The Ingush-North Ossetian Conflict Over the Prigorodny Raion

CEU eTD Collection The Ingush-North Ossetian Conflict over the Prigorodny Raion In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Advisor: Professor Michael Miller Michael Professor Advisor: Conflict in theSuburbs: in Conflict Nationalism Studies Program Central European University European Central Budapest, Hungary Carrie Stephens Master of Arts Master Submitted to Submitted 2009 By CEU eTD Collection ilorpy...... 54 Bibliography Conclusion...... 50 The Soviet Union vs. Russia: The Power Struggle...... 42 The Georgia-South Ossetia ...... 33 Conflict The Chechen-Ingush Divorce...... 24 The Soviet Nationalities Policy ...... 16 and the Deportations ...... 9 Ethnic Conflicts ...... 1 Introduction Table of Contents i CEU eTD Collection Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin in the final years of the Soviet Union; the third is the role between struggleisunder thesecondpower the occurred Stalin; that occurred that deportations Ingush-Ossetian conflict. The first has two parts, the border policies of the Soviet Union and the situation. from that time period this thesis will analyze the role each event playedin creating the conflict OssetiaNorth andIngushetia. Through discourse analysis of andscholarly works publications between conflict the on had have events these effects the at looked have few but documented know what the outcome would be. The factors I identify have all been well studied and any one of them would have prevented it. It’s impossible to delete or insert certain events and involvedfactors increating this conflict. never occurred. What Iwill attempt to do is identify and explore the underlying causes and this territory. They inevitably include the deportations which without may this conflict have over profess Ossetians the and Ingush the both claims historical the explain to further back going surrounding the conflictgoing back to Russianthe in wars Caucasusthe in 19 the conflict with an ethnic component. Most scholarly works on the subject focus on the history it could becalledaterritorial or component with a territorial conflict an ethnic beitcould called anditethnic hasconflict into fallen category the Itcertainly of involves both, territorial conflict. of category Ithasan ways. the into fallen different hasbeen characterized raion Prigorodny The conflict between Ingushetia and North Ossetia over the piece of land called the There are four factors I will explore in the subsequent chapters and I argue thesecreated andIargue chapters in Iwill subsequent the four factors explore There are I am not attempting to state that the factors I identify caused the conflict or the absence of Introduction 1 th century, some CEU eTD Collection Soviet governmentSoviet people the thought of Sovietthe Union would ceasetoidentify an on ethnic He also went tosay that he viewed “federation as a stage on the way to voluntary fusion.” The conflicts.” national above rise to voluntarily learned have will who workers, the of unity closer languageIranian group. 1 they are still people aChristian considered by Russians. the whosettledin Caucasus North in the Ages.Although Middle early to Islam,the some converted the mountainous areas and resettle on the plains. The Ossetians are descendants of the Alans After the Russians established control over the area the Ingush were encouraged to move from Vainakh which ethnic group, are some of originalthe inhabitants of Northern the Caucasus. this land. The Ingush are a people closely related to the Chechens, both belonging to the each side cited unjust actions during the Soviet period that they saw as furthering their claims to 1,440 squarekilometers. Each sideforth claims put that was this “historicaltheir homeland” and Ingush militias and Ossetian troops. The conflict was over a small piece of land that measures four factors and show the role each played in the conflictin the Prigorodny raion. violence in andOctober November 1992.In chapters Iwill subsequent the deconstruct these Ossetia. South and Georgia of Chechen the declaration andindependence of finally is fourth the the between conflict 2 32. Former Soviet Union 1930 Olga Osipova, “North Ossetia and Ingushetia: The First Clash,” in Helene Carrere d’Encausse, Helene Carrere (NewYork and London:Holmes and114.1992), Meier, Lenin claimed in 1918, “The federation of nations is a stage toward a conscious and In October 1992 violence broke out in In October1992violence out broke Prigorodny between Ossetiathe of North raion First Iwill give the history of this region and the key events leading up to the outbreak of ed. Alexei Arbatov et al. (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1997), The Great Challenge, Nationalities andthe Bolshevik State 1917- 2 1 Theirlanguage belongs tothe Managing Conflict in the 2 CEU eTD Collection Totalitarian Dictatorship toPost-Stalinist Society 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University 1968), Press, 5 ethnic groups theirdistricts orregions. own In1924 createdtheIngush Soviets the Autonomous Karachai The Sovietsand Cherkess. proceeded to divide Mountain upthe Republic andgive Soviet Socialist Republic which was comprised of Ossetians, Ingush, Chechens, Balkars, wrong. them nationalities question solved, the events that took place as the Soviet Union was crumbling prove Totalitarian Dictatorship toPost-Stalinist Society 4 Frederick A. Publisher,1967), 42. Praeger didthat diminish not in increased.” buttime demands forces social with created “Nation building GerhardSimon states, stronger. identities some witherfactUnionin away structure of arguethatthe made national these Soviet the development of andnationalities. of weak tribes development ethnographicputgovernment considerations first when tofurther borders drawing the mergebeforeinto they culture. the would Soviet overarching one Union and Russia. Stalin believed it was necessary for national cultures to develop and grow changes wouldnot have had therepercussions they didin 1980’sandthe 1990’s in Sovietthe and all Soviet citizens would identify only on a class level, then the administrative border 3 Republics. Federal Soviet as a union of four republics, the Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Transcaucasian Socialist SovietUnion was nationalaccording to TheUniongroups. Soviet itself was established in 1922 level and begin to identify on a class level. The way the internal borders were drawn in the Gerhard Simon, Richard Pipes, Gerhard Simon, Robert Conquest, Following civil the in war governmentRussia, the set uptheMountain Autonomous The Formationthe of Soviet Union: CommunismandNationalism 1917-1923 Nationalism andPolicy Toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union: From Nationalism andPolicy Toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union: From Soviet Nationalities Policy inPractice 3 If Lenin’s theory was correct, that ethnic identities would fade away 6 Although Brezhnev and Gorbachev declared the declared Gorbachev and Brezhnev Although 5 As we well know, national identities did not 158. 3 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), (NewYork and Washington: 4 For that reason the Soviet 137. 137. CEU eTD Collection 8 Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia,” 7 from city of the Vladikavkaz. Ingush were exiled with 32,100 of inhabitantsthese of Prigorodny the raion and afurther 2,300 also. I will expand on this more later when I cover the deportations. It is estimated that 83,000 claim to the area. Not only did the Ingush suffer at the hands of the Soviets but the Ossetians did Prigorodny fillraion to jobsthe andhouses which had belonged tothedeportees. from the Georgia South to werebrought to Ossetians 26,000 area.An the relocated estimated raion was given to NorthOssetia and repopulated subsequently by Ossetians thatwereforcibly most significant events in the conflict between the Ingush and North Ossetians. The Prigorodny Autonomous Republic disappeared from maps itas though had never existed. This is one of the and the Stavropol Krai.What was left was renamed the Grozny District and the Chechen-Ingush withliquidated much of landthe parceledoutto neighboring Ossetia, North Dagestan, Georgia was Republic Chechen-Ingush The Kyrgyzstan. and inKazakhstan be relocated sent them off to andStalin’s orders rounded upevery Chechen andIngush, herded them waitingonto trains and which allowed more autonomy, although this was almost exclusively cultural autonomy. The Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Region was upgraded an to autonomous republicin 1936, Region in Grozny.with capital the Autonomous in creation of Chechnya Chechen-Ingush the the the capital exclusively of North Ossetia. The following year, 1934 Ingushetia was merged with Ingush and Ossetian Autonomous Regions. In1933 Sovietthe government made Vladikavkaz Region includedwhich the Prigorodny raion. Vladikavkaz wasmade the dual capital both of the Ibid. 643. John O’Loughlin et al., “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern The forcible relocation of the Ossetians to this area has given them what they see as a just On February 23, 1944Sovietsoldiers moved into the Chechen-Ingush Republic on 8 Those who were forcibly relocated to Central Asia were never to Eurasian Geographyand Economics 4 49:6 (2008): 644.49:6 (2008): 7 CEU eTD Collection 9 permanent. This apotential certainly presented Soviet the government. problem to The the Ingush return. As I stated above under Stalin their deportation to Central Asia was had ordered the relocation of Ossetians from South Ossetia with the full intention of notletting Ingush. and Chechen-Ingush Republicwas able thegovernment to offset thenumbers of returning Chechens These new territories were predominately inhabited by Russians soby including them in the compensation. One possible for reason this wastoprovide anethnicin balance republic.the as Republic Chechen-Ingush tothe weregiven Krai Stavropol of the districts three while Ossetia Ingush Republic. The focal point of the war, the Prigorodny raion, remained a part of North by thisparcels into was ofland compensated incorporated newdifferent being the Chechen- Somewere formerlyborders. landsprevious part of that but republicthe a werenotreturned, Ingush Republic was formally The restored. new borders of republicthis differedfrom the republic had beencarved upandnolonger It was existed. notuntil 1957 thatthe Chechen- and Ingush the toreturn to homelands.their When they they foundreturned former their until the1956 that Sovietgovernment enacted adecree that wouldlegally allow the Chechens languagereligion, andculture.” deprivation,limitation of civil rights, disintegration of social ties, and suppression of their relocation and the hardships endured on the journey, when they arrived they faced “physical amongethnic select other whowere deported, groups notonly had endure to physical the be allowed to return to their homelands according toStalin’s orders. The Chechens and Ingush, Aflame Valery Tishkov, Valery The Soviet government was also faced with another issue: the Prigorodny raion. Stalin After Stalin’s death some deportees began to return to theirformer residences. It was not (London: 168. SagePublications, 1997), Ethnicity, Nationalismand Conflict inandafter theSoviet Union: TheMind 9 5 CEU eTD Collection did this piece of land have any other significance? Yes it did, it boasted the most fertile land in issuedIngush were permits. residence residence permits tobeissuedfor the raion. Inthe period between 1982 and 1992only 1,000 obtain landin Prigorodny the Raion when adecree was issued that restricted amountthe of legally for theIngushto iteven more difficult made Ossetia and authorities part of the North the North Ossetian authorities for the return of the Prigorodny raion. The territory remained a raion as this. In fact, there were at leastfour demonstrations in the 1970’s by the Ingush against they Prigorodny sawthe andhomeland,’ located wasnot homes their ‘historical were former returnees from attempting to return to their former homes. This new land was not where their 22,000 Ossetians were resettled in area the between theyears 1956 and 1959. the Soviet government was so afraid of ethnic tensions in the Prigorodny raion that an additional 12 Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia,” 11 10 “actually a continuation of hidden repression, arenunciation of the rehabilitation.” were discriminatory actions these that deter states Valery them. to Tishkov attempted authorities regaining possession of theirformer residencesin the Prigorodny raion although localthe Ossetia. This was nota viable option for the Ingush. Many Ingush did attempt and succeed in Prigorodny the raion andhope avoid to aconflict by leaving the raion in jurisdiction the of North Ossetians. Whether right orwrong, the Soviet government chose to leave the South Ossetians in returning wanted formerto return Ingush to theirbut were residences, these nowoccupied by Aflame Valery Tishkov, Valery John O’Loughlin et al., “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern Ibid. 169. Other than being the Ingush ‘historical homeland’ and the ‘cradle of their civilization,’ their of ‘cradle the and homeland’ ‘historical Ingush the being than Other the deter not did with compensated was Republic Chechen-Ingush the that lands The (London: 169. SagePublications, 1997), Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind Eurasian Geographyand Economics 12 6 49:6 (2008): 644.49:6 (2008): 11 10 Apparently CEU eTD Collection their further cultural, political and economic development was impossible. was development economic and political cultural, further their that believed Ingush the Republic Ingush anautonomous of creation the without that stated also Congress. Inhis presentation he asked for full legal rehabilitation peoplesof deported the and Congress of People’s Deputies brought the issue of creating an Ingush Republic before the livingwere in squarekilometers. 