Tatarstan's consulates in the EU? "The collapse of Russia" discussions 1993 vs 2023
Kazan visual. Photo by Vadim Babenko via Unsplash
Since autumn 2022, I have read and listened to several discussions about the risk or possibility (depending on one’s political views) of the collapse of Russia as a nation and its disintegration into a certain number of areas and republics.
These discussions are a part of the larger debates and discussions about the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. It is also a part of the “propaganda war.” The pro-Ukrainian individuals and organizations are using such discussions and narratives for their political ambitions and to support the Ukranian state and community.
Russia’s political map and Tatarstan. Wikicommons
At the moment, most military experts consider that the war, in combination with sanctions, is economically very costly for Russia. Parts of the population oppose the war, while the Russian government is generally still not mobilizing young men from bigger cities and more middle-class areas as Moscow compared to rural and town areas.
Because of the mobilization and all military spending, there is a risk of “political backlash” if Ukraine can win the war by liberating and re-taking Russian-occupied areas, as in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In 2001, Yugoslav/Serbian president and autocrat Slobodan Milosevic was forced out of political power after the civic revolution. One of the main reasons for dissatisfaction was that his regime “lost” the wars in Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Kosovo.
I am unsure what will happen, and making predictions is not the aim of this post. As a historian, I know, among other things, that Russia, for the last 100 years, has had a history of civil/internal wars, uprisings, revolutions, and “low-intensity” conflicts. Some examples are:
1905 revolution, dead protests, and uprisings after the Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905
1917-1923 Russian civil war period with “red, white, green” anarchist, Islamist military units.
1940s Russian Liberation Army, consisting of anti-communist and radical nationalist Russians who cooperated with the Nazi-German regime and fought against the Soviet Union.
1990s and 2000s, internal wars and conflicts, as in Chechnya after the republics’ government tried to politically separate from Russia.
Global history shows that ethnic identifications can be politicized through nationalism and “us vs. them” politics resulting in deadly clashes, conflicts, wars, and even genocides. Russia is seen as a multi-ethnic society since, according to several studies, around 20-25% of the population is considered as ethnic minorities or has some other identification than Russian. Another way to understand Russia is “a federation without federalism” because the nation consisting of 21 republics and several other areas is one of the most centralized in the world regarding governance and institutions.
Following the discussions about the case scenario of Russia’s collapse and disintegration, I remembered the book “Russia First. Breaking With The West” written in 1997 by former Labour (progressive, social-democrats) politician Peter Truscott in the UK. In the book, Truscott wrote about the political developments in Russia during the early 1990s, including developments that can be described as disintegrating, separating, and hostile, as well as similar to behaviors during civil/internal wars. (I know Truscott’s controversial and criminal behaviors, and this post is not about endorsing him but about presenting the text in his book).
In the book, Truscott writes about how a "federation treaty" was signed in March 1992 between all Russian republics and autonomous regions except for Chechnya (Ichkeria), Bashkortostan (Bashkiria), and Tatarstan. The short story is that Chechnya tried to separate from Russia through armed conflict and wars during the 1990s and 2000s, while Bashkiria changed its earlier political ambitions after negotiations. Regarding Tatarstan, there was an almost three-year process of “heavy” negotiations and political conflicts regarding status, governance, sovereignity, and even external relations.
For example, in February 1994, Tatarstan signed "a bilateral agreement" with the government in Moscow that allowed Tatarstan to have its taxation collection system and even "foreign economic relations," meaning, in practice, business and trade agreements with other political entities as sovereign nations. One of the ideas of the contemporary Tatarstan government was to open a consulate in Brussels to cooperate with the European Union. As Truscott writes:
The agreement could also be interpreted differently in Moscow and Kazan (the capital city of Tatarstan), especially in defining who controlled foreign relations and economic and monetary policy developments.
According to Truscott, Among the reason why the cases of Tatarstan (negotiation) and Chechnya (war) were different were factors such as the economic dependence of Tatarstan on the Russian military-industrial complex and weapons industry. Another example was during the 1990s and still today, the case of marriages between Russians and Tatars as a common practice.
During the mentioned period, there was also an organized referendum in Tatarstan. In 1992, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) made a report about the referendum in Tatarstan. CSCE, also known as the Helsinki Commission, is a US federal government agency established in 1976 during the Cold War to work with American government interests regarding human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Europe, including the former Soviet Union. The report stated the following insights and conclusions:
The referendum on sovereignty held in Tatarstan in 1992 was conducted peacefully and democratically, with high voter turnout and a clear result in favor of greater sovereignty for Tatarstan.
The referendum highlighted the complex legal and constitutional issues involved in Tatarstan's quest for greater sovereignty and political autonomy and raised important questions about the future of Russia's federal system.
The report emphasizes the importance of a peaceful and negotiated resolution to the issues involved and the need for greater engagement and dialogue between Tatarstan and the Russian federal government.
The report also stresses the importance of respecting the rights and aspirations of all citizens and communities within the Russian Federation and the need for greater efforts to promote cross-cultural understanding and dialogue in Tatarstan and throughout Russia.
At the same time, the politicization of ethnic identification via religion is still used in Tatarstan by many individuals who favor ethno-nationalist, civic-nationalist, and even Islamist political ambitions of making Tatarstan an internationally recognized sovereign nation. Other political behaviors encounter such behaviors from the side of the Russian central government with interests such as “Putinism” and preserving Russia as a centralized state and authoritarian society.
Earlier examples of such behaviors can be seen in this video via the pro-EU/USA Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty video from 2011. The video mentions that only "nationality" was reported during the census, while "religion" was excluded and was not part of the census procedure.
In 2011, RFE/RL also interviewed Mintimer Shaimilev, the former president of Tatarstan, where he was asked questions about identification, governance, and the future of Russia. Among his answers was that Russia cannot be centralized and democratic at the same time.
Advocates for Tatarstan becoming a sovereign nation, regardless of their ideology, as in cases of Islamism or democracy, have also been advocating their case during the 1990s worldwide. It has been done in countries such as Turkey and also among Tatars as in the USA. This video about the "Declaration of Independence of Tatarstan," published in 2009, is an example of such political activism. The video states that state sovereignty was already declared in August 1990. It should be noted that the declaration of sovereignity was initially made in 1989, almost two years before the official collapse of the Soviet Union.
While there were undoubtedly political tensions between Tatarstan and the Russian Federation during this period, including disagreements over issues such as language rights, sovereignty, and federalism, the situation never escalated to the point of armed conflict. Instead, both sides sought to resolve their differences through negotiations and politics. According to information from Open AI Chat GPT, the situation was that:
“That being said, it's worth noting that there were some small-scale incidents of violence and unrest in Tatarstan during this period, primarily related to ethnic and cultural tensions. For example, there were sporadic clashes between Tatar and Russian groups in Kazan and incidents of ethnic violence in other parts of the republic.
1989-1995 in Tatarstan was a time of significant changes and challenges, especially for individuals and families with mixed Russian and Tatar backgrounds. While there were undoubtedly political and cultural tensions between the Russian and Tatar communities during this period, many families managed to navigate these challenges and maintain positive relationships despite the broader social and political context."
Could a similar situation as in 1993-1994 happen in Russia during 2023-2024?
The future is never fully certain, but history is made at the moment.
Thanks for reading. You can reward and support my writing via:
Pay Pal – lauvlad89@gmail.com
Swish – 0762345677
Algo - NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA – addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH - 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds – vladlausevic
Skycoin – ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM
Resources:
http://www.policy.hu/makarychev/eng17.htm
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/russia-first-9781350183148/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/russian-ethnic-groups.html