Chechnya and Russia: A War of Succession

The Conflict

Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1992, Chechnya declared independence. Russia viewed Chechnya as an integral part of Russia, and there was a significant minority of Russians within Chechnya. Chechnya and Russia went to war over the issue of Chechnya's independence from Russia.
Ethnic
  • Chechens view themselves as distinct from Russians.

Political
  • Chechens believe they have a right to self-determination.
  • Russians believe they must protect the Russian minority in Chechnya.
  • Russian officials believe that if they let Chechnya become independent, other ethnic groups in Russia will rebel.

In February 2000, Russian military forces retook the city of Grozny, capital of the breakaway republic of Chechnya. Chechen separatists, who had declared Chechnya's independence in 1991 from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as it was dissolving, fled once again into the surrounding Caucasus Mountains. Anxious to restore a sense of normality to the besieged capital, Russian officials quickly began to plan a government to replace the one established by Aslan Maskhadov who had been elected to the Chechen presidency in 1997 and who had also fled the capital. The recapture of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, was a significant victory for Russia whose army had crossed into Chechnya in October 1999 and restarted a war that the outside world had hoped was ended three years earlier.
The Russian army, which had been run out of Grozny in August 1996 by a much smaller band of Chechen separatists, effectively reversed what had been an embarrassing loss. Russian President Vladimir Putin was able to declare Grozny liberated from the "Islamist militants" whom he claimed had been responsible for the series of terrorist bomb explosions in Russia and in Chechnya's eastern neighbor Dagestan. The victory also allowed Putin to temporarily quell mounting international criticism of Russia's handling of its renewed war with Chechnya. Promising immediate relief for the civilians of Grozny, Russian officials rapidly delivered a water purification system and established a number of food kitchens and medical centers. The supplies were desperately needed by Chechen residents, who had endured aerial attacks and a ground assault that retook the Chechen capital street-by-street. As one of only two major cities in Chechnya, Grozny has long been the focal point for both wars between the self-proclaimed ChechenRepublic and Russia, which has never officially recognized Chechen independence. Bombarded by both sides as it has changed hands repeatedly, its infrastructure has collapsed, its buildings have been reduced to shells, and its citizens relegated to the cellars.
Moscow's public display of humanitarian aid was not enough to stem the tide of international censure. Since the resumption of hostilities began in October 1999, more than 250,000 civilians have fled to Ingushetia, Chechnya's smaller neighbor to the west. With the flood of refugees came tales of Russian atrocities perpetrated on civilians including stories of mass murder, rape, and torture at detention centers located outside of Grozny. Additional reports have surfaced of villages near Grozny where Russian soldiers have been accused of killing and raping civilians. The steady stream of reports has prompted international organizations including the United Nations (U.N.), the Council of Europe (CE), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to urge Moscow to allow an independent investigation into the alleged human rights crimes. Russian officials have denied committing any abuses and have countered the accusations by saying their troops were only responding to attacks by Chechen terrorists. Russian stonewalling has led the Council of Europe to temporarily suspend Russia's voting privileges. Hoping to pressure Russia into calling a cease-fire in Chechnya and to negotiate a new peace settlement, the CE's actions have instead angered Russian officials who have described the suspension as evidence of "Cold War stereotypes and double standards." The vote, which was approved by a clear two-thirds majority of the forty-one-nation body, was meant to embarrass Putin, whose election in March 2000 was in part due to Russian public opinion that he was a "tough leader" and a "heroic winner." Whether or not Putin and the Russian government will respond to the international pressure remains unclear. The scope of the conflict is, however, widening from simply punishing the separatists for alleged terrorist acts against Russian citizens to bringing Chechnya firmly back under Russian control and silencing its 1991 declaration of independence. The Russian government appears to be reasserting its authority over a region it has claimed rule of for nearly three hundred years.