1,440 Ossetia. people in morethat than75,500 North Tishkovstates area densely mostthe populated was one of the many reasons the Ingush put forward in theirfight to regain the Prigorodny raion. republic independent of Chechnya, they had no city serveto as their capital. As we will see this were a part of the Chechen-Ingush Republic this was notan issue, but when they became a republic there was no major city that could serve as a capital or center of a republic. While they Republic was Grozny, which was traditionally the capital of Chechnya. In the Ingush part of the 15 14 13 as buildings property. personal Supreme Soviet passeda resolution in 1990 that prohibited selling and purchasing houses and this,fearing Ingush would attempt to move back to their former homes, the North Ossetian people violently by resettled from sufferedillegalStalin and criminal In actions. response to issued those a declaration acknowledging that 1989 the USSRSupreme November, Soviet republic with a sustainable economy without this territory.” most important the of portion of loss the agrarian the complex. For meant the Ingush, it was quite impossiblecontrol tocreate their a from raion Prigorodny the of part of withdrawal Ossetia, “ForNorth the Tishkov located states, there. industries were of areaandanumber the Soviet Press “The Congress of USSR People’s Deputies, Verbatim Report,” Ibid. 169. Ibid. 169-170. In late 1980’s the populationthe thisof raion had dramatically itand increased became 24:41 (July 24:41(July 17. 12, 1989), 14 In 1989 Kh. A. Fargiyev, adeputy in the USSR 7 13 The capital of the Chechen-Ingush Current Digest ofthe Post 15 Later that year in CEU eTD Collection the outbreak of violence between Ingush and Ossetian militias in 1992. militias Ossetian and Ingush between violence of outbreak the lands they lost when they were deported. These factors set the stage for the events that led up to deportations. Thisadded another aspect totheconflict; itgave the Ingush legal a right tothose the before where they were to return should borders thatthe stated but actions Stalin’s which wrongs notonly passed the of Repressed Peoples LawonRehabilitation of the recognized Ingush.In 1991 changed, that April on 26, 1991,theRussian Congress of People’s Deputies As of that time the governmenthad made no attempt to return the Prigorodny raion to the 8 CEU eTD Collection 16 of returning conflict; to a complex ethnic geography; andmountainous terrain. opportunities to finance the conflict; if a region or country was recently at war there is a high risk level of economic development; a weak state or the collapse of the state; there must be low internal a riskof war: increaseasociety’s that lists Zurcher six factors Christoph conflict. violent of likelihood the to contribute that factors the among agreement is some There conflicts. whenviolence occurred itdidin 1992? that what were landreasons so the piece of 1944, since contested the over jurisdiction had not have Ingush The occurred. violence the why bequestioned can it region the of context the of the region, the Caucasus, the history of the area, and the actors who participated. Looking at understand this itis necessary lookto at the bigger picture, to look at the conflict in the context out. with the collapse of communism alone simply cannot explain why violent conflicts have broke fore tothe came animosities andseated deep hatreds” holds “ancient theory states that the Brown hatreds” put forth often in the media has been shown to hold little or no credibility. Michael E. “ancient of theory The conclusion. same the to lead always not do situations different two to engageinconflict violenthave been andlisted studied, factors Similar debated. existthatin Caucasus 17 Ethnic Conflict, are present. factors not all these Ossetia of North and Ingushetia between conflict of the context Michael E. Brown, “The Causes of Internal Conflict: An Overview,” in Christoph Zurcher, Christoph 16 This holds true in the conflict that exists between North Ossetia and Ingushetia. In order Ethnic conflicts are not simpledefine arenot even leadEthnicthat toThefactors or understand. conflicts groups First we mustlook at some theories of ethnic conflicts and underlying causes for these (New York and London: New York University Press, 2007), 4-5. ed. Michael E. Brown, et al. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 3. The Post-Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict and Nationhood in the Ethnic Conflicts 9 Nationalism and 17 When put in the CEU eTD Collection deportations which I will look at in a later chapter. is but afactor, itis afactor due to Sovietthe government’s border manipulations and the there was not asimilar build up of weapons on the Ingush side. The ethnic geography of the area Ossetian side to arm the illegal ‘people’s militia’ of North Ossetia. Russianthe governmentdelivered personnel armored carriers, and machine tanks guns the to develophere due to the lack of access to arms on the Ingush side. According toValery Tishkov not asecurity or could in dilemma concerns security later chapter. Intrastate further a that Gorbachev and Yeltsin I will argue is one of the major factors for this conflict and Iwill analyze geography. weakness The of SovietUnionthe and struggle ensuing the power between violence. to explain escalation werepresentandcanhelp the factors 18 perceptual. states the following factors: structural, political, economic and social, and cultural and factors that contribute to conflict orwhy some situations are more predisposed to conflict. He stepped ingovernment and troops conflict violenthas not returned areasince to the 1992. over this piece of land and the violence was subsequently put down when the Russian contributed to the conflict. The Ingush did nothave the resources to finance a protracted war Prigorodny the inraion a way was notthat permitted under Soviet the governmentcertainly The recent collapse of the Soviet Union which allowed the Ingush to voice their grievances over 19 Ethnic Conflict, Aflame Michael E. Brown, “The Causes of Internal Conflict: An Overview,” in Valery Tishkov, Valery (London: Sage Publications, 1997),176-178. The structural factors include weak states, intrastate security andethnic concerns security intrastate include weakstates, factors The structural Michael E. Brown cites four sets of factors that have been singled out as underlying 18 When applying this to the Ingush-Ossetian conflict some, but not all of these ed. Michael E. Brown, et al. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 4-5 Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand After the Soviet Union: The Mind 10 19 Due to lack of resources Nationalism and CEU eTD Collection problematic group histories. Again the Ossetians were not responsible for the discriminatory there. located industries and of the Vladikavkaz authorities butit did increase theirneed for Prigorodny the raion which included the bankright of Chechnya. territory on the remained that centers cultural and asadministrative aswell enterprises industrial major without Ingush is economic problems. When Chechnya declared independence, left this Ingushthe systems and economic development. Of these factors the only one that could be applied to the discriminatory against Ingush the also. The restrictions placed on residence permits in the Prigorodny raion could be seen as theirs. isrightfully claim they that back land the given never were they rehabilitated, were they under Stalin certainly had an exclusionary and discriminatory tone. For the Ingush, although The UnionSoviet have notdid anexclusionary ideology deportationsthe but thattookplace Chechens and Russians although the Ingush were one of the titular majorities in the republic. 21 20 occupied by Ingush. Prigorodny raion only five of 53leadingthe positions in party and sovietorganizations were of power could be seen as discriminatory against the Ingush, whether intentional or not. In the in the Soviet Union, none that held up one ethnic group over another, the allocations of positions ideologies, andintergroup politics. Although were nodiscriminatory there political institutions (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1996), 211. Leokadia Drobizheva, Ibid.,160 The final cultural factor, andincludes perceptual, patterns of cultural discrimination and economic discriminatory problems, economic include factors social and economic The The political include factors discriminatory political institutions, exclusionary national 20 The top positions in the Chechen-Ingush Republic were occupied by occupied were Republic Chechen-Ingush in the positions top The Ethnic Conflict in the Post Soviet World: Case Studies and Analysis 21 This was not imposed by the Russian, Soviet or Ossetian 11 CEU eTD Collection 22 country should be run. own; and internal, elite level factors such as power struggles and ideological contests over how a decisions by deliberate a government totrigger innearby conflicts purposes of areas for their level factors such as a sudden influx of refugees; external, elite level factors such as discrete, level factors such as problematic ethnicgeography and patterns of discrimination; massexternal, violence? Michael E. Brown states four factors that can trigger internal conflicts: internal,mass government. Soviet by the made subsequently changes history between problematic groups twothe stems directly from and deportations the border control over the region which meant they could control who received residence permits. The enemy in this The conflict. Ossetians lived in Prigorodny the raion and they had administrative acts under Stalin, but as the group who inhabited theirformer territory, they were seen as the Ethnic Conflict, factors; weapons; weakness; of region:cheap and state risk-increasing presence readily available exclusively relate emergencethe to ofviolence in Caucasusand formerthe Yugoslavia the itisbecause proven. not government Russian the of involvement the of theory the count I don’t region. in the violence to for escalation the couldpresent account that were factors the of atleast two factors, trigger Ingush hoping theChechens would uparms take todefendthe Ingush. According Brown’s to Russianthe governmentarmed the North Ossetians and initiating promoted violence against the conflict and there was a sudden influx of South Ossetian refugees. There are also theories that and North Ossetia. As I stated earlier the ethnic geography of the region was a factor in the Michael E. Brown, “The Causes of Internal Conflict: An Overview,” in These highlight underlying factors in a conflict, but what contributes to the onset of onset the to contributes what but inaconflict, factors underlying highlight These Jan Koehler and Christoph Zurcher list four factors that are more specific in that they ed. Michael E. Brown, et al. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 15-16. 22 Several of these factors were present in the conflict between Ingushetia 12 Nationalism and CEU eTD Collection a whole range of different conflicts,it is often very specific local dynamics that provide the key Wolff also states that, “Although there are some general trends and commonalities that cut across each saw the other asacompromising their right toinhabitand control Prigorodny the raion. side did notform militias and take up arms because of an ancient hatred, they did so because violence such as power and material gain. This is visible in the Ingush-Ossetian conflict. Each 23 coexisting ethnic groups.” Stefan Wolff argues that, “Violence does not spontaneously erupt between otherwise peacefully Ingush,Ossetians North and South Ossetians which played amajor role inigniting the violence. is one of the most densely populated areas in Russia that, before the conflict, was inhabited by makeup of Prigorodny raion is one of the main factors in what drove the two sides to conflict. It which broke out in the area in the last days of the Soviet Union and after its collapse. The ethnic was soconflict short lived. Russian military but this was not enough to fight a protracted war. This could be a reason the North Ossetia did notpossess these. As stated above North Ossetia was given weapons by the installations that became their property after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ingushetia and hadwere noreadily weapons,unliketheUnion Republics military available Soviet that there However conflict. of this factor adefinitive theareaare imposed on government Soviet involved. factors other many has Ossetia North and Ingushetia between situation The violence. its Union waning yearsoffall haveandto the Soviet the contributed occurrence these after and the legacy of ethno-territorial units. In many of the conflicts that have broken out in the 2007), 3.2007), Stefan Wolff, Stefan The complex ethnic makeup of the North Caucasus was factor inmany makeupof a North conflicts the the ethnic The complex of Yes, the weakness of the Soviet Union was a factor; and the ethno-territorial units the Ethnic Conflict: A Global Perspective 23 Hegoes on to say that most often there are other factors that cause 13 (NewYork:Oxford University Press, CEU eTD Collection 24 territory and muchof infrastructurethe they saw necessary for an autonomous republic. This in Gorbachev era. The secession of Chechnya from Russia which then left the Ingush without changes that put in place hostilities that came to the surface with the advent of glasnost in the this: theethno-territorial system in put place by Sovietthe governmentand subsequent border escalate toviolence in1992? fourI haveOctober majorfactors identified contributed that to the conflict broke out between Ingushetia and North Ossetia. What then caused the conflict to deportations. and ultimately the right for the Ingush to reclaim the homes and property they lost due to the conflict apart from the others in the region. Their fight was over internal administrative borders tojoin Ingush-Ossetian the This in from sets Armenia. alone Azerbaijan order secede wanted to united with North Ossetia; Abkhazia wanted independence from Georgia and Nagorno Karabakh from Russia; South Ossetia wanted independence from Georgia in order to join Russia and be independence wanted goal:was the in Chechnya often secession Caucasusmost the conflicts Raion. Prigorodny in the lies homeland historic their that claim also and they should not have to suffer another injustice of being forcibly