The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?

by Matthew Evangelista

"
Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin improvised a system of ""asymmetric federalism"" to help maintain its successor state, the Russian Federation. However, when sparks of independence flared up in Chechnya, Yeltsin and, later, Vladimir Putin chose military action to deal with a ""brushfire"" that they feared would spread to other regions and eventually destroy the federation. Matthew Evangelista examines the causes of the Chechen Wars of 1994 and 1999 and challenges Moscow's claims that the Russian Federation was too fragile to withstand the potential loss of one rebellious republic. He suggests that the danger for Russia lies less in a Soviet-style disintegration than in a misguided attempt at authoritarian recentralization, something that would jeopardize Russia's fledgling democratic institutions. He also contends that well-documented acts of terrorism by some Chechen fighters should not serve as an excuse for Russia to commit war crimes and atrocities. Evangelista urges emerging democracies like Russia to deal with violent internal conflict and terrorism without undermining the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens. He recommends that the United States and other democracies be more attentive to Moscow's violations of human rights and, in their own struggle against terrorism, provide a kind of role model.
"

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Politics

259 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[E.P.]

A historical overview of the first Chechen war, and the first couple of years of the second, with comparisons of the Chechen situation with that of other autonomous republics of the RF such as Tatarstan, and discussions of possible outcomes.

This is a detailed and informative book on post-Soviet Chechnya. While well-written, it is unquestionably a scholarly examination of the topic by a trained academic, and should be approached as such: the point of such a book is not entertainment, but an in-depth analysis of the situation. Readers should not pick this up expecting a light read or a quick introduction, but it should be of interest to scholars--of the professional or armchair variety--wanting to learn more about contemporary Chechnya.

Although the situation has changed since 2002, a number of the things that Evangelista discusses, particularly the historical background and the events of the 1990s, are still highly relevant. Of particular interest is his comparison of Chechnya with Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: following the breakup of the Soviet Union, all three regions seemed at risk for leaving the Russian Federation, but Tatarstan and Bashkortostan both negotiated favorable arrangements with Moscow that kept them within the RF while maintaining an acceptable amount of independence and control over their economies and natural resources, while Chechnya fell into not one, but two bloody wars that left its capital the most destroyed city in the world and provoked comparisons with Stalingrad. Evangelista traces the various reasons for this, beginning with Chechnya's long-held status as the most rebellious of the empire's regions, and ending with the personality conflicts that arose between Boris Yeltsin and Dzhokhar Dudayev, neither of whom were the man for the job when it came to negotiating delicate peace settlements. Evangelista believes, probably correctly, that there were multiple moments when either or both of the wars could have been avoided, but every single opportunity was squandered, perhaps because, as he says, the wars were "overdetermined": there were so many factors pushing both sides towards war that it is impossible to say which was the deciding one, and perhaps the wars were simply part of the inevitable iron progress of history.

The one section that feels dated 15 years later is Evangelista's critique of Western leaders for cozying up to Putin despite Russia's regrettable lack of regard for human rights in Chechnya. These days Western leaders are by and large vastly more critical of Putin and Russia than they were back in the early 2000s. However, the current sanctions and Russia's expulsion from the G-8 have, arguably, only hardened Russia's stance vis-a-vis both its internal affairs, and its relationship with the West. The hard truth may be that Russia has never been under the West's control, not even when it was reeling from the collapse of the USSR, and all attempts to make it toe the line or stand in the corner like a naughty schoolboy are doomed to failure, no matter how egregious its human rights--and other--violations may be. Russia has, quite accurately, accused the US of trying to be the world's police force; certainly the US is the world's police state, which seems to be causing a number of problems at home and abroad. Russia's attempts to impose "a dictatorship of the law" on its unruly periphery have led to wide-scale destruction, something that should serve as a warning to other countries wishing to do the same thing. A re-envisioning of the relationship between the US and Russia, one without any dictatorship at all, may be necessary before forward progress can be made.

[Gemini]

I was initially looking forward to reading this book & learning more about the Chechen Wars. I had no idea how tough this book would be to read, so dry. There were things that I learned but it was also alot to sift through in trying to keep track of everything. I don't expect reading about war to be fun or exciting but I wanted a better understanding of things happened. I think I ended up more confused than before. I imagine there are other books about Chechnya that might be a better read.