Causes, Actors, and
Trajectories of Conflicts in
the Caucasus
IREn5019 NoWar No Peace: Unresloved conlicts in the
Caucasus
2.10.2024
Structure
⚫ The Caucasus:
⚫ The Geographical settings
⚫ Museum of peoples
⚫ The crossroad of religions
⚫ Languages
⚫ Historical overview
⚫ Soviet ethno-federalism
⚫ The causes of the conflict
Historical Overview
The Caucasus: civilizations and regions met, bridge and
barrier for communication between north and south.
The Caucasus is the point where Russia, Iran and Turkey
meet. For most of the 19th century, the three powers
dueled for dominance of the region.
Russia – main force which determined the development
in the South Caucasus region for more than two
centuries.
Russia’s interests
Trade interests
Colonization intentions and
Strategic considerations.
In dealing with the Caucasus people Russia followed these guidelines:
1. Refrain from anything that could weaken their perception of our power.
2. Establish commercial relations so as to generate among them needs that they still do
not feel.
3. Maintain continuous state of dissension among their diverse nations and never forget
that their unity could be fatal for us.
4. Introduce among them the light of Christianity.
5. Absolutely prevent them from the possibility of links with Turkey and Persia.
Peter the Great - to transform Russia to a great European power.
Historical overview
Georgia under Russian Control:
• Since 1783, Georgia became a Russian protectorate following the Treaty of Georgievsk.
• In 1801, Russia annexed Georgia, formalizing its control over the region.
• Russian Expansion:
• Russian conquest continued throughout the early 19th century, including the capture of various
Khanates in 1806-1809.
• Chechnya and Dagestan were brought under Russian control by 1859 after prolonged resistance.
• Key Treaties:
• Treaty of Gulistan (1813): Marked the end of the Russia-Persian War, with Persia ceding large
parts of the Caucasus to Russia.
• Treaty of Turkmanchai (1828): Further solidified Russia’s control over the Caucasus, expanding
its territory after defeating Persia.
• Soviet Period:
• From 1921 to 1991, the region was under Soviet control, with the establishment of Soviet Socialist
Republics and Autonomous Republics in the Caucasus.
Historical overview
•Soviet Position in the Caucasus:
•Throughout the late 19th century and most of the Soviet period, the Soviet Union’s position
in the Caucasus was shaped by its strategic frontier with Turkey and Persia (later Iran).
•Transcaucasian Federation:
•During the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Transcaucasian Federation was established,
composed of:
•Georgian Mensheviks
•Azerbaijani Musavat Party
•Armenian Dashnaks
•Independence of the South Caucasus:
•In 1918, the South Caucasus region separated from Russia and declared its independence.
•Three democratic republics were formed:
•Azerbaijan Democratic Republic
•Georgian Democratic Republic
•Armenian Democratic Republic
Historical overview
Azerbaijan:
On May 31st, 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded and Sovietized by
Russia’s 11th Red Army, ending its short-lived independence.
Armenia:
In late 1920, Armenia was invaded by the Kemalist Army of
Karabekir Pasa. The country was subsequently partitioned
between Turkey and Russia.
Georgia:
The Soviet military launched an invasion of Georgia on
February 11th, 1921, completing the Sovietization of the South
Caucasus.Soviet Period:For the next 70 years, the entire
region remained part of the Soviet Union, incorporated into
various Soviet Socialist Republics.
Leninist nationality policy
Laninist “nationality policy”- hierarchical
nationality-based territorial structure
–> ethnic identities though a federal state structure.
After 1917 Civil War in Russia the goal was to
maintain integrity in the multiethnic RE.
Between 1925-1935a new political map
„territorilization of ethnicity“: administrative units
were created: hierarchical-nationality based territorial
structures – „the most important national groups were
given the most meaningful administrative,
constitutional and legal expressions of nationhood in
the form of union republic status.”
Introduction to Ethno-territorial and
Secessionist Conflicts
• The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 was largely peaceful, except in the Caucasus region,
where five major conflicts erupted.
• These conflicts included wars in Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia,
among others.
• Consequences: Up to 40,000 deaths and the displacement of over 1.5 million people—10%
of the 1989Transcaucasian population.
• Key Observation:These conflicts remain unresolved to this day despite ceasefires, peace
processes, and continued dialogue.