removed. The Ossetians deportations and never returned. The Ossetians claim they were forcibly resettled on the area historic homeland. They feel the land had been unfairly taken away from them after the Prigorodny raion. conflict.” to understandingaparticular Ibid.,5. Of the factors identified that contribute to ethnic conflict, only some were present when This conflict was unique in the fact that there was no secession movement. In the other For the Ingush, they saw the Ossetians as standing in the way of the return of their 24 This is exactly the case in the conflict over the 14 CEU eTD Collection deportations that occurred under Stalin. occurred that deportations identify as the foundation of this conflictis the border policies of the Soviet Union and the to do about the fact that this area was now inhabited by Ossetians. The first factor and what I Prigorodny raion back to the Ingush. This law did not address how this was to be done or what It restored the borders to where they were before the deportations which would have given the where prior they to stood deportations.the TheRussian under Yeltsin,government, just did this. recognizing deportations the werecriminaldid that land but restore not orborders rights to government and Russian government. The Soviet government, under Gorbachev, passed a law existed between struggle that Gorbachev andtheand Yeltsin laws passedby Sovietthe power isthe of violence tothe outbreak I identify contributing factor last Theas chapter. later some scholars claim or whether they went there for other reasons is something I will explore in a to the tension in the area. Whether they were settled their by the North Ossetian government as conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia of which many settled in Prigorodny the raion added turn increased their demand for the return of the contested land. The influx of refugees from the 15 CEU eTD Collection Frederick A. Publisher,1967), 24. Praeger 28 27 36.1997), 26 http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history//ussr/government/1917/11/02.htm (London: I.B.Tairis &CoLtd, 1985). Accessed onlineat 25 could once again focus on Caucasusthe and had military the at power their disposal they this so they could turn their attention and troops to a Polish invasion. When the Bolsheviks the treaty the treaty insigned with Georgiarecognized independence. Georgian 1920 that autonomy or even independence in some of the borderlands of Russia. One example of this was determination that the Bolsheviks were willing to allow the national minorities of Russia. Bolshevik Party regardless of their national origin. arrangement for the country. Third he saw democratic centralism as binding on all parts of the not wish to secede, it could not have any autonomy at all. He was opposed to a federal separation and the formation of an independent state.” stating, “The right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, even to the point of Peoplethe of Russia,” andin againthis vowed they theirto self-determination commitment by proletarian proletarian class struggle would alwaysbe paramount.” on his liberal policy of self-determination. “First, the interests of the proletariat and of the RobertConquest, Ibid.,36. Ben Fowkes, Vladimir Illych Lenin, Illych Vladimir While the Bolshevik Party was fighting the Civil War they allowed certain measures of Civil Warthey certain the Party allowed was fighting While theBolshevik On 1917 November 15, Bolshevikthe Party published the “Declaration of Rightsthe of The Soviet Nationalities Policy and the Deportations The Disintegration oftheSoviet Union Soviet Nationalities Policy inPractice A DocumentaryHistory ofCommunism, 16 27 These conditions radically altered self- 25 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 26 Leninreservations three himself placed Second, he thought that if a nation did nation if a that he thought Second, (NewYork and Washington: ed. Robert V. Daniels 28 They allowed CEU eTD Collection Frederick A. Publisher,1967), 25. Praeger and, in view of this, federation represented a step forward from the division of the working from isolation another, one and complete secession in a of state complete Russia wereactually of nationalities anumberthe of Revolution “at October the the timecountry of that, a over change of opinion was the state that the Bolsheviks inherited after the Revolution. They took 30 29 principle – it weakens economic ties; it is a pattern unfitfor a single State.” any opposed to federation,typein infact “We of federation 1913 hestated, on areagainst Russianthe government state the formedfederation. Prior a to1917Lenin was vehemently policy of creating animosity among ethnic groups has been called “divide and rule.” secessions among ethnic groups, especially those who had their own ethno-territories. Their ethnic minorities in The Sovietrepublics. government did thistoavoid anuprisings and possible of in pockets areascreating some did opposite the exactly The Soviets states. Ratner unity as economic.” and administrative drive the devolution of power to or its sharing with sub state entities in the first place – political, in several ways based on the state’s particular objectives. These goals are precisely those that boundaries in courseof the nation-buildingthe process. The drawing of such lines unity fosters in Georgia. marchedinto Tbilisi months ten after treaty the had been signed andestablished a regimeSoviet 31 American Journal ofInternational Law Stephen R. Ratner, “Drawing a Better Line: Uti Ibid.,24-5. RobertConquest, With secession and independence no longer a viable option for the national minorities in minorities national the for option a viable longer no independence and secession With internal abolished andredrawn have states “Numerous created, states, As Stephen Ratner 29 Soviet Nationalities Policy inPractice 30 The Soviets did redraw theirinternal borders, but not to foster 90:4(October 1996):603. 17 Possidetis and the Borders of New States,” (NewYork and Washington: 31 The reason for this CEU eTD Collection 36 (London: Mansell, 127. 1990), Soviet NationalityPolicies, Ruling Ethnic Groupsin theUSSR, 35 Ethnic Groupsinthe USSR, 34 Frederick A. Publisher,1967), 42. Praeger What studyfoundthe was only cent 11.4 per of border districts wouldbe have to transferred to autonomous regions of Russianrepublicthe toachieve the most homogenous unitpossible. astudyordered of resultsthe andfor ethnographers toredraw internalthe borders of the first census administered in the Soviet Union was completed in 1926. The Soviet government the basis of nationality.” astate comprisedterritories substructure autonomous created authorities ofnumerous derived on to. “By applying concept the of withinself-determination federation a system, Soviet the was assigned territory the that minorities ethnic inmind.The areaswerenamedafter minorities oblasts and autonomous okrugs. Within RussianRepublicthe there wereautonomous sovietsocialist republics, autonomous Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Socialist Transcaucasian Federal Republics. Soviet groups. The SovietUnion itself was established in1922asaunion fourof republics, the idealthe solution during the interim of merging.period in nationalities would wither away and amerging of them sowould occur a federation wouldbe federation as an answer to theirnational problem. The Bolsheviks believed that the differences 33 32 masses of the nationalities to their closer union, their amalgamation.” Ibid.,135. Lee Schwartz, “Regional Population Redistribution and National Homelands in the USSR,” in Allan Kagedan, “Territorial Units as Nationality Policy,” in as Policy,” Units Nationality Allan“Territorial Kagedan, RobertConquest, Ibid.,25-6. The Soviet officials drew the borders to contain nationalities as well as they could. The national to according was Union Soviet in the drawn were borders internal the way The Soviet Nationalities Policy inPractice 35 ed. Henry R. Huttenbach (London: Mansell, 166. 1990), 34 The borders of these areas were drawn with national 18 (NewYork and Washington: Soviet Nationality Policies, Ruling ed. Henry R. Huttenbach 32 They looked at a 33 36 CEU eTD Collection governmentdecide which andclans would tribes fuse togethercreate newto nationalities. helped the claims She ethnographers nationalities. the concerning evolution” of “state-sponsored Soviet Union. importance played amajor part in some of the conflicts the evolved during the lastyears of the nations by assigning a nationality to every. The national identities that were given such assigned a national homeland. I will show that in many cases the Soviet government reified I will first look at how these nationalities were decided upon and what the criteria were for being the SovietUnion consciousness.” effective and articulate national political and intellectual elite, and developed a shared national within more became nationalities acquired ‘homelands,’ consolidated their demographically wouldthese boundaries become lessand important eventually vanish. “many Instead lose their ethnic identity andview themselves andeach accordingother class. to Eventually Azerbaijan. Nakichevan oblast in Armenia, which had an Azeri majority but did not share any borders with taken into account because it did notshare any borders with Armenia. This was similar with not was the majority, Armenian an had which Azerbaijan, in oblast Nagorno-Karabakh the Therefore governmenthadSoviet an job done accurate borders. delineating internal the of 38 37 group. of titular level the the increase concentration of Ronald Suny, Gregor Ibid.,135. In her book her In The Soviet governmentbelieved theindividuals livingin these wouldareas eventually The one major problem study with this itwas that only looked atcontiguous borders. 38 (Stanford: Stanford University 125. 1993), Press, Before Ilook at the effects of the Soviet policy of creating national homelands Empire ofNations The Revengeofthe Past, Nationalism,Revolution, and theCollapse of Francine argues Hirsch Sovietthe officials pursuedapath 19 37 The results of this study show that the CEU eTD Collection upon a way to assign nationality to those who did not know. Some scientists advocated a lacking national Inorder consciousness. to classify peoplethe the census takershad toagree were todecide everyone’s ethnicity “’backward’the peopleseven (individuals andentire groups) by conducted Commissionthe for theStudy of Tribal Composition and through censusthe they war. civil of the circumstances due tothe unreliable were seenas nationalitythe every of citizen.Soviet There had been previous censuses in 1920 and1923but conflict. They each lay claims to a piece of land that at different times belonged to each of them. groups. between isOneanimosity competingthe ethnic the Ingush-Ossetian suchexample land to tied them by name. Attempts ataltering borders the of these regionsautonomous created communism.” under in merge together would –which,atsome nations future, pointthe socialist-era into nationalities and nationalities, into tribes and clans feudal-era transform to development: historical government wasattemptinggovernment usher“to the of modernanddevelopment nations.” ‘construct’ 39 nationalities of blocks evolutionism was premisedthus beliefthe on that‘primordial’ were ethnic groups buildingthe State-sponsored groups. these for cultures and languages national official and territories national “Ethnographers, along with local elites, then worked along with the Soviet government tocreate 41 40 Union Francine Hirsch, Francine Ibid.,107. Ibid.,8-9. (Ithaca and London:Cornell University 8-9. 2005), Press, The 1926 census was thefirst census administered by Soviets thatattemptedthe torecord In the end there was no fusion so there were national groups that were given a piece of The reason she puts forward for the government policy of state-sponsored evolution is the evolution state-sponsored of policy government the for forward puts she reason The Empire ofNations, EthnographicKnowledge andtheMaking the ofSoviet 40 and on the assumption that the state could intervene in the natural process natural in the intervene could state the that assumption the on entire 20 population through population through Marxistthe timeline of 39 41 The 1926census was CEU eTD Collection 44 43 42 passport. according to the nationality of the person’s parents and was recorded in his or her internal circumscribed. A person could no longer declare his or her own nationality; it was to be decided NKVD passport decree that went into effect in April 1938, national self-definition was Caucasusthe duringWorld War II. The internal system passport inwas introduced 1932, butan were seen and traitors untrustworthy.inas This was evident place deportations thatthe took in placed on it. wereseen asloyal agreatimportance Certain other government nationalities while people. Chechen the of name in the movement a was there time first the them by Sovietthe government. When demandedChechnya independencefrom itRussia, was along clan or family lines. There was no overarching ethnic identity until it was assigned to people of Caucasusthe identifiedas a not Chechen oranIngush aBalkar,or buttheyidentified using supplemental the questions each had.census taker tribal levels but not as a member of a nation were given a nationality which was decided upon Tajiks were Sunni and IranianswereShiites. as nationalities, between distinguish help could that because in Turkestan important as seen that and also asked supplemental questions which varied by region. For example religion was system of asking the person directly to identify his or her nationality, the census taker recorded nationality should be a “reflection of group consciousness.” formula that used to religion, language and anthropological type where others believed Ibid.,275. Ibid.,112-3. Ibid.,110. Nationality capable Union the because “withering Soviet in away” was not of the Nationality This is important becauseincorporation prior to into Sovietthe Union,many the of 44 43 People who had previously identified on clan or 21 42 In the end they decided upon a CEU eTD Collection 23, 1944, entirethe Ingush and Chechen populations wererounded upand sentby train to nationalities.” mobilizable politically secular, conscious, of development the fostered that processes initiated and institutions asetof created in fact had nations between differences andthe hadnationalism set toovercome out that state Ronald Suny Grigor “nation-makingclaims, in USSR the withinoccurred aunique context:a the SovietUnion 45 them as if international to regard come almost “could regions ones.” were they autonomous these is that lines national those along borders delineating and state multi-national in a identities independence and whichwouldOne not. problem Ratner identifies with creating strong national independent nations. The only was problem deciding which autonomous areas would receive encouraged, nations toflourish buttherest of scenariothe did not play out. nations and the emergence of people whoidentify only as a class. They allowed, in fact in their passports. The Soviet Union succeeded only half way along their path to the merger entry of nationality the or ethno-territory their be through this whether nationality, their of reminded the national identity to wither away,it could notbecause Soviet citizens were constantly declare himself or herself “Soviet” in his or her passport. While the government was waiting for Yugoslav identity, there was no such option in the Soviet Union. No one had the option to stamped in their passport. Unlike in Yugoslavia, where citizens had the option of declaring a itneverSovietto escapetheiritoccur. citizenspossible to being allowed were nationality with 46 American Journal ofInternational Law Stephen R. Ratner, “Drawing a Better Line: Uti Ronald Suny, Gregor The other part of this factor is the deportations that took place under Stalin. On February All the time the Soviet government was promoting this fusion of nations they never made never they nations of fusion this promoting was government Soviet the time the All When Sovietthe Union apart itbroke seemed natural thethat Union becomerepublics (Stanford: Stanford University 126. 