Commentary
Alexey Malashenko
{
"authors": [
"Alexey Malashenko"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Domestic Politics"
]
}
Source: Getty
Losing the Caucasus
Despite the official end of Russia’s counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, armed clashes and terrorist attacks continue to plague North Caucasus. Open conflict is on the verge of becoming inevitable.
Published on Aug 26, 2009
Despite the official end of Russia’s counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, armed clashes and terrorist attacks continue to plague the region. Open conflict in Russia’s North Caucasus is on the verge of becoming inevitable, warns Alexey Malashenko.
Malashenko identifies a number of factors that contribute to rising tensions:
- Economic: Growing inequality and unemployment.
- Ethnic: Competing clan interests and disputed borders between and within republics.
- Societal: Rampant corruption and the increasing divide between the ruling elites and the general public.
The federal authorities have achieved some results over the last decade, namely ending the war in Chechnya and replacing a number of unpopular regional leaders with new faces. “As a result,” Malashenko writes, “the federal authorities have managed to achieve at least a fragile peace by offering the local elites an implicit agreement that can be summed up as follows: you give us your loyalty and obedience, and we will not meddle in the way you run your internal affairs.”
But Moscow’s policies and approaches have also brought continued instability and permanent political crisis, diminished political institutions and parties, an exaggerated emphasis on the power of individual leaders and a reliance on force, all of which threaten constantly to spin violently out of control. “The authorities’ biggest failure has been in institutionalizing instability,” Malashenko writes.
Looking forward, Malashenko explains that, while the North Caucasus will remain within Russia’s territory, they will continue to slip out of Moscow’s control. “It is not possible to resolve the problems of the North Caucasus overnight,” he writes. “Moscow can endlessly shuffle presidents, ‘wipe out’ extremists, threaten those guilty of corruption, and pour billions of rubles of federal money into the region. The North Caucasus remains part of Russia with all of its problems and woes, and with its own power vertical that imitates, after a fashion, the power structure devised by Moscow.”
About the Author
Alexey Malashenko
Former Scholar in Residence, Religion, Society, and Security Program
Malashenko is a former chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Religion, Society, and Security Program.
- What Will Uzbekistan’s New President Do?
- Preserving the Calm in Russia’s Muslim CommunityCommentary
Alexey Malashenko
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.Commentary
Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.
Afreen Akhter
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
- Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran WarCommentary
One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.
Andrew Leber, Sam Worby
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
