecutivo. L’ultimo atto del Soviet Supremo Ceceno – Inguscio fu un decreto con il quale si indicevano nuove elezioni per il 17 Novembre successivo.

Ancora una volta sembrò che la situazione fosse stata recuperata all’ultimo minuto, e Khasbulatov si accinse a tornare ai suoi doveri a Mosca non prima di aver avuto piena raccomandazione, da parte di Dudaev, del rispetto degli accordi. Non ebbe neanche il tempo di atterrare nella capitale russa che fu accolto da una delibera del Comitato Esecutivo del Congresso, appena fatta votare da Dudaev, nella quale l’Ispolkom riconosceva il Soviet Provvisorio come espressione della volontà del Congresso, e lo si diffidava ad andare contro la volontà espressa da esso[3]. La dichiarazione conteneva anche un calendario elettorale diverso da quello concordato: timorosi che la normalizzazione avrebbe indebolito la loro posizione, i nazionalisti decretarono che le elezioni si sarebbero svolte il 19 ed il 27 Ottobre, rispettivamente per le istituzioni del Presidente della Repubblica e del Parlamento. Di quale presidente e di quale parlamento si stesse parlando, a Mosca nessuno lo sapeva con certezza: la Costituzione della RSSA Ceceno – Inguscia non prevedeva nessuna di queste istituzioni. Dal tono della dichiarazione era ormai evidente che il Congresso Nazionale aveva intenzione di proclamare la piena indipendenza.

L’edificio che ospitava il Presidium del Soviet Supremo Ceceno – Inguscio

[1] I disordini esplosi a seguito del Putsch di Agosto avevano portato alla paralisi dei dicasteri governativi, la quale iniziava a mostrare i suoi primi effetti nefasti sulla vita di tutti i giorni. Il 28 Agosto circa quattrocento detenuti della colonia penale di Naursk insorsero, attaccando la guarnigione di presidio, dando alle fiamme le torri di guardia devastando i locali di servizio ed occupando la struttura penitenziaria. Ancora due giorni dopo cinquanta di loro, armati di coltelli ed armi artigianali occupavano un’ala dell’edificio. Tutti gli altri erano evasi, disperdendosi tra i manifestanti.

[2] Non è chiaro se Kutsenko si lanciò dal palazzo in un attacco di panico o se fu deliberatamente defenestrato. Secondo alcuni fu lui stesso a buttarsi di sotto, battendo la testa contro un tombino di ghisa. Altre versioni parlano di una guardia di Dudaev, o dello stesso Soslambekov, il quale lo avrebbe scaraventato contro una finestra al suo rifiuto di firmare le sue dimissioni. Anche riguardo al suo ricovero le testimonianze sono discordanti. Secondo alcuni la folla inferocita si accanì su di lui riempiendolo di calci e sputi. Altri, come lo stesso Yandarbiev nelle sue memorie raccontano che Kutsenko venne prontamente raccolto e portato in ospedale, ma si rifiutò di farsi visitare da qualsiasi medico ceceno per paura di essere finito. Non essendoci medici russi a disposizione finì in coma, per poi spirare qualche giorno dopo. Le indagini riguardo la morte di Kutsenko non avrebbero comunque acclarato nessuna responsabilità. La versione ufficiale riportata dalla Procura fu che il Presidente del Consiglio Comunale di Grozny si era volontariamente buttato di sotto, impaurito dalla calca.

[3] Il testo della dichiarazione, organizzato in sedici punti programmatici, iniziava condannando il Soviet Supremo, colpevole di aver perduto il diritto di esercitare il potere legislativo, di aver compiuto un tradimento degli interessi del popolo e di aver voluto favorire il colpo di Stato. Al Soviet Provvisorio venivano nominati alcuni dei principali esponenti politici del Congresso (Hussein Akhmadov come Presidente, oltre ad altri nazionalisti scelti tra le file del VDP). Il Soviet avrebbe operato nel rispetto del mandato affidatogli dal Congresso: se si fosse verificata una crisi di fiducia questo sarebbe stato ricusato dal Comitato Esecutivo e prontamente sciolto. Si invocava inoltre la solidarietà dei Parlamenti di tutto il mondo e dei paesi appena usciti dall’URSS, in opposizione al tentativo delle forze imperiali di interferire e continuare il genocidio contro il popolo ceceno.