1993), Press, The Revengeofthe Past, Nationalism,Revolution, and theCollapse of 90:4(October 1996):605. 46 22 Possidetis and the Borders of New States,” 45 As CEU eTD Collection factors I identify as creating this Iidentify conflict. this factors as creating conflictwould that ensue between Ingushthe and Ossetians. This is firstthe factorin four the nationality, with coupled deportationsthe thattook place in lays1944, thefoundation for the Ingush. the for especially contention of point a remained ethno-territories, toother wasgiven landthat the deportations, the made after changes see ethnicity as it was supposed to wither away. The fact that it did notmeans that those border All citizens of the Soviet Union were to identify themselves as Soviet citizens, they were not to changesto plan,weremade border that thedeportations have the after wouldnot had any affect. in which theconflictwascentered 1992. itThis is piece land deportationsaffectedtheconflict:createdacontested the how of around inrehabilitated 1957, they were not given back all of landthe they had previously occupied. played in creating the conflict between them and the Ossetians. After the Ingush were unclear. Iam notfocusing on why Stalin chose to deport the Ingush, but merely the role it may never be known. In fact, the reasoning behind many of Stalin’s order and decisions is of individuals certain isThe truereason for ludicrous. weredeported why ethnicgroups specific whodid and fight cooperate sidethe on of Germans,the punishing an entire for population acts territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic. The second is that even if there were some individuals II. There are two major problems with this reason,first the Nazis never fully occupied the Central Asia. The reason given for this was collaboration with the Nazis during the World War The way the leaders of the Soviet Union drew the internal borders and their theory on if part according was that it nationality had gone important of Soviet policy the The most 23 CEU eTD Collection that groups with groups that diminishedand status whoare subject todiscrimination in dominated more significant role than previously believed. He states, “We have enough evidence to prove theory that certain aspects of behavioral psychology and socio-psychological mechanisms play a Federation. Russian the within borders is administrative over fought being case of secession from a larger state, the indivisibility of the territory is still evident. What is is unwilling to renege on their demands that the territory be transferred. Although this is nota homeland of their people. North Ossetia is unwilling to cede any of the territory and Ingushetia each claims the Prigorodny Raion as vital to their survival; each claims it was the historical state. of the tothesurvival can beseenasathreat to exist asadistinctgroup. States are bound by borders, and any to change bordersattempt those particular piece of territory as a defining attribute of theiridentity, without which they may cease ethnic group and the state; each believes their survival depends on it. Ethnic groups often see a indivisible from rest of the state. The contested territory is seen as vital bothto groups, the territory it occupies and if the state is unwilling to allow this,if the state considers the territory as conflicts. why donot. others She looks at indivisibilitythe inof territory violentethnicunderstanding survival. Inher Monica book, Duffy looks at Toft why some become ethnicdisputes and violent for their landnecessary this are as why see Ingush apparent reasons the the or obvious not 48 Indivisibility of Territory 47 Ibid.,19. Monica Duffy Toft, Valery Tishkov looks at a sociological approach to ethnic conflict and puts forth the The most obvious part of this conflictis that itis over a specific piece land.of What is 47 In her theory violence is likely if the ethnic minority demands sovereignty over the The Geographyof Violence: Ethnic Identity,Interests andthe (Princeton and (Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003). The Chechen-Ingush Divorce 24 48 In the case of Ingushetia and North Ossetia, CEU eTD Collection 52 49 demographic, political, orcultural conditions would normally notlead toconclusions.” objective when even existence, own their for fears express often quite environments 51 50 Nations University 65.Press, 1996), Power intheContemporary World, charged the government. In addition, their nationality was demonized when they as a people were territory, anationality under the Soviet system, and borders that were changed more than once by place in Ingushetia. Due to Russian and then Soviet expansion the Ingush people were given a changed duetoamore developed society. society backward a when found usually are movements ethnicist these that say to on goes interests. than pragmatic rather Toft. The struggle for territory someto ethnic groups is from symbolicthe meaningof landthe also discusses the symbolic meaning territory can have for an ethnic group, in agreement with members and whichstrata have become dangerously byconflictingdivided pressures.” within, at renewing a community’s forms and traditions, and at reintegrating a community’s “whose activities and efforts are aimed at resisting perceived threats from outside and corrosion raion. part of their historical homeland. So to them it did not counterbalance loss of the Prigorodny which returned.was not This land extra hadmeaning nofor Ingush;the they notsee did itas a compensated with landextra in northern the portion of republicthe for Prigorodny the raion rehabilitation by government Sovietthe and Checheno-Ingush the Republic reinstated, they were Ibid. 50. Valery Tishkov, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Context of Social Science Theories,” in Anthony D. Smith, D. Anthony Ibid.,65-66. Anthony Smith puts forth the term the forth puts Smith Anthony en masse with collaboration with the Nazis and subsequently deported. This The Ethnic Origins ofNations 50 This is visible in the case of Ingushetia, after their ed. Kumar Rupesinghe and Valery Tishkov (Tokyo: United 52 ethnicism This bears some resemblance to what has taken 25 (Oxford: Blackwell Press, 50. 1988), to describe movement to amore collective Ethnicity and 49 51 He He CEU eTD Collection Ossetians in North Ossetia. Valery Tishkov claims the Ingush “have lived with a humble status by and Republic Chechen-Ingush in the Russians and Chechens by held were positions party and butin ethnic group they powerful each republic.Themost were underrepresented government raion and which Vladikavkaz, had served as capital the of Ingushthe Republic in 1930’s. the Chechen-Ingushthe Republic, this only more urgency added in theirfightfor Prigorodny the in had itthey a was lacking they because andwhen city,were apart real which of Grozny capital inrepublic Thecreation Russia. of borders theissuetheirrepublic brought foreto own of the Chechen National Congress came to power in 1991 forced the Ingush to create their own the and Dudayev Dzhokar after especially republic, the of government in the representation of leadership in the Chechen-Ingush Republic after it was reinstated in 1957. Second, how the lack republic in Russia independent of Chechnya.will First I look rolethe the Ingush played in the There are several aspects Iwill look at which caused the Ingush to create an autonomous to “shared” arepublicprior deportations in andoncethe itwas reinstated againwhen 1957. Ingush and the next is their situation with Chechnya. As stated above Chechnya and Ingushetia demoralization of the deportations. a way to make this wrong right, they want this land back. The return of this land is tied to the as from landaway them they when Thisweredeported, wastaken as adefeatedpeople. piece of Ingush their name and as their historic homeland, without this piece landof they see themselves the return of this contested piece of land. They see this piece of land as the land that gave the demonization was something that came to be a part of their identity and has given importance to In both In both Chechen-Ingushthe Republic andOssetia North the Ingush werelargest third the There are other factors involved in regaining control of the Prigorodny raion for the 26 CEU eTD Collection 53 spheres.” in socio-economic and political the Aflame 1991 Dudayev control took of televisionthe station and established anational guard. In in August year, following The month. same the Republic Chechen-Ingush the of sovereignty of a future republicthe technically partof.were still they in the choice no and no representation government, proper no with Ingush the leaving Ingushetia creation the independentbefore Dzhokar Dudayev Chechnya declared of of Republic the in their republic. The Ingush were in a republic that did not take them intoconsideration. to declaring independence from Russia, leadership the paid attention little to the Ingush minority and beganon ita path state a sovereign declared Republic of Chechen-Ingush leadership the the When republic. own their wanted Ingush the reason only the not was Republic Chechen-Ingush to create an autonomous republic inRussia thatwas independent of Chechnya andOssetia. North groups while they were put in a subordinate or second class position and this has fuelled the need pieceland. of They see themselves as havinglived in by dominated republics ethnicother former homes in the Prigorodny Raion, has strengthened their resolve to obtain control over this especially regard restrictions tothe with the Ingushfaced when attempting toreturn to their Chechens and Russiansin Chechen-Ingushthe Republic and Ossetians in Ossetia.North withbrought itaccess to distributionthe frommoneyof and goods center,the wereoccupied by makeThis didnot for seats the fact –the republican the up leadership that true of power –which governmentpositions in administrativethe units which were inhabited by a majority of Ingush. Valery Tishkov, Valery The Chechen National Congress, which was establishedin November 1990declared the in the government and party the of levels upper the in representation of lack The This coupled with feelingsthe beingof second classcitizens in Sovietthe Union, (London: 160. SagePublications, 1997), Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind 53 The Ingush did occupy the majority of 27 CEU eTD Collection participate in election. the participate Ingush Republic but,again remaining apart of Russia. republic which would remain apartof Russia andthe wasfor other preserving Chechen- the the Ingush. Two groups formed on the Ingush side, one group was for the creation of an Ingush the republican leadership was concentrated in the hands of Chechens who paid little attention to the Post-Soviet Press 56 http://www.caucasus.dk/publication3.htm. Funch Hansen (Copenhagen: Danish Refugee Council, accessed 1999), at: Displacement intheCaucasus: Perspectives,Challenges and Responses, Chechnya Part 1: Conflict Assessment and Pre-War Escalation,” in 55 63. 54 Ingush listed the Sunja Raion, which was one of the territories claimed by both sides as officially borders drawn by just Soviets the asin conflictthe Prigorodny over the In 1989 raion. the the from stem Ingushetia and Chechnya between issues borders The borders. delineated formally When Ingushetia was finally created as an autonomous republic in Russia, it did nothave Prigorodny raion,facing Ingushetia was dispute aterritory with Chechnya overseveral regions. in the creation of Ingushetia. In addition to the territorial dispute with North Ossetia over the holding areferendum and then passing alawit. creating The issue ofborders loomed verylarge of remainingRussia. apart on the creation of an Ingush Republic within Russia. 92.5 percent of voters voted in favor the republic to the executive committee of the CNC which Dudayev was chairman of. September Chechen 1991the National Congress (CNC) passed a resolution intransferring power Ali Kazikhanov,“92.5% Cast Their Votes for aSovereign Ingushetia,” Marta-Lisa Magnusson, “The Failure of Conflict Prevention and Management: The Case of Amjad M. Jaimoukha, In 1991when Dudayev was president elected of republicthe the did Ingush evennot 49:43(January 22. 