• Main Question:Why did this region see such intense violence, and what are the
underlying causes?
Competing Explanations
The Myth of “Ancient Hatreds”
• OutdatedTropes:Western policymakers and early commentators resorted to the
"ancient hatreds" theory (Yemelianova, 2002).
• Scholarly Rejection: Historians and political scientists have discredited this view,
emphasizing modern political, social, and historical roots instead (Kaufman, 2001).
• Alternative Factors: Ethnic symbols, geopolitical influences, and the legacies of Soviet
governance are much more critical in explaining these conflicts.
The Role of Soviet ethno-federal institutions
Autonomy and Conflict in Soviet Structures
Ethno-federal Structures: The Soviet Union’s creation of autonomous regions for
ethnic minorities, such as Nagorny Karabakh, laid the groundwork for later conflicts
(Cornell, 2002).
•Legacy of Autonomy: These institutions empowered ethnic groups, but also trapped
them in minority enclaves, making their situation even more precarious post-Soviet
collapse (Rezvani, 2015).
•Post-Soviet State Fragility: After 1991, the weak new states (e.g., Georgia,
Azerbaijan) were unable to resolve disputes between central authorities and
autonomous regions.
The Role of Soviet ethno-federal institutions
• The Communist Party:The main instrument for ruling and centralizing power in the Soviet Union.Asymmetrical
Federation:The Soviet Union was structured as an asymmetrical federation with ethno-territorial units, giving some
nationalities greater autonomy than others.
• Right to Self-determination: Soviet ideology upheld the right of nations to self-determination, but this was often limited
in practice by the central authority of the Communist Party.
• National Group Representation: Union Republics (SSRs):The most significant national groups, such asArmenia,
Azerbaijan, andGeorgia, were granted the status of Soviet Socialist Republics (SSRs), the highest form of national
autonomy.
• Autonomous Republics (ASSRs): Some regions, like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Ajaria, and Nakhichevan, were designated
asAutonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (ASSRs).
• AutonomousOblasts (AOs): Smaller regions such as Nagorno-Karabakh were given the status of autonomous oblasts,
which had less autonomy.AutonomousOkrugs: A lower level of autonomy, often granted to smaller ethnic groups or
regions.
The Politics of Indigenization (Korenizatsiya)
•Korenizatsiya (1923): A Soviet policy promoting the development of local ethnic
culture and the autonomy of non-Russian groups.
•Regional Communist Party organizations were established, empowering local ethnic
elites.
•This policy allowed ethnic groups to maintain their own education, language, and
cultural identity within self-rule territories.
•Impact:
•Fostered ethnic pride and promoted the flourishing of ethnic cultures within the Soviet
Union.
•Created regional autonomous entities which later became flashpoints for
secessionist movements after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From Korenizatsiya to Russification (Post-1932)
•Russification (Post-1932): Reversal of Korenizatsiya, shifting towards greater
centralization and cultural Russification under Stalin.
•Stalinist policies: Emphasized the dominance of the Russian language, and nonRussian
elites were repressed.
•Consequences:
•National elites in ethnic regions were purged, fostering deep resentment.
•Cultural assimilation and repression of ethnic identities led to long-term grievances.
De-stalizination and ethnic revival
•De-Stalinization Policies (Post-1953):
•Khrushchev’s Era: Reversal of Stalinist centralization. Greater power was given to
local Communist Party leaders.
•Rebirth of nationalism: Ethnic cultures experienced a “rasvet” (flourishing) as they
were allowed more freedom.
•Soviet nationalities evolved through stages of “sblizhenie” (drawing together) and
“sliianie” (merger) as part of the long-term goal of Soviet unity.
•Legacy:
•Flexibility in social order fostered a resurgence of ethnic identity, which would later
fuel nationalist movements in the Gorbachev era.
Gorbachev’s Reforms: Perestroika and Glasnost
•Mikhail Gorbachev (1985): Introduced perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost
(openness), which inadvertently encouraged the expression of anti-government
sentiment.
•Ethnic grievances that had been suppressed for decades resurfaced, leading to
demands for greater autonomy and independence.
•Impact on the Soviet Union:
•Gorbachev’s policies enabled non-Russian republics to assert their national
identities and call for self-determination.
•Led to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Autonomy: solution or source of conflict?
