The Fragility of Unity: Assessing Stability โฃin Russia‘s โคNon-Russian Regions
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine โคis not only impacting the geopolitical landscape but also exacerbating internal pressures โwithinโฃ Russia, notably concerning the stability of its diverse non-Russian regions. These regions, โคformally designated as national republics, echo the structure โขof the former Soviet Union, โrepresenting distinct ethnic groups with established identities and potential for self-governance. The current situation raisesโค concerns about centrifugal forces thatโ could threaten the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation,mirroring the conditions that led to theโค Soviet Union’s dissolution.
A key factor โฃcontributing to this fragility is theโข economic relationship between these regions and โthe central Kremlin. Many national republicsโค are rich in natural resources, yet the vast majority ofโ the revenue generated is extracted by moscow. โThis perceived economic exploitation,โ coupled with โthe โstrainsโค of a protracted and seemingly unwinnableโค war,โฃ erodes living standards and diminishes the โprospect โคof โคany positive outcome from the conflict for citizens in โthese regions. This dynamic fuels โคdiscontent and underminesโ the legitimacy ofโ both the war and theโฃ government pursuing it.
Several regions are particularly vulnerable. Chechnya, already operating with a high โdegree ofโฃ autonomy underโข 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 โleadership, Chechnya is widely expectedโ toโค formally declare independence, as it did during the collapse of the โSoviet Union.
Dagestan andโฃ ingushetia,โ neighboring regions with predominantly Muslim and non-Russian populations, also present potential flashpoints. recent โขprotests against Russia’s war in Ukraine have been notably largerโ in Dagestan than in any other Russian region,โข driven by concerns that โคconscription disproportionately threatens theโ region’s young men and their โฃcultural identity. The Jamestown Foundationโ has documented these growing tensions, noting a โsignificant decline in the ethnic Russian โฃpopulation within Dagestan, creating further โฃcomplications for Moscow.
Even regions with โคlarger ethnic Russian populations, such as โTatarstan and Bashkortostan, are experiencing increasing unrest. Reports indicate rising tensions within these areas, suggestingโ thatโ systemic โdisorderโฃ and secessionist โmovements โขin โฃother โregions could embolden similar actions.The Jamestown foundation has also highlighted โฃescalating tensions in Bashkortostan, indicatingโ a potential for ethnic-based โขconflict.
Notably an immediateโฃ collapse of Russia is not inevitable. However, the confluence of a prolonged, unsuccessful war, a weakening economy, and growingโ discontent in the periphery โdemonstrably increases โฃthe risk of fragmentation. The longer these conditions persist, particularly with Vladimir Putin remaining in power, the โgreater โthe likelihood of the central government losing control.
Crucially, the drivers of potential instability are internal toโ Russia, mirroring the situation in โขtheโ late 1980s. External intervention is unlikely to be effective; โin fact,supporting the current repressive regime in theโ hope of maintaining stability โคcould exacerbate tensions with the regions. the only viable path towards preservingโ Russia’s territorial integrity lies within Russia itself โค- through a change inโ leadership,โ anโข end to the war, equitable treatment of ethnicโค minorities,โฃ economic diversification, and aโค more just distribution ofโฃ resources. This โrepresents a significant challenge, but it is the โฃonly way to address the underlying issues threatening the country’s future.