8, 1992): The Chechens:AHandbook 55 56 It wasn’t until after this election that the Ingush held a referendum Creating a republic for Ingushetia was notnearly as simple as 28 (London (London and NewYork: Routledge, 2005), Conflict andForcedConflict ed. Tom Trier and Lars The Current Digestof 54 Again CEU eTD Collection 42:43 (November 1991):14. toBarracks,” Guardsmen Return National Congress 58 Moshe Gammer(Londonand NewYork: Routledge, 2008),140. Caucasus,” in Caucasus,” 57 back remain they hadbelieved to by buta partof from Russia, Chechnyaseparating they real power in the republic, remaining with Chechnya was not an option. In order to get theirland was there a movementamong Ingush the tokeep the republic united. With Dudayev holding the best hope for fulfilling their wishes was the creation of an Ingush Republic in Russia although they would also be a part of a republic where the leadership was again filled by Chechens. Their returned. If they remained apartof Chechnya not only lostwould they not regain the territory be would land the that hope given were they borders pre-deportation the restored have should their chance toregain control of Prigorodny the Raion. When Russia passedlaw the which remained apartof from Chechnya which was vowing toseparate they Russia beforfeitingwould real choice other than becoming an autonomous region within Russia. They believed that if they a partof IngushRepublic. the republics. Chechen Republic outside the RSFSR, they wanted the same rights as the other 15 union dissolution of the Soviet Union Dudayev and the CNC wanted the creation of a sovereign Russia. This was in opposition to what the leadership of the republic wanted. Before the was one group of Ingush promoted whoidea the ofaunified Chechen-Ingush Republic within Chechnya, this increased theirneed Prigorodny for the raion. claims on what the Ingush saw as Ingush territory. Facing the prospect of losing territory to Chechen territory. The Ingush were facing two different republics on each side that were making Timur Muzayev, “Checheno-Ingushetia: DzhokarDudayev Agrees toaDialogue. Chechen Victor A. Shnirelman, “The Orstkhoy Revival: Identity and Border Dispute in the Northern Before the referendum on the creation of an autonomous Ingush Republic was held there 58 They did notwant to remain a part of Russia. The Ingush in effect were left with no Ethno-Nationalism, Islam and theState intheCaucasus: Post Soviet Disorder 57 The Chechens also claimed this piece of land as a part of 29 The Current Digest ofthePost-Soviet Press , ed. CEU eTD Collection 20, 1991): 20, 1991): 15. in Checheno-Ingushetia,” Sharply 59 with the Chechen National Congress. “One must also take intoconsideration the position of the consent of the other peoples living therein.” partsinto withoutthe therepublic todivide CNCexecutiveattempt the despite committee’s that they favor aunited Chechen-Ingushetia as part of the Russian SFSR and will insist on that, committee was sharply criticized by representatives of the Ingush People’s Council, who said Ingush in Chechen-Ingushthe Republic bysaying, “The position of CNC’sthe executive press. Soviet is largely ignored in discourse about the Chechen war, it was visible in the Russian and post- movement independence Chechen the to opposition Ingush the While newspapers. in the is seen this and Federation for Russian of thepreservation the was Russian government the newspapers, is addressed. This of course reflects the newspapers I am citing, they are Russian and Soviet Republic Chechen-Ingush the of preservation the for movement Ingush the and Republic Ingush Republic in 1992. In the Soviet and post-Soviet press the republic is still called the Chechen- Ingush the of creation the until was it although Republic Chechen-Ingush the of part be a even to not seems Ingushetia about, is written independence then and sovereignty first for movement technically a part of the republic is not addressed. When the subject of Chechnya and the Prigorodny raion. faced losing more territory, the Sunja Raion, which then increased their resolve to regain the Ali Kazikhanov, “Preparations to Fight Are Underway Tension in Has Increased FightAre to Underway “Preparations Grozny. Ali Kazikhanov, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya On 21,1991 October still was Ingushetia that fact the in Chechnya, war the about discourse scholarly most In Izvestia another Russian newspaper reported on newspaper on Ingushdissatisfaction the Russian reported another The Current DigestofthePost-Soviet Press , aRussian newspaper, reported on the situation of the 59 30 42:43(November CEU eTD Collection DavidA. Lakeand Donald Rothchild (Princeton:University Princeton Press, 1998),198. Caucasus,” in Caucasus,” 62 28.1996), Caucasus, Ingushetia out.” when Chechnya drewthe border after itdeclared independence from Russia in 1991 andcounted of way treated the because they Chechens were the against resentments theirIngush carry own Russia, Dudayev was adamantly against remaining a part of Russia. Paula Garb states, “The Ingush leadership wanted republicthe as toremain intact Chechen-Ingushthe Republic within leadership defactothe Theleadership in wascomprised of andwhilerepublic. Chechens the republic.the After failed the in Augustputsch Russia, Chechenthe National becameCongress Chechensthe still shared their republicwith Ingush.the scholarsChechnya ignoreautonomous thefacta separate republic, was not seemingly that about, about the Ingush-Ossetian conflict but when the conflict between Russia and Chechnya is written Ingushthe were still a partof republic.this Tishkov doesaddress Ingushthe when he speaks 61 42:43 (November 1991):14. toBarracks,” Guardsmen Return National Congress 60 sovereignty. forof therestoration Chechen republic, ascalling own People which by its name alone does not address the needs or concerns of the Ingush in their Ingushetia as part of the RSFSR.” Checheno- of preservation the favor Ingush Most often. more and more course tough Dudayev’s leaders of the Ingush movement, who recently have been expressing their dissatisfaction with Paula Garb, “Ethnicity,Alliance Building and the Limited Spread of Ethnic Conflict in the Valery Tishkov, ”Explaining and Categorizing the Chechen War,” in Timur Muzayev,“Checheno-Ingushetia: DzhokarDudayev Agrees toaDialogue. Chechen The Chechen National Congress, headedby Dudayev didnot give the Ingush a voice in Valery Tishkov describes the demands of the All-National Congress of the Chechen ed. Pavel Baev and Ole Berthelsen (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, The InternationalSpread of Fear, Ethnic Conflict: Diffusionand Escalation, 62 The Ingush were left with the choice of remaining in a republic where they 60 31 The Current Digest ofthePost-Soviet Press 61 This ignores the fact the This that ignores Conflicts inthe ed. CEU eTD Collection only only added totheir determination regainto of control Prigorodny the Raion. Republic Chechen-Ingush in the underrepresented and Union Soviet in the citizens class second law passedby Russiangovernmentthe promised. This law coupled with feelingsthe ofbeing a republic themselves for they believed the Prigorodny wouldraion be to returned them as the given a republicformal without borders and without acapital city. Whenthe Ingush finally had their own republic. When the Russian government created the Republic of Ingushetia they were part of Russia basically theIngush pushed outof the Chechen-Ingush Republiccreating andinto Russia with hopesthe that Prigorodny the raion would bereturned tothem. December 1991theIngush overwhelmingvoted to become anautonomous republic within had norepresentation in becoming governmentthe or anautonomous republic within Russia.In The disregard of the Chechen leadership towards the Ingush and their wishes to remain a 32 CEU eTD Collection Caucasus 63 which 66.2 percent were ethnic which percent were Georgians. and29percent66.2 Ossetians loyalties were always with clans and families. argued Chechens the that flag never unified under the of ChechnyaPrior until tothat, 1991. minorities autonomous republics only served to strengthen their national identity. It has been policies of Sovietgiving the many believe that Infactcorrect. not they were up theseconflicts borders of Union Soviet former the neverwould caught have for happened. those Unfortunately irrelevant. This would have meant that many of the conflicts that have taken place within the accordingsupposed to ideology, totheir wouldhave nationalities away faded becomeand Soviet government. If the nationalities policy of the Soviet Union had played out like it was meant tokeepameasure amongmistrust of toavoid the locals acollective uprising against the such as this enclave Armenian of the Azerbaijan, populated within was Nagorno-Karabakh conquer unruly By subjects. minority placing withinregions boundariesthe republics,of other government while they were in power. Some claim their policies were meant todivide and have againlook back to history toSoviet in policies andborder Caucasus. the outbreak of fighting. To understand the roots of the South Ossetian factor of this conflict we in happened to Ossetia prior South violencethe Prigorodny inthe raion effecthad adirect the Sovietthe Union toGorbachev’s prior and glasnost perestroika policies relations between the Christoph Zurcher, Christoph Although this conflict occurred between Ingushetia and North Ossetia, events that Ossetia, and between events Ingushetia North thisconflict occurred Although The SouthOssetian Autonomous Oblast in was Georgia justhome to 100,000 over of The main reason is underlying thisto conflict changes theborder madeby Sovietthe (New York and London: New York University Press, 2007), 124. The Post Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict and Nationhood in the The Georgia-South Ossetia Conflict 33 63 During period the of CEU eTD Collection Ossetia dealt with this issue, there are reports that these refugees were resettled in Prigorodny the wereresettled these refugees that reports are issue,there with this dealtOssetia refugee problem and how did Ossetia North reacttoit? mixedThere are stories on how North additional threat to the Ingush minority status in North Ossetia.” Ossetian refugees from Georgia after the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict was to pose an they went to North Ossetia. According to Valery Tishkov, “The influx of large numbers of Ossetia. South fromvarying 40,000 toashigh withas 100,000, some of in these traveling andbetween North 64 a vastnumberrefugees. of were burned to ground,the almost 1,000 Ossetian civilians were killed infighting andit created fighting broke out in Tshkinvali, the capital. Due to the conflict 93 villages,mostly Ossetian, time the Georgian governmentimposed a state of emergency on South Ossetia. autonomous oblastSoviet or Republic, government the nolonger recognized it. Atthesame abolishing all autonomous areas in their country, thus abolishing South Ossetia; whether as an Sovietthe Union, succeed. should TheGeorgian Georgia answeredthisby government elevate the status of South Ossetia to that of a Democratic Soviet Republic and voted to stay in to voted Soviet Supreme Ossetian South regional the 1990 September In react. to Abkhazians Georgian the official language of the republic. This caused the South Ossetians along with the freeGeorgians passed and Ossetianswereconflict Georgian alawgovernment making until the 66 65 Caucasus, Aflame Alexei Zverev, “Ethnicin Conflicts Caucasusthe 1988-1994,”in Valery Tishkov, Valery Ibid.,47. This had a direct effect on North Ossetia because when South Ossetians fled the fighting,fled the whenOssetians Ossetiabecause effect South North This on had adirect The Georgian imposedgovernment a blockade on OssetiaSouth andin January 1991 (London: 163. SagePublications, 1997), ed. BrunoCoppieters (Brussels: VUBUniversity Press, 1996),47. 65 Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind 64 The real number of refugees remains disputed with estimates with disputed remains of refugees The real number 34 66 What was the scope of this Contested Bordersinthe CEU eTD Collection For onepossibleFor again answerwehave back to look deportations tothe that occurredin 1944. wouldmajority the 100,000 refugeesof flee tothe most densely areainpopulated republic?the North Ossetia found refuge in Vladikavkaz or in the Prigorodny raion. gainedindependence. defacto Ossetia South which signed apeacetreaty after Ossetialeaders Georgia and South of later the instability in northern the Caucasus. andissued astatementwarning theensuing that refugee problem to could contribute the of all attempting accused theGeorgian todrive government out population of non-Georgian the 69 68 Arbatov, etal. (Cambridge andLondon: TheMITPress, 1997),362. Managing ConflictintheFormer Soviet Union:Russian Perspectives, andAmerican 67 and allimportantindustrial and social facilities damaged.were down wereburned buildings homes and administrative the of percent more 80 was action that forces broke toTskinvalithrough telling all inhabitants and defenders toleave. The resultof this North Ossetia could have in the northern Caucasus. In June 1992 the Georgian government in this conflict. violence that broke out in the Prigorodny raion and what, if any, role the South Ossetians played subsided. First Iwill explore the differing stories and then analyze how this affected the governmentattempted tosend these refugees backtoSouth Ossetia whenthefighting had Ossetian theNorth that andreports area in contested the population increase Ossetian to the raion 46-47. Former Soviet Union Olga Osipova, “North Ossetia and Ingushetia: The First Clash,” in Ibid.,363. Edward Ozhiganov, “The Republic of Georgia: Conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” in Olga Osipova claims that most of the nearly 100,000 South Ossetian refugees who fled to The Russianrecognized government the destabilizing effectinfluxthe of intorefugees ed. Alexei Arbatov et al. (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1997), 68 The statement also called for peace talks and several days 35 67 The Russian government Managing Conflict in the 69 The question is why ed. Alexei CEU eTD Collection prohibited the selling and purchasinghouses of and buildingsother as personal Thisproperty. deportations. family members who had moved to Prigorodny raion as a part of the Stalinist had many and Ossetia North in kin ethnic their with bonds strong retained Ossetians South many have been one of the reason so many of them settled there. According to Gearoid O Tuathail Souththat Ossetian refugees already had ethnic kinlivingin Prigorodny the raion and this could years. Ossetians who resettled in the Prigorodny raion were given the land they worked after five emptied andsettlements houses of deportees.” the “broughtan estimated 26,000South Ossetians from intoGeorgia the region fill to jobs,the movement of mostly peasants to industrial enterprises for afixed period of time. This South Ossetia,” 73 Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia,” 72 USSR 71 Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia,” 70 Ingush discourage from resettling in formerthe residences. Sovietthe governmentresettled afurther 22,000South Ossetians from 1956 to1959 to al,O’Loughlin, et violent dueto clashes were occurredthat when deportees the allowed toreturn willing to return to South Ossetia when the Ingush were allowed to return. In fact,according to According to O’Loughlin, etal, the Soviet government established an territory government Sovietthe sought areaby the to repopulate Ossetiansresettling there. South Ossetian of raionNorth becameapart and Prigorodny the were deported Ingush After the Gearoid O Tuathail, “Russia’s Kosovo: A Critical Geopolitics of the August 2008 War over John O’Loughlin et al., “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern Polian, Pavel John O’Loughlin et al., “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern (Budapestand CEU NewYork: Press, 2004),72-73. 