“Independence is not a whim or an ambition. It is the necessary condition of our survival as an ethnic group” Thomas de Waal interviews Aslan Maskhadov (April 2002)

Lascia un commento

In an interview with IWPR, Maskhadov said that armed resistance by the rebels would continue as a means of “self-preservation” against the Russian army, but that he was seeking a political solution. Questions were sent by IWPR’s Caucasus Editor Thomas de Waal via an intermediary in March 2022, via a Chechen intermediary. The interview was recorded in late April in Chechnya, before the death was announced of the Arab warlord Khattab. Maskhadov’s answers, recorded on cassette, were returned to IWPR in London only last week.

Thomas de Waal

What is the general situation in Chechnya at the moment? What can you say about the ‘clean-up’ operations by Russian troops, about the level of resistance of Chechen fighters, about losses on both sides?

The general situation in Chechnya is dictated by the logic of a protracted war that is senseless for the men who began it. Almost three years after the beginning of the second war, the Russian side has not achieved any of its aims. At least they have not managed to break the resistance of our warriors and they will not be able to. As a result of this all the rage and cruelty of the occupiers is falling on the civilian population. And recent months have been especially hard for the inhabitants of the foothills and mountains of Chechnya. Every day Russian troops are carrying out endless ‘clean-up’ operations in these places, with robberies, murders and disappearances. General Moltenskoi devised his new tactic (ceaseless brutal clean-ups) with the idea of bringing people to the point where they would catch our warriors themselves and give them up to Russian forces. But it seems that the general is ill acquainted with the history and mentality of our people. And he also forgets that the men whom he is asking to be given up are the brothers, sons, husbands and fathers of the people his soldiers are subjecting to daily tortures and humiliations.

Russian special forces policeman patrols a street in Chechen town of Gudermes, 29 March 2001, as Chechen family looks at him, standing in front of the gates of their house, with bullet marks on them. The situation in Chechnya is set to improve significantly in the near future, the head of the pro-Moscow administration in Chechnya Akhmad Kadyrov said today, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin as maintaining “an uncompromising line” with Chechen separatists and that there was “no question of talks” with rebel President Aslan Maskhadov. (Photo by ALEXANDER NEMENOV / AFP) (Photo by ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP via Getty Images)

Recently [at the end of March] the general, wishing to come across as a champion of human rights, issued an order requiring the search operations be carried out in the presence of a member of the prosecutor’s office and the local administration, that the armoured vehicles which took part in the operation have numbers on their hulls and the soldiers identify themselves in the houses of people they were making checks. This order was advertised by [Sergei] Yastrzhembsky [the main Russian spokesman on Chechnya] in the media pretty much as though it was the UN Declaration of Human Rights. However in reality it turned out to be just a propaganda trick. In the latest operations in Tsatsan-Yurt, Kurchaloi, Gekhi and other places the same scenes were repeated – there were armoured personnel carriers without numbers, OMON troops in masks, beatings, robberies and dozens of people disappeared without trace.

Even if General Moltenskoi wanted to, he is incapable of reining in the fighters who are out of control and long ago forgot what army regulations and order are. From the beginning they are recruited to carry out punitive operations against civilians and have turned into real bandit formations under cover of being state structures.

As I said before, the Russian side has completely turned on the civilian population. They keep away from the places where our units are deployed. Even though attacks on Russian army columns and checkpoints have not stopped for a single day. Diversionary raids are carried out on the points where enemy units are deployed. The daily losses of Russian forces vary between ten and 50 in men killed alone. There are losses on our side. That is a fact of war. But they are significantly fewer than the enemy’s because we are using partisan tactics and act in small groups and do not allow large numbers of men to be concentrated in one place.

What is your status now, as your presidential term has expired, but new elections have not yet been held? How do you see the resolution of this problem?

There cannot be some special solution for this problem in our republic. We strictly follow the dictates of international law and our constitution. Until fighting ends and there are conditions, which allow the free expression of will by the people, there can be no elections and elections are not held in these circumstances anywhere in the world. As soon as the fighting stops and the right conditions are created I will be the first with the initiative to hold elections in the republic. I assure you, it would be much more pleasant for me to be an ordinary voter in peaceful Chechnya than the president of a republic at war. So, whether the Russian authorities like me or not, to end the war they will have to hold negotiations with the legally elected authorities of Chechnya, headed by President Maskhadov. If they want to keep on repeating that the puppet regime of [Russian-appointed leader Akhmad] Kadyrov is the lawful authority in the republic, let them summon him to Moscow and sign any agreement with him on ending the fighting. We’ll see how that works out.

Do you have any contact with any Russian officials and, if so, what are you discussing?

