The Fragility of Unity: Assessing Stability in Russia‘s Non-Russian Regions
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is not only impacting the geopolitical landscape but also exacerbating internal pressures within Russia, notably concerning the stability of its diverse non-Russian regions. These regions, formally designated as national republics, echo the structure of the former Soviet Union, representing distinct ethnic groups with established identities and potential for self-governance. The current situation raises concerns about centrifugal forces that could threaten the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation,mirroring the conditions that led to the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
A key factor contributing to this fragility is the economic relationship between these regions and the central Kremlin. Many national republics are rich in natural resources, yet the vast majority of the revenue generated is extracted by moscow. This perceived economic exploitation, coupled with the strains of a protracted and seemingly unwinnable war, erodes living standards and diminishes the prospect of any positive outcome from the conflict for citizens in these regions. This dynamic fuels discontent and undermines the legitimacy of both the war and the government pursuing it.
Several regions are particularly vulnerable. Chechnya, already operating with a high degree of autonomy under its strongman ruler, maintains its own army and adheres to Islamic law, effectively functioning as an all-but-autonomous entity. Shoudl Russia experience critically important internal turmoil, particularly following a potential change in leadership, Chechnya is widely expected to formally declare independence, as it did during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Dagestan and ingushetia, neighboring regions with predominantly Muslim and non-Russian populations, also present potential flashpoints. recent protests against Russia’s war in Ukraine have been notably larger in Dagestan than in any other Russian region, driven by concerns that conscription disproportionately threatens the region’s young men and their cultural identity. The Jamestown Foundation has documented these growing tensions, noting a significant decline in the ethnic Russian population within Dagestan, creating further complications for Moscow.
Even regions with larger ethnic Russian populations, such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, are experiencing increasing unrest. Reports indicate rising tensions within these areas, suggesting that systemic disorder and secessionist movements in other regions could embolden similar actions.The Jamestown foundation has also highlighted escalating tensions in Bashkortostan, indicating a potential for ethnic-based conflict.
Notably an immediate collapse of Russia is not inevitable. However, the confluence of a prolonged, unsuccessful war, a weakening economy, and growing discontent in the periphery demonstrably increases the risk of fragmentation. The longer these conditions persist, particularly with Vladimir Putin remaining in power, the greater the likelihood of the central government losing control.
Crucially, the drivers of potential instability are internal to Russia, mirroring the situation in the late 1980s. External intervention is unlikely to be effective; in fact,supporting the current repressive regime in the hope of maintaining stability could exacerbate tensions with the regions. the only viable path towards preserving Russia’s territorial integrity lies within Russia itself - through a change in leadership, an end to the war, equitable treatment of ethnic minorities, economic diversification, and a more just distribution of resources. This represents a significant challenge, but it is the only way to address the underlying issues threatening the country’s future.