71 The North OssetianThe North Supreme Sovietpassed aresolution in December,1990 that This made them permanent residents of the area, not merely seasonal workers who were 73 Against TheirWill: TheHistory and Geography ofForced Migrationsin the Eurasian Geographyand Economics Eurasian Geographyand Economics Eurasian GeographyandEconomics 36 70 According to Pavel Polian, the South 49:6 (2008): 49:6 (2008): 674. 72 The significance of these events is orgnabor 49:6 (2008): 644.49:6 (2008): 644.49:6 (2008): orgnabor , an organized orgnabor after the CEU eTD Collection being housed in temporary housing such as boarding schools, dormitories, sanitoriums and were thattherefugees Hestated Ossetia. South Georgia and between conflict tothe facing due of North the Ossetian SSR Supreme Sovietaddressed the refugee problem his republic was 74 of ‘aliens.’” increase ethnic raion and provokefurther to anxiety within Ingush the community possible the regarding their “cultural with mainkinship the population layto a specific claim rights into Prigorodny the Ingush. the towards hostilely behaved then and raion Prigorodny the to moved refugees Ossetian South the of many that states before: the Ingush being denied what they saw as rightfully and historically theirs. Tishkov it as couldhave sameoutcome the circumstances, underdifferent wererelocating Ossetians at the same time South Ossetians were brought in to live there. Although this time the South they returned after the deportation they were not allowed toreturn to the Prigorodny raion while leading them to attempt to regain control of the region. It was almost history repeating, when Vladikavkaz and Prigorodny the Thisraion. influx of refugees could have createdanurgency to move to the raion while at the same time refugees from South Ossetia were being resettled in Ingush leadership to fight for the return of the Prigorodny raion. Again they were notpermitted effect andasudden influx of from refugees South Ossetia, this could clearly causeto give the was anstop attempt to Ingushthe from returning to Prigorodny the raion. With this in resolution Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia,” 76 75 Aflame Vladikavkaz and Prigorodny, the bringing with them powerful resentments.” Valery Tishkov, Valery John O’Loughlin et al., “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern Ibid.,164. In an interview with a (London: 163. SagePublications, 1997), Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind 75 74 O’Loughlin, et al, claim that, “Thousands of refugees spilled into Pravda He goes on to say that many of the South Ossetian refugees used Eurasian Geographyand Economics correspondent,Akhsarbek Galazov, at that time Chairman 37 49:6 (2008): 64849:6 (2008): 76 CEU eTD Collection should return to South Ossetia. There’s no place like home, that’s very true. But a war is going forcibly evicted from dormitories and guesthouses. The reason given was this: The refugees us, using various pretexts. In July and August [1991], women, children and old people were refugees to return to South Ossetia. He said, “The republic leadership simply wants to get rid of Ossetian National Movement claimed the North Ossetian leadership was trying to force the 80 79 78 the PostSovietPress Aflame 77 found themselves in Prigorodny […] landed thereby choice orthrough special measures. Tishkov claims,“It is not easy to determine whether the considerable number of refugees who to fortify the area with their co-ethnics to make it more difficultfor the Ingush to claim the land? these refugees housed? Did the North Ossetian leadership resettle them in the Prigorodny raion temporary housing, so the question remains, whether temporarily or permanently where were refugees would showupin days.two 1991 during theheightof fightingthe in OssetiaSouth is soit questionable that only 260 available orempty apartments land build to on. asking for permanent housing in North Ossetia, they had been denied because there were no facilities. treatment preventative have takenin mainly260 refugees, women and children.” how many refugees had turned up in North Ossetia is when he states, “In the past two days we Valery Tishkov, Valery Ibid.,30. Ibid.,30. A. Grachov, “First Step Must Be Taken on Events in South Ossetia,” In an publishedinarticle the With up to100,000 refugeesin OssetiaNorth isimpossible thatthey were all housed in (London: 163. SagePublications, 1997), Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind 3:43, (February 3:43,(February 30.20, 1991): 77 He went on to add that although many South Ossetians were Pravda newspaper the Chairman of the South-North the of Chairman the newspaper 78 38 The only number he uses when referring to 79 This interview was given in January in given was interview This The Current Digest of 80 CEU eTD Collection 84 83 http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eavl122706.shtml. 82 85 Aflame Foreign Land,” 81 which allows them to travel to and from Russia without visas.” environs of Vladikavkaz, then allowOssetiansto South toenjoy a quasi-dual status citizenship in conflict from shelterthe refugees the theKremlin in first lobby persuaded to Ossetian Russia Ossetians, claims, “Following the South Ossetian separatists’ 1991-1992 war with Georgia, the refugees in Prigorodny the raion. claim NorthOssetianleadershipauthors the actually happening, these that was wereresettling on in the South Ossetian Autonomous Province.” South. destroyed, apartmentbuildings were occupied by Ossetians, many of them from refugees the homes. Ingush in abandoned refugees Ossetian South of thousands resettled then authorities Ossetian North the raion, Prigorodny the from Ingush many drove Ossetians and Ingush the between fighting that that asuddenthere influx of an intorefugees already highlydensely populated, area. contested North Ossetian authorities or they went there because they had relatives does not change the fact republicanthe police, the same police involved in driving the Ingush out. apartments of Ingush were drivenwho weresubsequentlyout by occupied Ossetians workingfor who participated in or benefited from the expulsion of Ingush from the area. Some 800 Valery Tishkov, Valery Ibid. Daniel J. Gerstle, “South Ossetia’s Vladikavkaz Connection,” Eurasianet, accessed at: Ibid.,180. V. Shanayev, “We Investigate aProblem: No Longer in the Native Land, But Still Not a 84 Whether the refugees landed in the Prigorodny raion as a political move on the part of the (London: 180. SagePublications, 1997), Although the presence of the refugees heightened tensions, they were not the only ones 83 According to Daniel J. Gerstle, a writer for Eurasianet who has researched the The Current Digest of the The CurrentPost-Soviet Press Digestof Tishkov states although that many individual houses belonging toIngush were Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after theSoviet Union: The Mind 39 81 This appears contrary to what several 38:43(October 23,1991):29. 82 Hegoes on to say that after the 85 CEU eTD Collection and wounded. leftthat seized12self an andVladikavkaz andrifles several propelled guns attack staged dead newspaper influx This sudden decreasedof in security refugees the area.According the Russian tothe strengthen numbers of Ossetians as some authors claim, orif they settled there on their own. refugees living in the Prigorodny raion. It is contested whether they were sent there to their homeland” “historical becausethey viewedfor this as necessary their a survival as group. genocide. This was basically echoed by the Ingush in their situation. They wanted the return of as homeland” from “historical Ossetian ousting alsodefined of their South the the statement (July 6. 22, 1992), Russia inIs BeingDecidedToday Ossetia,” 87 (July 16. 15, 1992), It was not simply the presence of the refugees in North Ossetia; it was simply one piece of a tensions. area increased in a contested settled refugeesfact Inthis case,the that conflict. violent several months later. andheightened leading uptotheoutbreak of this simply concerns security actual violencethe Caucasus.” North the situation the throughout of destabilizing explosion capable the influx of South Ossetian refugees as “creating preconditions in the region for a social statement released by Ruslan Khazbulatov, the Chairman of the Russian Supreme Soviet, viewed of Annexation of South Ossetia by Russia,” 86 could have in the northern Caucasus area. The Russian newspaper As stated earlier, the Russian government was aware of the destabilizing effect this refugee crisis Mikhail Shevelev,“Epicenter: War Is Coming From the South. The Fate of Peace in Southern Ivan Yelistratov and Sergei Chugayev, “The Russian Parliament May Consider the Question In the summer of 1992 the situation was that there large numbers of South Ossetian As I stated earlier, a sudden influx of refugees can serve as a catalystfor initiating a Moskovskiye Novosti Moskovskiye 87 As a result of this incident astate of emergency was imposed in Vladikavkaz on on June 9-10, 1992,agroup comprised mostlyof in refugees The Currentthe Digest of Post SovietPress The Current Digestthe of Post SovietPress 40 Izvestia reported a that reported 86 Ironically, the 24:44 25:44 CEU eTD Collection analyzed. Russian governmentpromise toreturn it Ingush? tothe This is thenextfactor will that be this isjust oneofmany creating factors this conflict. So away. given land their and deported been not they had occurred have not would this and land, this of return the promised been not Ingush the had issue an been have not would This raion. Ossetia caused refugees stream intoto North Ossetia,many of them settled in Prigorodny the larger puzzle in understanding this conflict, just one of many layers. The fighting in South If the Prigorodny raion is such a densely populated and contested area, why did the 41 CEU eTD Collection dealing independence with movements in unionthe republics. While Gorbachev was attempting for power. Gorbachev had not only the regions within Russia to contend with, he was also place. return of the contested regions, which was one of the major factors in why the conflict took and the Russian government (Yeltsin.) These laws gave the Ingush a legal right todemand to the (Gorbachev) government Soviet the between ensued that laws” of “war the being disastrous most one Perhaps of the period. andRussian early late Soviet in the relations of state ethnic delicate republics they did just that, and this also shows the lack of understanding by the leadership of the Union and then in Russia. Although these decisions were not made to incite tension in any of the they made decisions that had disastrous effects in some of the autonomous regions in the Soviet support in their bids respective for power? I arguethat in gainattempting and to power support they simply attempting to resolve an issue with the best solution or were they attempting togain Russian republic. The reactions of the two men at the top to these demands are important: were sovereignty or outrightindependence, some wishing to remain a territory fully integrated into the this powerstruggle resulted in differing actions towards the ethno-territories, some arguingfor by Boris Yeltsin were engaged in a struggle to gain full leadership of the country. One aspect of Russia. The Soviet government, led by Mikhail Gorbachev and the Russian government, headed centers of power vying for control over the country and the ethno-territories that comprised power struggle that was occurring in the Russian Republic of the Soviet Union. There were two whatwas occurring inUnion Soviet the time.at that The period of 1989 to1991represented a To understand why these laws were passed we must first look at the greater context context look of atfirst greater must the we laws why were passed understand To these It is widely accepted that Gorbachev and Yeltsin recognized the ethnic factor in their bid The Soviet Union vs. Russia: The Power Struggle 42 CEU eTD Collection 90 89 veritable Pandora’s Box he resorted to force to attempt to hold the country together. already led to greater national sentiment and then to demands for independence. Faced with this into his then five years had full issue until his of the scope nationalities tenure, the reforms adjust toacountry had that againstturned him. literally, Gorbachev became one of apparatchiksthe he hadbeen struggling againstand couldnot 88 undermined his in position country.”the independence. “Gorbachev’sinsistence on trying topreserve his communism ultimately outright towards movement the halt to hoping reform, his of reins the pulled he independence needthe reforming for government butwhen the pushing started forrepublics sovereignty and committed to being a communist toallow the dismantling of the country. Gorbachev understood agreed upon by most scholars on the subject. Robert Kaiser argues that Gorbachev was too Federation. have clearly they election.notthat from torightwould He stated tosecede Russian the territories todeclare sovereignty but this wastogain inpopularity the upcoming presidential Russia if Yeltsinwere recognizedthey as republics. Union alsoencouraging ethnicwas the autonomous regions within Russiawould alsohave the rightdeclare to independence from status with Union republics. This way if government declaredYeltsin’s independence the territories of Russia in an attempt to weaken Yeltsin’s power, pushing for them to gain equal to keep USSR the together he was also promoting theidea of sovereignty among ethnic the Ibid.,169-170. Ibid.,168. Robert Kaiser, “Gorbachev: Triumph and Failure,” The fact that Gorbachev did not have a clear understanding of the nationalities issue is issue nationalities the of understanding clear a have not did Gorbachev that fact The 88 He claims that when the country started to fall apart, 89 43 He argues that Gorbachev didn’t understand didn’t Gorbachev that argues He Foreign Affairs 70:2(Spring, 164. 