I do not have any direct contacts with the Russian leadership. I have appointed Chechnya’s deputy prime minister Akhmed Zakayev to make these contacts. He met the president of Russia’s representative for the Southern Federal District, Vladimir Kazantsev and keeps up contact with him. But it has not got beyond general conversation. The Russian side is too afraid of its generals to have serious concrete discussions with him.

In the opinion of many people in Chechnya and outside Shamil Basayev and Khattab bear a large degree of responsibility for the second war in Chechnya. Do you believe they still enjoy support in Chechnya and it is possible to seek a way out of the situation by removing them from the game?

It would be naïve to suppose that the fifty or so volunteers who set off with Basayev to Dagestan, which was at that time totally gripped by an internal conflict (in the Tsumada and Botlikh regions and the villages of Karamakhi and Chebanmakhi), were the reason for such a wide-scale war, which has lasted for almost three years. In case the Russian public was not convinced that this was reason enough to begin a massive war (Dagestan is far away and few people understand what goes on there), they also engineered the explosions against buildings in Moscow and other Russian cities and blamed them on the Chechens. So the war against Chechnya was planned before and was not the result of a chain of accidental events.

But that does not mean that the leadership of Chechnya welcomed or encouraged Basayev’s actions in Dagestan. Quite the opposite. I called for an early meeting with the leaders of Dagestan and the other North Caucasian republics to combine our efforts and work out ways of not letting such conflicts occur. The first man to reject the idea of this meeting was the leader of Dagestan, as strong pressure was put on him from Moscow; for them the whole planned invasion of Chechnya would have been put under threat if the meeting had taken place. All these things are now well known to the public thanks to the revelations of one of the players of this game, Boris Berezovsky. The current Russian leadership is trying to present it as though only he was responsible for all this. But he is only one of the players in the game and not the main one.

As for Basayev and Khattab, they are active participants in the resistance movement and their removal from the game, as you put it, can only weaken overall resistance and not bring the end of the war any closer.

From left to right: Abu Al – Walid, Shamil Basayev, Ibn Al – Khattab and Ramzan Akhmadov

Everyone understands that this time Russian forces will not simply leave Chechnya and that in both Russia and Chechnya many people are suffering a great deal because of this. What concessions are you ready to make in order for the bloodshed to stop? Are you ready, for example, to agree to a freezing of your independence declaration in return for genuine negotiations?

As we understand it, independence means above all independence from the whim of bureaucrats, who sit in Moscow offices somewhere and decree the fates of our people without facing any punishment. Genocide has continued for several centuries now and no one has borne any responsibility for it (true, the recently formed UN Human Rights Criminal Tribunal does inspire some hope).

Armed resistance is a means of self-preservation when no other methods of defence are available. International institutions, charged with defending us and created specially for that purpose are unable to do so. Nor can the world community, which can raise its voice in defence of the Bosnians, the Timorese, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Kosovars, the Croatians and so on. In their case prominent states have the courage to send peacekeeping forces to the conflict region, impose sanctions on aggressor countries, establish international tribunals and so on. In our case, all our efforts lead only to statements by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and human-rights organizations and a handful of politicians, whose conscience and civil courage does not permit them to remain silent about the horrific crimes which are being committed in Chechnya.

So ending resistance will not guarantee for us ending the genocide. Rather the opposite. Being undefended would make us even more vulnerable in the face of the arbitrary behaviour of the Russian military machine. I want to be understood correctly. Independence is not a whim or an ambition. It is the necessary condition of our survival as an ethnic group. If Russia is prepared to undertake internationally, through the mediation of other states or international organizations, that from henceforth it will not allow itself any more armed aggression against Chechnya, if Putin is replaced by Ivanov or Ivanov by Sidorov, or in the case of any political change-over, then we are ready to discuss any questions with the Russian side, including questions of independence. Of course we well understand that we are not situated on some island, somewhere in the ocean, but next door to Russia and in some places our border runs down a country road or through a ploughed field. We are in the same economic, energy and ecological space as Russia. We share the same water resources, transport communications and many other links. So, if good will can be found, no obstacles are insuperable.

Ruslan Gelayev

What can you say about Ruslan Gelayev, his presence in the Pankisi Gorge and his raid into Abkhazia last year? In whose name was and is he acting?

In any war and especially in one so bloody and protracted as the current one in Chechnya transformations occur which are hard to understand for a person who is far away from events. Ruslan Gelayev has long been absent from Chechnya and I cannot say whether he is in the Pankisi Gorge or somewhere else. I have not given him any order to leave the territory of Chechnya and I await his explanations.

PUBLISHED ON:

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/maskhadov-seeks-negotiations