Introduction to Geopolitics

G
E
O
R
G
I A
Dagestan (Russia)
I
n
g
u
s
h
e
t
i
a
(
R
u
s
s
i
a
)
Kamyshev
Nadterechnaya
Kalinovskaya
Chervlennaya
Kargalinskaya
Gudermes
Argun
Shali
Vedeno
Shatoy
CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS
Urus-Marten
Bamut
GROZNY
Terek
Surizne
Argun
Figure 5.6
Chechnya.

---

in the Russian people. These included “remarks reportedly made to a Turkish journalist
during the war that . . . he would personally fly a bomber to Moscow to retaliate” and
that he would kill Russian prisoners of war who tried to assist Dudaev’s opponents
(Evangelista, 2002, p. 35). However, the development of terrorist attacks has resulted
in a greater support for the war among Russian civilians. For example, the bombing of
an apartment building that housed only civilians, and other terrorist attacks, had “a trau-
matic and galvanizing effect on Russian public opinion, comparable to what happened
in the United States after the attacks of September 11, 2001. They provoked widespread
and uncritical support for expanding the war against Chechnya” (Evangelista, 2002, 
p. 67). Other actions that galvanized public support were the December 1996 kidnap-
ping of 22 Russian Interior Ministry troops in Chechnya, and, two days later the
kidnapping of a government delegation, on its way to Chechnya for talks with Chechen
officials. The same night six medical personnel from the Red Cross were shot and 
killed south of Grozny. The following day six Russian civilians, living in Grozny, 
were killed (Evangelista, 2002, pp. 46–7).
Russian policy toward Chechnya has been contested, though on the whole the atti-
tude of the political parties is toward a violent end of the conflict to maintain Chechnya
as part of Russia. United Russia, a pro-Putin party, hated by Chechen separatists, wishes
that Chechnya remain a part of Russia. The Communist Party (of the Soviet Union/of
the Russian Federation) also wants Chechnya to remain part of Russia. Yabloko, a more
liberal democratic party, was very critical of the war but has toned down its criticisms
over time (LaFraniere, 2003). The Union of Right Forces, also liberal, has recently been
more critical of Moscow’s approach to the Chechen conflict (LaFraniere, 2003).The
Liberal Democratic Party, an extreme right-wing party, issued violent ultimatums to 
the Chechens, threatening their annihilation by military force (Gusev, 1996).
What of the sorry situation of the Russian soldiers? In the Russian military, approx-
imately 3,000 non-combat deaths occur each year: the result of suicide and beatings
incurred at the hands of senior ranking officials. Malnourishment is also common
(Associated Press, 2003). Given these awful conditions, parents and draft-age youths do
everything that they can in order to avoid the draft. “Thousands of young men avoid
the twice-yearly call up by obtaining educational deferments, medical and family exemp-
tions, paying bribes, or simply dodging military authorities” (Associated Press, 2003).
The Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers is a strong force in ending the harsh conditions
for soldiers. They vehemently voice their opinion against the status quo and lack of
sympathy that exists in the Russian government. The committee does a lot to help parents
gain information that has not been readily available in the past. It is involved in
“supporting efforts of parents to travel to Chechnya and rescue their sons from the army
or at least find out how they died and recover their bodies” (Evangelista, 2002, p. 42).
Popular sentiment in Russia toward the conflict is a combination of animosity toward
the Chechens, especially the refugees, but also discomfort over the conduct of the war,
and the situation of the draftees. However, this did not stop Vladimir Putin using the
US’s War on Terrorism as a vehicle to strengthen his commitment to the conflict and
justify its continuation. Putin made links between Chechen terrorists and al-Qaeda,
saying that some of the fighters were trained in the same Afghan camps. Prior to the
beginning of the War on Terror, the countries of the EU were very critical of Russia’s
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
118

---

handling of the Chechen issue. On September 26, 2001, on a visit to Germany, Putin
was promised by Schroeder that criticism would tone down and that there would be a
“differentiated evaluation” of the matter (Evangelista, 2002, p. 180). Russia used this
opportunity to convince the rest of the world of its shared values. For example, at a
meeting of the world economic leaders in February 2002, Russia’s Prime Minister
Mikhail Kasianov said “Russia understands better than any other nation what has
happened in America” (Cullison, 2002).
There are also different views of the conflict from the Chechen perspective. Though
a sense of national identity is shared, some, such as, the Chechen leader, Maskhadov,
fought for a moderate form of independence—with a peaceful break from Russia,
followed by cooperation with Moscow and other regional neighbors. On the other hand,
many Chechens believed in a harsh break from Russia, and the construction of an Islamic
state “encompassing Chechnya and Dagestan and perhaps other Muslim peoples of the
North Caucasus” (Evangelista, 2002, p. 50). However, all the nationalist visions of
Chechnya rested upon a shared and dominant history of injustice at the hands of the
Russian government, dating from Stalin’s regime. Nationalist sentiments have risen from
the continued fight with Russia: “The deportations failed to break Chechen resistance
and instead contributed to an abiding attachment to the homeland and a smoldering sense
of grievances” (Evangelista, 2002, p. 13).
This conflict is likely to continue. Given the role of Russia as ally in the War on
Terror, producer of oil and natural gas, and influential power in Central Asia and Trans-
Caucus region, Chechnya will be a part of the geopolitical calculations of Russia and
other countries. Perhaps, as Politkovskaya (2003, p. 29) notes, the tendency will be to
ignore the conflict: “Everywhere they invite me to make a speech about ‘the situation
in Chechnya,’ but there are zero results. Only polite Western applause in response to
the words: ‘Remember, people are continuing to die in Chechnya every day. Including
today.’ ”
The case study of Chechnya illustrates the tenets of nationalism, where individual
and group identity is linked to sovereignty over a particular piece of territory. The nation-
alist claim is based upon a history that includes injustices, and so promoting the “need”
for a protective nation-state. But the geopolitics of nationalism gives rise to conflicts
within national politics, as is evident in the broad party support for Russia’s policy
compared to the disaffection of soldiers and their families. Noting the role of families
in nationalism requires us to pay careful attention to the role of gender in nationalist
politics.
Gender, nationalism, and geopolitical codes
In