1991): 90 CEU eTD Collection 95 94 Quarterly republics were suddenly worried about Russia facing the same crisis that the Soviet Union had giving these a regions fair amount of autonomy he gained muchsupport from minorities.the noway would they be allowed independence. They wouldhave toremain apart of Russia. By thefactunderlined they that well-beingfor bewould the in responsible of their andthat people allowed the autonomous territories in Russia to take as much sovereignty as they wanted, but he state. asacohesive USSR together keep the Russian government.Dunlop stateshe failed atthis attemptfracture Russia to just ashefailed to encourage autonomous regions in the Russian Republic to declare their sovereignty from the as the leader of the Russian Republic and declared sovereignty only then did Gorbachev begin to himself beblindto andinsensitive toethnic issues.” facing him stating, “From timethe of his accession in 1985, Gorbachevhad repeatedly shown “delaying tactics a Gorbachev’s caused severe aggravation of all issues.” nationality the to keep the union together however necessary, even by the use of force. He says that 93 92 78. 91 attention.” demanded another after nationality one him to the problems he eventually faced. He says, “Gorbachev was simply dumbfounded when Ibid.,615. Ibid.,612. John B. Dunlop, “Russia: Confronting aLoss of Empire, 1987-1991,” Ibid.,78. Anders Aslund, “Russia’s Road from Communism,” Jeremy Smith says that Yeltsin, among others who had advocated sovereignty in the Yeltsin Russia. in minorities the to accommodating was Yeltsin that states Dunlop issue nationalities the of view unrealistic Gorbachev’s on in agreement is Dunlop John Anders Aslund states that Gorbachev’s lack of understanding of the nationality issue led of nationality the lackof Gorbachev’s understanding that states Anders Aslund Vol. 108, No.Vol. 108, 4(Winter 1993-1994):609. 94 44 91 He also says that Gorbachev wasattempting Gorbachev Healsosays that 93 In 1990when Yeltsin had gainedpower Daedalus vol.2 121No. (Spring 1992): Political Science 92 95 CEU eTD Collection 100 Sage Publications, 1997),49. for the country.”structure to define anewstate Gorbachev’s reason for this was, “It could weaken the exclusive rights of Union republic leaders declare sovereignty and to push for equal rights with the Union republics. Tishkov states boundaries. During this same time Gorbachev encouraged the autonomous regions of Russia to Russia promisingfrom anything unlimited sovereignty return to the of pre-deportation advantage. In Yeltsin’s bidfor presidency he made many totheethnicpromises territories of abolish the Soviet Union.” opponents in Moscow and by opponents of Moscow in the Periphery as the main argument to “The states, afailure, ethnic policy proved of by exploited perestroikathe period Gorbachev’s reforms. of avoidance issuethe wasbasically his of avoidance an issue could that seriously hinder his 99 98 Westview Press, 583. 1992), Soviet Nationality Reader, The Disintegration in Context, 96 avoid dealingwith Pandora’sthe Box of ethnicity.” Federal Treaty on March 31, 1992, which would ensure the unity of the Russian Federation. remedy had Yeltsin this theautonomous republics, all but Tatarstan and Chechnya, sign a faced. They were afraid that claims of sovereignty would turn into calls for independence. To 97 Birth ofa Nation, Valery Tishkov, Valery Ibid.,583. Jeremy Smith, “Russia’s Minorities and the Soviet Legacy,” in Alexander Moytl,“The Sobering of Gorbachev: Nationality, Restructuring, and the West,” Ibid.,54. Valery Tishkov is in agreement on the issue of Gorbachev and the nationalities. He nationalities. the and Gorbachev of issue the on in agreement is Tishkov Valery Alexander Moytl claims, “Gorbachevhas purposely been mouthing platitudes in to order 98 ed. Chris J. Chulos and Timo Piirainen (Burlington: Ashgate, 2000), 210. Ethnicity, Nationalism andConflict inand after the Soviet Union 99 Yet Gorbachev also exploited the nationalities issue to his 100 45 97 Hegoes on to say that Gorbachev’s ed. Rachel Denber (Boulder: The Fall of an The Fallof Empire, the (London: 96 The CEU eTD Collection Soviet Press 101 land. Thelaw stated, Stalin. Itcalled the acts criminal and denounced them, but made nomention of returning the impossible. Ingush believed that their further cultural, political and economic development was peoplesdeported andalsostated without that creationthe of an autonomous Ingush Republic the Republic before the Congress. In his presentation he asked for full legal rehabilitation of the deputy in USSRCongressthe of broughtPeople’s Deputies issue the of creating an Ingush Ingush people in 1988 demanded the return of the Prigorodny raion. In 1989 Kh. A. Fargiyev, a of Congress the with began which movement national Ingush The Union. Soviet the in stage look at the events that led up to the war of laws and how this became anissue on the national adamantly opposed to this and refused to give up administrative control over it. First wewill Ingush believed the Prigorodny raion would be returned to them and the Ossetians were Stalin. under between broke out Sovietthe and Russian governments pertaining tothosegroupsdeported directly affected by this power struggle. In the midst of this power struggle a “war of laws” an election and Gorbachev to undermine Yeltsin’s power. Ingushetia was one region that was issue. They used the nationality card when it was convenient for them: Yeltsin to gain votes in nationalities the of of volatility the understanding lacked atrue that they leader showed each goals and Each leaderfor haddifferent their issue advantage. nationalities of the manipulation “The Congress of USSR People’s Deputies, Verbatim Report,” These many examples simply show that both Gorbachev and Yeltsin employed Yeltsin and Gorbachev both that show simply examples many These In response government under Sovietthe passedcommitted alaw wrongs the recognizing The war of laws led to an increase in tensions between the Ingush and the Ossetians. The 101 24:41 (July 24:41(July 17. 12, 1989): 46 Current Digestthe of Post CEU eTD Collection of thePost SovietPress 103 Nova Science Publishers, 206-207. 1996), 102 Soviet while at the same time promising the North Ossetians that the existing administrative existing the that Ossetians North the promising time same the at while Soviet autonomous unitand the predeportation borders would bediscussedin Russianthe Supreme to take action. At arally Yeltsin promised the Ingush that the question of restoring the Ingush regions. One way gainto the support would be to listen to their grievances and make promises campaigningfor president of Russianthe republic andhe needed the support of autonomousthe newspaper proclamation seeking the restoration of their homeland. That same month in the Russian region. In March 1991, there convened a Congress of Ingush People which issued a property.stop was This to Ingushthe from moving area. to the Ossetian passedalawgovernment restricted that the and homes buying sellingof andprivate largeFearing that numbers of would toreturn to Ingush area, contested attempt the North the position in units. autonomous the Olga Vasilyeva, “Yeltsin’s Visit to the Caucasus: Trip by a Dilettante?” Nikolai Bougai, Nikolai repression.” to subjected peoples Soviet ofall rights restore the to in order legislation necessary the enact to necessary it considers Soviet Supreme USSR The society. a socialist of nature humanistic and law international of fundamentals the contradicts which crime gravest of peoples andregardsitunreservedly as the deportations theforced condemns whole world actions. warcanbe regardedas barbarous TheUSSRSupreme Soviet Germans, Meskhetians, and Chechens from their home territories during the second The Ingush were notsatisfied with the law as it was, they still demanded the return of the Kommersant “The deportation of the Balkars, Ingush, Kalmyks, Karachai, Crimean Kalmyks, Karachai,Crimean “The Tatars, Ingush, deportation Balkars, the of 102 The Deportationofthe Repressed PeoplesintheSoviet Union 12:43(April 20.24, 1991): reported Yeltsin held that reported and the“democrats” ahighly unstable 103 This is important because at the was becauseatthe time Yeltsin This isimportant 47 The Current Digest (New York: CEU eTD Collection newspaper calling for the return it.newspaper thereturn callingfor of Their addedstated, raion. Even before they gained the legal rights to the land, the Ingush ran an ad in an Ossetian have been a conflict, but itmerely gave the Ingush legal backingin theirfightfor Prigorodny the the Ingush would not have had a legal claim to this land. This is not to say that there would not right to the Prigorodny raion, they simply cited differentlaws to justify their claims. legal hadthey happened: the This ineach side stated isexactly what articles constitution. the Peoples to claim territorial integrity and the North Ossetians could claim the same using the the will of one side. The Ingush could now use the law On the Rehabilitation of the Repressed between can borders notsimply be tomutual subjects according only agreement, changed due to leadershiparticles arguedthat 67 and 102of constitutionthe of Russianthe Federation claim that over the Prigorodny raion. 105 104 borders.” of forces reassignment of policy anti-constitutional before the itexisted as integrity territorial of restoration to rights their of implementation and admission the that signifies peoples repressed Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples.” Article three of the law states, “The rehabilitation of Ingush. the to one that promises, his of one on acted wouldborders be preserved. Law On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples Ibid.,20. return home.return We have all exhausted methodsparliamentary of campaigning. The borders pre-deportation to return the on law the passed not had government Russian the If The Ossetians disagree with this law calling it unconstitutional. The North Ossetian The nextmonth the Supreme Council of Russia passed a law entitled, “On the 105 This in no uncertain terms states the Ingush should be allowed to reclaim control reclaim to allowed be should Ingush the states terms uncertain no in This “There are only 300,000 of “Thereandone-third people areonly 300,000 of of us onthisplanet cannot our 104 Many politicians make empty promises, butYeltsin actually 48 CEU eTD Collection 132. 106 issue. to the solution alternative Russian imposedgovernment a threeyear moratorium on border changes in hopes of finding an to the Ingush. Realizing after the fact the full ramifications of the passage of this law, theland the of control return willingly not would Ossetians the that meant refugees of influx the with Quoted Seely,in: Quoted Robert The Ossetian respondedauthorities tothis by territorialclaiming integrity, this coupled lived in people’sother houses, and sleptin people’sother beds.” ate people’sthem otherpeople’s land, people’s onother bread, water, walked other drank of A generation property. whole our byaccumulating hasrich grown Ossetia centuries Over us. angers lawlessness This land. our on sovereignty its declares ASSR Ossetian North the of Soviet Supreme is silent…The center patience…The infinite shown are be redrawn…We frontierscannot that theory the upwith come has now and Ossetians] Kremlin ishasland deaf. It up dished belonging tootherits peoples darlings to [the Russo-Chechen Conflict, 1800-2000 Russo-Chechen Conflict, 49 (Portland: FrankCass,2001), 106 CEU eTD Collection may not have been a conflict of another nature. Had there been an influx of Ossetians settling in Had been settling have nature. there influxof may not of another been an Ossetians a conflict conflict possibly could havebeen avoided. Ingush notbeen anddeported allowed tokeepwhat they see astheir ‘historical homeland’ the as the 1970’s and early by 1980’s Ingush forthe the of return Prigorodnythe raion. Hadthe would be the foundation for the conflict. In fact there were protests and rallies held as far back the North Ossetians and notreturned to the Ingush after their rehabilitation and return. This gave it exclusively to the North Ossetians. Then with the deportations more land was given to and thecapital of Vladikavkaz took Stalin were made under changes that The border Stalin. have identified. The first factor I will consider is the border policies and deportations under of factors. more the or of one absence not been present just asit can be argued the conflict still would have occurred even in the them been missing. It can be argued that there may nothave been a conflict had any one of them of this conflict. It is impossible to know whether there would have been a conflict had any of mean not aconflict will does occur. factors of those presence