•Autonomy’s Dual Role:
•Solution: Autonomy regimes were designed to balance conflicting territorial
interests and reduce ethnic tensions in multi-ethnic states.
•Source of Conflict: Autonomy can isolate minority groups, limiting their participation
in national politics and encouraging secessionist tendencies.
•Challenges of Autonomy:
•Autonomy may lead to protests by other groups, creating additional sources of
conflict.
•Autonomous regions often function like quasi-states, with their own executive,
legislative, and judicial bodies, leading to a sense of statehood and encouraging
separatism.
Autonomous Regions: Characteristics
•Features of Autonomous Regions:
•State-like structures: Autonomous regions typically have their own flags, coats of
arms, borders, and internal governance systems.
•Group Identity: Autonomous regions foster a strong sense of ethnic identity, with
distinct leadership, media outlets, and external support from diaspora or foreign
states.
•Examples:
•Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia: These regions developed statelike
features which made peaceful reintegration into their parent states difficult.
The Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: Nagorny Karabakh
•Historical Roots: First instances of violence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis during
the Russian Revolution of 1905 (Swietochowski, 1985).
•Post-Empire Conflicts: After the fall of the Russian Empire, unresolved disputes over
territories such as Nagorny Karabakh, Nakhichevan, and Zangezur.
•Soviet Involvement: In 1921, the Kavburo (Bolshevik authority) left Nagorny Karabakh
under Azerbaijani control but granted autonomy to the Armenian-majority population
(Saparov, 2015).
•Sub-heading: Conflict Escalation in the 1980s
•Gorbachev’s Reforms: Perestroika and glasnost allowed suppressed grievances to surface,
with Armenians in Nagorny Karabakh demanding unification with Armenia (Libaridian, 1988).
•1988 Pogroms: Violence erupted in Sumgait and other areas, leading to the mutual
expulsion of 360,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan and 200,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia
(Yunusov, 1991).
•Sub-heading: War and Ceasefire
•Full-scale War (1992-1994): After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, full-scale war broke
out in Nagorny Karabakh with heavy civilian losses, such as the Khojaly Massacre (de
Waal, 2013).
•Ceasefire in 1994: Mediated by Russia, the ceasefire left Armenian forces in control of
Nagorny Karabakh and surrounding territories, displacing over half a million Azerbaijanis.
The Georgian–SouthOssetian andAbkhaz Conflicts
•Pre-Soviet and Soviet-Era Tensions
•South Ossetia: Tensions between Ossetian peasants and Georgian nobility date back to the early 20th century (Saparov, 2015).
•Soviet Policy: South Ossetians were granted autonomous status under the Soviet system, but these measures often created deepseated
resentment among the Georgian majority.
•Abkhazia: Georgianization policies under Stalin (e.g., imposing the Georgian alphabet) intensified Abkhaz separatist sentiments
(Sagariya, 1992).
•Sub-heading: Post-Soviet Independence and Conflict Escalation
•South Ossetia (1989): Rising Georgian nationalism, led by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, led to violent clashes in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia’s
capital (Welt, 2014).
•Abkhazia (1992-1993): Following Georgia’s independence, war broke out in Abkhazia. Georgian forces initially succeeded but were
later repelled by Abkhaz guerrillas supported by external forces (Shesterinina, 2016).
•Sub-heading: Resolution Attempts
•Dagomys Agreement (1992): This agreement helped bring an end to large-scale fighting in South Ossetia but failed to resolve the
underlying tensions (Shevardnadze’s involvement).
•Abkhazia (1993): The war ended with the displacement of up to 240,000 ethnic Georgians, solidifying Abkhazia’s de facto
independence, though it remains internationally unrecognized.
The Russian-Chechen Conflict
•Long History of Resistance and Soviet Deportation
•Chechen Resistance: The roots of Chechen opposition to Russian rule date back to the 18th
century, with resistance led by figures such as Sheikh Mansur and Imam Shamil (Galeotti, 2014).
•1944 Deportation: Under Stalin, the entire Chechen population was deported to Central Asia,
fostering deep resentment and fueling future independence movements (Russell, 2007).
•Sub-heading: Post-Soviet Chechen Independence Movement
•Dzhokhar Dudaev: The Chechen nationalist leader declared independence in 1991, prompting the
Russian invasion of Chechnya (Tishkov, 1997).