Recent History and the Future

The most recent round of fighting was sparked by the events of August 1999. Armed Islamist groups based in Chechnya and led by Shamil Basayev, moved into neighboring Dagestan which was still part of Russia. Their intent was to defend Dagestani Muslims from perceived Russian aggression and to establish a larger Islamic state among area Muslims. Basayev's forces were driven back into Chechnya by Russian troops after a few weeks, although the Russian army was unable to keep them from escaping as it claimed it would. A month later in September, a series of deadly explosions in apartment buildings in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Volgodonsk killed a total of three hundred civilians. The attacks came without warning and no group claimed responsibility, but the Russian government laid the blame explicitly on Chechen extremists.
Using the incursions, bombings, and increasing lawlessness within Chechnya as justification, Russian forces moved across the Chechen border on October 2, 1999. Their initially stated aim was to take a portion of territory in northern Chechnya in order to prevent further attacks like Basayev's incursion, and to protect Russians living on the northern plains of Chechnya. Over the next few months, however, the emphasis shifted to taking more Chechen territory, and then eventually to recapturing Chechnya altogether, despite previous pledges both to avoid using force and to seek a negotiated solution to the question of Chechnya's future status. On December 25, Russian forces begin a new full-scale assault on Grozny, which included extensive artillery shelling, and aircraft assault and was backed by some 80,000 Russian military troops. By the end of 1999, Russians and Chechens appeared to be fighting exactly the same war they had fought three years earlier.
Militarily, this second Chechen war has looked remarkably like the first. By early February 2000, most of Grozny had been recaptured by Russian armed forces, but pockets of resistance remained in the city. By mid-February, Russian armed forces had ordered the city evacuated and its buildings destroyed in an attempt to root out the last rebel forces. As before, the Russians face an additional eight thousand to ten thousand rebel forces in the southern mountains.
Despite similarities, there are important differences between the first and second Chechen wars. The second war in Chechnya has been far more devastating than the first. The Russian offensive has created a new wave of refugees; by the end of 1999 some two hundred fifty thousand Chechens (about twenty-five percent of the population) have been driven from their homes to towns or camps across the border in Ingushetia. An unknown number--estimates are around forty thousand--remain in Grozny, unwilling or unable to leave despite massive Russian bombardment of the city.
For the Russians, this second war has garnered more public support than the previous. An opinion poll taken in November 1999 found that sixty-six percent of Russian respondents thought the war was "successful." The increase is due partly to the genuine fear aroused by the apartment bombings of September and partly to the increased government control of the media, which has resulted in a tempered view of the war. Similarly, although the war is expensive for Russia--by the end of 1999 it had already cost over one and a half billion dollars--it comes at a time when, because of high oil prices, the Russian government has more revenue and more economic stability. However, the indiscriminate bombardment of Grozny and Russia's apparent lack of concern for civilians in the war zone has cost the Russian government some foreign aid. In December 1999, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put scheduled loan payments on hold, and a number of European countries have threatened sanctions if the war continues. Still, Russia appears both more willing and more able to prosecute the war this time, although it is unclear whether they will be any more successful on the battlefield.
The outcome of this Chechen-Russian conflict is currently unclear. Russia appears to be incapable of controlling Chechnya by force as was demonstrated during the first war. But, given increased domestic political and financial support, it may take the Chechen separatists a long time to convince the Russian government to stop trying. In addition, the factionalism that characterizes the current Chechen leadership (demonstrated by the independent actions of President Maskhadov and rebel leader Basayev) make it difficult for Russia to find a negotiating partner who can deliver peace--a fact which the government in Moscow uses to justify its lack of negotiation efforts.
In the long term, there are three possible solutions for Chechnya. One possible outcome is a return to the way Chechnya was governed in the nineteenth century with Russia in nominal control of the region but facing ongoing resistance at a variety of levels. This is probably not a viable long-term situation for Russia unless its economy recovers on more than just temporarily increased oil revenues. Russia simply cannot afford a prolonged and costly struggle; sooner or later, costs will mount, media and public opinion will turn against such a strategy, and the government will be pressured to change course. Another possibility is full Chechen independence. As this would require a near-total collapse of Russian power or a serious crisis in Russia that forces them to redirect their resources elsewhere, this solution is also unlikely. None of the current political parties and factions in Russia support Chechen independence, so even a simple leadership change will not make full Chechen independence any more likely. Russian stubbornness on this point is unsurprising. In addition to the remaining five north Caucasus regions, which could potentially desire to secede from Russia, there are significant separatist sentiments among other non-Russians living elsewhere in the Russian Federation (particularly in Tatarstan, which occupies an important area in the central region of Russia). Full Chechen independence would also take away some of the anticipated oil revenues from Caspian Sea pipelines and this is money, which the Russian government desperately needs. Absent some fundamental change in Russian politics, any future Russian government will be extremely unwilling to recognize the independence of Chechnya as a separate country.
The third, and most probable, alternative is some form of autonomy within the Russian Federation that provides for substantial local government. This would maintain Moscow's titular control over the region and help it to resist secessionist pressures elsewhere, while satisfying at least some Chechen demands for self-government. Were such an agreement to be created in the next five years, it would probably include a clause on leaving the possibility of future independence open. If, over time, autonomy within Russia is beneficial to the Chechens, particularly if Russian money helps rebuild Grozny, demands for independence may fade. For this solution to last, however, a future Chechen government will have to devise better strategies for dealing with crime and armed opposition within its own government, both of which Maskhadov's government failed to do between 1997 and 1999.
For the rest of the world, the Chechen conflict has two serious consequences. First, its location puts it in the center of efforts to bring more Caspian Sea oil to the international market. If long-term stability can be brought to the area, more oil will flow out of the Caspian basin, through Russia, and onto the world market. This would benefit both Russia, which desperately needs the oil revenue (providing of course that it passes through Russian territory), and the U.S. and European economies, where greater supply would likely lower prices. This prospect insures that the United States and Europe will continue to be interested in a long-term solution to the Chechen crisis.
The second consequence of the outcome of the current Chechen war is in the area of human rights and international law. Chechnya, along with ethnic conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and East Timor, are shaping the world's understanding of the role and limits of international law and its ability to impose standards of conduct on particular countries. Russia's alleged human rights abuses against people it claims as its own have been harshly criticized by international powers, but to date, only moderately punished. If this present war drags on for a long time, as seems likely, the amount of external pressure put on Russia to moderate its behavior will send a powerful signal to other countries with similar problems. If the international community unifies its criticism of Russian tactics, and punishes the Russian government for any abuses, it will strengthen the hand of those who seek to protect human rights globally and increase the likelihood of world leaders using their power to enforce international norms of behavior.