atbut same the in many factors arepresent time that the conflicts, foundhave certain Scholars Attempting topinpointexactly factors willwhich lead to a conflict is nearly impossible. factors identified, the actors identified and often the actions that led up to the conflict. However, this piece landof is one of the most fertile in region so we can’t assume there of itsI each showsfour importance the factors of the is but hypothetical, This section in factors thecreation argue were thatI factors major show four tothe I haveattempted Every conflict truly is unique, after one has taken place it can be dissected and the causal Conclusion 50 CEU eTD Collection witnessing the same thing over again. over thing same the witnessing land. their Ossetiansover They totake region between1956and were tothe South 1959 that land even more urgent. As I stated before, the Ingush witnessed the movement of 22,000 of return the made land their as viewed Ingush the what on Ossetians of thousands of settlement fourthese builds factors onone another tocreate the volatile situation emergedin that 1992. not have been an issue had the territory not been taken away from the Ingush in 1944. Each of to live there without either of them having administrative control over the region. Yet this would possible to put the Prigorodny raion under federal administration and allow Ossetians and Ingush Ingush capital and access to industry would nothave been a pressing issue. It could have been bank of Vladikavkaz which could serve as their capital. was to regain the land they lost after the deportations: the Prigorodny raion including the right industry was in either Chechnya or North Ossetia. The one way to gain a capital and industry The major problem they were facing was they had no administrative capital and all of the major When wereleft Ingush the without a republic, sought form they to Republicthe Ingushetia. of policiesSoviet made having an ethnic seem necessary majorterritory for each ethnic group. remained on the land where they lived and simply been an administrative region of Russia, the have could Ingush the Although name. their with territory own their groups ethnic major which left the Ingush without a republic. The way the Soviets drew the borders was to give that the region is their ‘historical homeland.’ this area perhaps the Ossetians would be protesting for their right to the land. They also claim The South Ossetian refugee factor could be seen as a catalyst in the conflict. The sudden Had Chechnyadeclared notindependence and remained apart of Russia, the need for an Russia from independence of declaration Chechen is the identified have I factor next The 51 CEU eTD Collection themselves as bigger ‘democrats’ than theirin colleagues Unionthe parliament,had who just consequences of adopting thislaw butstates, “the Russian Deputies wanted very much portray to Center for Ethnopolitical Studies, says he warned the parliamentarians about the legal 19. and Political Mistakes,” 107 in 1944. what to do with the people who were living there, many had been there since they were resettled lawirresponsible partof it wasthat providedsolutionno as tohow to redrawtheborders and passage of this law, “an example of political dilettantism and irresponsibility.” Inan in passed hadarticle far reachingeffects. government to former borders. What he did not realize is that the promises he made and the law his government and alsofor his bid in presidentialthe election by passing alaw granting the return many of the deportees wished. Yeltsin then saw an opportunity to gain support for his Stalin’s actions criminal,it did not address the issue of the return to pre-deportation borders as law passed the calling government When Soviet adopted. the governments laws the of each their of Prigorodny the raion Ingush.to the a part of Russia there would not have been a refugee crisis that created the urgency for the return possibility unitingof ethnic groups and rising upagainst center. the HadSouth Ossetia remained These tactics have been called the Soviet policy of ‘divide and conquer’ to diminish the of the Georgian Republic was drawn so that it included the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. Emil Pain and Arkady Popov, “The Flames of War in the Caucasus Are Retribution for Legal The South Ossetian factor can also be traced back to Soviet border policies. The border Emil Pain, who authored the authored who Pain, Emil and Yeltsin and Gorbachev between struggle power is the identified Ihave factor last The The Currentthe Digestof Post SovietPress Izvestia article above and at the time was the Director of the 52 Izvestia one scholar called the called scholar one 44:44(December 2,1992): 107 most The CEU eTD Collection 109 108 intent.” malicious even sometimes and miscalculations, includingthem, Ossetian-Ingush the was conflict, also aconsequence of glaring political so avalanche-like had they been a function of objective preconditions. But after all, every one of allowed toreturn. “[T]he acceleration of armed conflicts in the Caucasus would nothave been that drove thousands of Ingush from their homes, some of whom still today have notbeen in South Ossetia. All of the factors created a situation that ended in a brief, but violent conflict the same time they witnessed this land being settled by more Ossetians that were fleeing the war hope with Russianthe made government legal tothem forpromises the return of land.this At right bank of Vladikavkaz tocreate an Ingush homeland. In 1991, they were given a glimmer of they were asking for, as they had been since 1957, was the return of the Prigorodny raion and the They were being forced out of the republic they shared with the Chechens and the only thing rehabilitation.” territorial adopted a Declaration on Restoring Rights of Deported Peoples that had no article on their Ibid.,19. Ibid.,19. The situation Ingushetia faced at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union was bleak. 108 53 109 CEU eTD Collection D’Encausse, Helene Carrere. D’Encausse, Robert. Conquest, Grachov, A. “First Step Must Be Taken on Events in South Ossetia.” Garb, Paula. “Ethnicity,Alliance Building and the Limited Spread of Ethnic Conflictin the Ben. Fowkes, Dunlop, John B. “Russia:Confronting aLoss of Empire, 1987-1991.” Leokadia. Drobizheva, Bougai, Nikolai. Aslund, Anders. “Russia’s Road from Communism.” Brown, Michael E. “The Causes of Internal Conflict: An Overview.” In 1930. Frederick A. Publishers, Praeger 1967. Nova Science Publishers, 1996. Post Soviet Press Soviet Post University Press, 1998. Escalation, In Caucasus.” Quarterly Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1996. Conflict, 77-95. New York andLondon: Holmes and 1992. Meier, The Disintegration of theSovietUnion. ed. Michael E. Brown, et al., 3-25. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997. The Deportationthe of Repressed Peoples intheSoviet Union. Vol. 108, No.Vol. 108, 4(Winter 1993-1994):603-634. SovietNationalities Policy in Practice. ed.DavidA. Lakeand Princeton: Donald Rothchild, 185-199. Princeton The InternationalSpread of Fear, and Ethnic Conflict: Diffusion Ethnic Conflict in the Post SovietWorld: Case Studies and Analysis. 3:43, (February 3:43,(February 30-31. 20, 1991): The Great Challenge, Nationalitiesand the Bolshevik State1917- Bibliography 54 New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1997. Daedalus NewYork and Washington: vol.2 121No. (Spring 1992): The Currentthe Digest of Political Science Nationalism andEthnic NewYork: CEU eTD Collection Magnusson, Marta-Lisa. “The Failure of Conflict Prevention and Management: The Case of Kazikhanov, Ali. “92.5% Cast Their Votes for a Sovereign Ingushetia.” Kazikhanov, Ali. “Preparations to Fight Are Underway in Grozny. Tension Has Increased Kaiser, Robert. “Gorbachev: Triumph and Failure.” Kagedan, Allan. “Territorial Units as Nationality Policy.” In Lenin, Vladimir Illych. Vladimir Lenin, Jaimoukha, Amjad M. Hirsch, Francine. December2008. 31, http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history//ussr/government/1917/11/02.htm Accessed London: I.B.Tairis & Co Ltd, 1985. 1991): 160-174. at: and Funch Lars Hansen, Copenhagen: 62-71. Danish Refugee Council,Accessed 1999. Displacement intheCaucasus: Perspectives,Challenges and Responses, Chechnya Part 1: Conflict Assessment and Pre-War Escalation.” In the Post-SovietPress Sharply in Checheno-Ingushetia.” Sharply 1990. Ethnic Groupsinthe USSR, (November 14-15. 20,1991): Union. http://www.caucasus.dk/publication3.htm Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2005. Empire ofNations, Ethnographic Knowledge andtheMaking the of Soviet The Chechens: AHandbook. A DocumentaryHistory ofCommunism. 49:43(January 22. 8, 1992): edited by Henry R. Huttenbach, 163-176.London: Mansell, The Current Digest ofthePost-Soviet Press 55 Foreign Affairs London and NewYork: Routledge, 2005. . Soviet Nationality Policies, Ruling Ed. Robert V. Daniels. vol. 70, No. 2 (Spring, The Current Digest of Conflict andForcedConflict ed. Tom Trier Tom ed. 42:43 CEU eTD Collection Pipes, Richard. Pain, Emil and Arkady Popov. “The Flames of War in the Caucasus Are Retribution for Legal Ozhiganov, Edward. “The Republic of Georgia: Conflictin Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” in O Tuathail, Gearoid. “Russia’s Kosovo: A Critical Geopolitics of the August 2008 War over Osipova, Olga. “North Ossetia and Ingushetia: The First Clash.” In O’Loughlin, John et al. “The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern Muzayev, Timur. “Checheno-Ingushetia: Dzhokar Dudayev Agrees to a Dialogue. Chechen Moytl, Alexander. “The Sobering of Gorbachev: Nationality, Restructuring, and the West.” In Cambridge: HarvardUniversity 1968. Press, 1992): 18-20. and Political Mistakes.” Alexei Arbatov,et al.,341-400. Cambridge andLondon: The MIT Press, 1997. Managing Conflict in theFormer Soviet Union:Russian andAmericanPerspectives, South Ossetia.” MIT Press, 1997. Former SovietUnion, 635-669. Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia.” Press Soviet toBarracks.” Guardsmen Return National Congress 573-595. Boulder: Westview1992. Press, The SovietNationality Reader, The Disintegration inContext, The Formation of theSovietUnion: Communism andNationalism 1917-1923. 42:43(November 20,1991): 14. Eurasian GeographyandEconomics ed. Alexei Arbatov et al., 27-75. Cambridge and London: The The Current Digest ofthe Post SovietPress Eurasian Geography andEconomics 56 The Current Digestthe of Post- 49:6 (2008): 49:6 (2008): 670-705. Managing Conflictin the edited by Rachel Denber, 44:44(December 2, 49:6 (2008): ed. CEU eTD Collection Simon,Gerhard. Shnirelman, Victor A. “The Orstkhoy Revival: Identity and Border Dispute in the Northern Shevelev, Mikhail. “Epicenter: War Is Coming From the South. The Fate of Peace in Southern Shanayev, V.“We Investigate a Problem: No Longer in the Native Land, But Still Not aForeign Schwartz, Lee. “Regional Population Redistribution and National Homelands in the USSR.” In Saltman, Michael. “Introduction.” In Smith, Anthony Smith,Anthony D. Ratner, Steven R. “Drawing a Better Line: Polian, Pavel. Polian, Disorder In Caucasus.” 25:44 (July 5-6. 22, 1992), Russia inIs BeingDecidedToday Ossetia.” Totalitarian Dictatorship toPost-Stalinist Society. Land.” Huttenbach,London: 121-161. Mansell, 1990. Soviet NationalityPolicies, Ruling Ethnic Groupsin theUSSR, Oxford and Berg, NewYork: 2002. American Journal ofInternational Law USSR. Budapestand NewYork: CEU Press, 2004. Against TheirWill: TheHistory and Geography ofForced Migrationsinthe The Current Digest ofthePost-Soviet Press , ed. Moshe, ed. Gammer, London and 139-147. Routledge, New York: 2008. Nationalism and Policy Toward theNationalities inthe Soviet Union: From The EthnicOrigins ofNations. Ethno-Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism, Islam and the State inthe Caucasus: Post Soviet Land andTerritoriality. Uti Possidetis 57 90:4 (October 1996):590-624. Oxford: Blackwell Press, 1988. The Current Digest of the PostSovietPressThe Current Digestof and the Borders of New States.” Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. 38:43(October 23,1991): 29. Edited by Michael Saltman, 1-8. edited by Henry R. CEU eTD Collection 2007. Wolff, Stefan. Vasilyeva, Olga. “Yeltsin’s Visit to the Caucasus: Trip by a Dilettante?” Toft, Monica Duffy. Tishkov, Valery. ”Explaining and Categorizing the Chechen War.” In Tishkov, Valery. Tishkov, Valery.“Ethnic Conflicts in the Context of Social Science Theories.” In “The Congress of USSR People’s Deputies, Verbatim Report.” Suny, Ronald Gregor. Smith, Jeremy.“Russia’s Minorities and the Soviet Legacy.” In the PostSovietPress of Territory. of Institute, 1996. Caucasus, Aflame. Tokyo: UnitedTokyo: Nations University 1996. Press, Power intheContemporary World, Press Soviet Union. 2000. Ashgate, Birth ofa Nation, 24:41 (July 24:41(July 13-20. 12, 1989): Ethnic Conflict: Global Perspective. Conflict: A Ethnic London: Sage Publications, 1997. ed. Pavel Baev and Ole Berthelsen, . Oslo: International Peace Research Ethnicity, Nationalism and Ethnicity, Conflict inandafter theSoviet Union: TheMind Princeton Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003. The Geography ofEthnicViolence: Identity,Interests andtheIndivisibility Stanford: Stanford University 1993. Press, The Revenge of thePast, Nationalism, Revolution, andtheCollapse of the edited by J.Chris Chulos and TimoPiirainen, 197-227.Burlington: 12:43(April 20-21. 24, 1991): ed. Kumar Rupesinghe and Valery Tishkov, 52-68. 58 New York: Oxford University Press, Current Digest ofthe Post Soviet The Fallofan Empire, the Conflicts in the The Current Digest of Ethnicity and CEU eTD Collection Zverev, Alexei. “Ethnic Conflicts in Caucasusthe 1988-1994.” In Zurcher, Christoph. Yelistratov, Ivan and Sergei Chugayev. “The Russian Parliament May Consider the Question of Caucasus. Caucasus, 24:44 (July 16. 15, 1992), Annexation Ossetiaof South byRussia.” New York and London: New York University Press, 2007. ed. Bruno Coppieters,ed. Bruno 13-71.Brussels: VUBUniversity Press, 1996. The Post SovietWars: Rebellion, EthnicConflict and Nationhood in the 59 The CurrentDigest ofthePost SovietPress Contested Borders inthe