•First Chechen War (1994-1996): A bloody conflict resulting in Russia’s defeat and withdrawal, as
well as the devastation of Grozny and other cities (Evangelista, 2002).
•Sub-heading: Second Chechen War and Russian Victory
•Second War (1999-2009): Following renewed conflict, Russia regained control over Chechnya,
supported by the Kadyrov regime, which crushed the remaining independence movements
(Galeotti, 2014).
•Islamisation and External Influence: During the second war, foreign jihadist groups, including AlKhattab,
became involved, shifting the conflict from nationalism to Islamic extremism.
Transnational Salafi and Jihadist Networks
•Salafism and Jihadism: Ideological movements advocating the return to the earliest
form of Islam (Salafism) and armed struggle (Jihadism) for political or religious
objectives.
•From Local Insurgency to Global Network: Initially focused on specific territorial
disputes, jihadist movements evolved into transnational networks aiming for broader
Islamic governance.
•Historical Context:
•Emergence of Salafi and Jihadist networks was significantly shaped by global
conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya during the 1980s and 1990s.
•Chechen Insurgency: A prominent example of an insurgent movement that
transitioned into a network of global jihadism, influenced by foreign fighters and
ideologies.
•The Transition:
•From independent insurgencies tied to specific nationalist causes, Salafi movements
evolved into broader global networks, connected through ideology rather than
geography.
Evolution into leaderless Networks
•Leaderless Resistance: Unlike traditional hierarchically structured groups, modern
jihadist networks operate through loosely connected cells with decentralized leadership.
•Digital Connectivity: The rise of the internet and encrypted communications enabled
the spread of jihadist ideologies across borders, creating a leaderless but coordinated
global movement.
•Key Figures:
•Influential leaders like Abu Musab al-Suri championed the concept of leaderless
resistance, advocating for the empowerment of independent cells.
•These figures promoted the idea that small, autonomous groups could carry out
operations without centralized command.
•Impact on Global Jihadism:
•Decentralized operations allowed these networks to evade detection and repression by
national governments, making them more resilient and harder to dismantle.
Case Study:The Chechen Insurgency
•Chechen Conflict:
•The Chechen conflict transitioned from a nationalistic fight for independence from
Russia to a hub for global jihadism, particularly after the death of secular leader
Dzhokhar Dudaev and the arrival of foreign jihadists.
•Role of Salafi Networks:
•Influential foreign fighters like Abu Omar al-Saif and al-Khattab introduced Salafist
ideologies, transforming the Chechen insurgency into a global jihadist cause.
•Shariatisation and Salafisation: Chechen leadership embraced Sharia law and
rejected traditional Chechen Sufi practices as "bid'ah" (unlawful innovation), further
aligning the movement with global jihadist goals.
•Legacy:
•The Chechen insurgency became a blueprint for similar conflicts across the globe,
where local grievances morphed into transnational jihadist struggles.
Common themes across the conflicts
•Soviet Institutional Legacy: The ethno-federal system created unstable autonomous
regions that became focal points for conflict after the collapse of central authority
(Cornell, 2002).
•Perestroika and Glasnost: Gorbachev’s reforms inadvertently sparked ethnic
mobilization, as suppressed grievances erupted into the open (Kaufman, 2001).
•Economic and State Fragility: The new states emerging from the Soviet Union lacked
the institutional capacity to manage these ethnic disputes, leading to violence
(Zürcher, 2007).
•Geopolitical Influences: The role of Russia and other external actors often
exacerbated the conflicts, particularly in the Caucasus (de Waal, 2013).
•Global Jihadism: Local conflicts, especially in Chechnya, became incubators for
transnational jihadist networks, which expanded into leaderless resistance models
(Ratelle, JF).
Conclusions and reflections
•These conflicts resulted from a combination of historical grievances, the legacy of
Soviet-era autonomy, and the institutional weakness of post-Soviet states.
•Historical Memories: Ethnic elites invoked historical narratives, such as Chechen
resistance or the Armenian genocide, to fuel their claims to sovereignty.
•Global Impact: The transition of local conflicts into transnational jihadist networks
has transformed the nature of modern insurgencies, making them harder to defeat.
•Future Outlook: Without strong state institutions and balanced geopolitical
engagement, these conflicts and the spread of jihadist networks are likely to persist.