Chechnya's War of Words

As the conflict in Chechnya has evolved, so too has its portrayal in the news media. During the first war, the newly independent Russian news media was instrumental in turning public opinion against the war in Chechnya. Daily reports tallied the heavy Russian losses for its viewers and showed gruesome scenes of street fighting whose victims were primarily civilian. Detailed and sympathetic coverage of Chechen leaders soured Yeltsin's public support and brought about widespread demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg calling for an end to the war.
When the hostilities resumed in 1999, the Russian government went on the offensive early. The recently formed Media Ministry forbade all Russian television networks to publish interviews with Chechen leaders and warned all journalists working in Russia that they would be criminally prosecuted under anti-terrorist legislation if they broadcast interviews with or quoted Chechen leaders. Currently, access to Chechnya by domestic and foreign correspondents requires military credentials, which are highly restricted. Only reporters from pro-Moscow stations are allowed in and then only for carefully orchestrated military tours that toe the line of official reports. Journalists are lectured on how to write and broadcast about the conflict--Chechen fighters for example, must be called terrorists--and those of them whose reports criticize the military operation are subsequently banned from Chechnya. Foreign reporters are rarely given permission to cross into Chechnya and those who attempt to enter the region illegally are arrested and detained. Andrei Babitsky, a reporter from the U.S. funded Radio Liberty that broadcasts to Russia, was arrested and held for six weeks.
Officials at the Media Ministry claim they are trying to prevent terrorist propaganda from being published. They complain that western journalists rarely report on Chechen criminal activities and cite the recent bombings of Moscow apartment buildings and the epidemic of civilian kidnappings as examples. Between the two periods of armed conflict, many Chechen militants did indeed become criminals, and abductions for ransom were a favorite ploy. Over one thousand individuals were kidnapped between 1997 and 1999. At least twenty-one of them were journalists.
The Chechen fighters have countered by setting up information centers outside of both Chechnya and Russia. There are also Chechen information centers in Kiev and in Odessa, Ukraine, and in Poland. They have also established their own web site where they regularly publish what they claim is official documentation of Russian atrocities perpetrated against Chechen civilians. Vladimir Putin acknowledged that their government had "some catching up to do if it was to use the web as effectively as the Chechens." The Russian Media Ministry has declared the documents on the Chechen web site to be forgeries.