Explore the vast range of titles available.

The sheer scale and brutality of the hostilities between Russia and Chechnya stand out as an exception in the mostly peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union.Chechnya: From Nationalism to Jihadprovides a fascinating analysis of the transformation of secular nationalist resistance in a nominally Islamic society into a struggle that is its antithesis, jihad. Hughes locates Chechen nationalism within the wider movement for national self-determination that followed the collapse of the Soviet empire. When negotiations failed in the early 1990s, political violence was instrumentalized to consolidate opposing nationalist visions of state-building in Russia and Chechnya. The resistance in Chechnya also occurred in a regional context where Russian hegemony over the Caucasus, especially the resources of the Caspian basin, was in retreat, and in an international context of rising Islamic radicalism. Alongside Bosnia, Kashmir, and other conflicts, Chechnya became embedded in Osama Bin Laden's repertoire of jihadist rhetoric against the \"West.\" It was not simply Russia's destruction of a nationalist option for Chechnya, or \"Wahabbist\" infiltration from without, that created the political space for Islamism. Rather, we must look also at how the conflict was fought. The lack of proportionality and discrimination in the use of violence, particularly by Russia, accelerated and intensified the Islamic radicalization and thereby transformed the nature of the conflict. This nuanced and balanced study provides a much-needed antidote to the mythologizing of Chechen resistance before, and its demonization after, 9/11. The conflict in Chechnya involves one of the most contentious issues in contemporary international politics-how do we differentiate between the legitimate use of violence to resist imperialism, occupation, and misgovernment, and the use of terrorism against legitimate rule? This book sets out indispensable lessons for understanding conflicts involving the volatile combination of nationalist insurgency, jihad, and terrorism, most notably for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does a state's use of indiscriminate violence incite insurgent attacks? To date, most existing theories and empirical studies have concluded that such violence is highly counterproductive because it creates new grievances while forcing victims to seek security, if not safety, in rebel arms. This proposition is tested using Russian artillery fire in Chechnya (2000 to 2005) to estimate indiscriminate violence's effect on subsequent patterns of insurgent attacks across matched pairs of similar shelled and nonshelled villages. The findings are counterintuitive. Shelled villages experience a 24 percent reduction in posttreatment mean insurgent attacks relative to control villages. In addition, commonly cited \"triggers\" for insurgent retaliation, including the lethality and destructiveness of indiscriminate violence, are either negatively correlated with insurgent attacks or statistically insignificant.

Does ethnicity matter for explaining violence during civil wars? I exploit variation in the identity of soldiers who conducted so-called “sweep” operations (zachistki) in Chechnya (2000–5) as an empirical strategy for testing the link between ethnicity and violence. Evidence suggests that the intensity and timing of insurgent attacks are conditional on who “swept” a particular village. For example, attacks decreased by about 40% after pro-Russian Chechen sweeps relative to similar Russian-only operations. These changes are difficult to reconcile with notions of Chechen solidarity or different tactical choices. Instead, evidence, albeit tentative, points toward the existence of a wartime “coethnicity advantage.” Chechen soldiers, enmeshed in dense intraethnic networks, are better positioned to identify insurgents within the population and to issue credible threats against civilians for noncooperation. A second mechanism—prior experience as an insurgent—may also be at work. These findings suggest new avenues of research investigating the conditional effects of violence in civil wars.

Widespread media interest into the Chechen conflict reflects an ongoing concern about the evolution of federal Russia. Why did the Russian leadership initiate military action against Chechnya in December 1994 but against no other constituent part of the Federation? This study demonstrates that the Russian invasion represented the culmination of a crisis that was perceived to have become an increasing threat not only to the stability of the North Caucasus region, but also to the very foundations of Russian security. It looks closely at the Russian Federation in transition, following the collapse of the communist Soviet Union, and the implications of the 1991 Chechen Declaration of Independence in the context of Russia's democratisation project. Introduction 1. The Russian Federation Transition 2. Background to the Chechen Declaration of Independence in 1991 3. The Post-Coup Period and the Collapse of the USSR (August-November 1991) 4. The Consolidation of an 'Independent', Post-Soviet Chechnya (1991-93) 5. Challenges to Internal Sovereignty - The Roots of Power and Opposition to the Dudayev Regime (1991-1993) 6. War by Proxy? (February to September 1994) 7. The Decision to Invade (October to December 1994) 8. Making Peace or War? 9. Conclusions: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Glossary Bibliography Index Tracy German is a graduate in Russian from the University of Edinburgh and was awarded a PhD by the University of Aberdeen on Russia's conflict with Chechnya. She has lived in Russia and Ukraine and also speaks French and German. She is currently a Research Manager at the World Markets Research Centre, specialising in the former Soviet Union and its energy sector. 'This book should not be left to historians or regional experts. Its main value arguably lies in its readable but reliable chronicling, and its restrained but authoritative analysis of processes a decade ago which have a profound impact today, and not just in Russia and Chechnya.' - SEER

How does war become a legitimate undertaking? This article challenges the interpretation of securitization as a narrow, linear and intentional event by re-engaging the post-structuralist roots of Copenhagen School securitization theory. To uncover the social process that makes war acceptable, the framework presented in this article is informed by securitization theory but foregrounds the web of meaning and representation between a myriad of actors in society to unearth the contents–and changes–in how war is articulated and carried out with public consent. This matters not only for the question of how war becomes a legitimate undertaking, but also for the very practices through which the war is fought: the emergency measures that are enabled in a discourse of existential threat. The article re-visits the Second Chechen War to illustrate how war is made logical and legitimate to leaders and their publics.

The Chechen authorities’ focus upon population health is enacted both through the principles of Islamic medicine and approved biomedical practices. Any healing practices beyond these domains are met with deep suspicion. Practitioners of unofficial complementary and alternative medicine healers may abruptly find themselves regarded as enemies of the state. In light of this precarious circumstance, it becomes pertinent to inquire: How do these healers employ their daily tactics to negotiate the intricate power dynamics between the formidable state apparatus and the established biomedical order? Drawing from our meticulous fieldwork conducted in the year 2021, we investigated the intricate tactics employed by unofficial healers in the Chechen medical landscape during COVID-19. Our research centred on discerning the nuanced tactics aimed at mitigating potential risks. We conclude that healers, having embodied tactics to creatively manoeuvre within the confines of the authoritarian state, perceived the challenges posed by COVID-19 as merely another, often inconsequential, obstacle in their enduring struggle.

From the year 2000 on, Chechen official international relations – called “paradiplomacy” – have centered around legitimacy-building, security cooperation and investment attraction, priorities set by the republic’s first official, pro-Russian president, Akhmat Kadyrov (in office 2000–2004). Kadyrov’s successors, Alu Alkhanov (2004–2007) and Ramzan Kadyrov (2007–to date) developed Grozny’s international engagements further, introducing new partners – such as China – and new dimensions to the external action – such as militarization. At each step, Grozny operated between full autonomy and collaboration with Moscow, involving itself in high-level diplomacy and furthering Moscow’s agenda abroad, primarily in the Middle East. In this article, I argue that Chechen paradiplomacy is an instrument for the inclusion of Chechnya into the governance structures of Russia’s federal order. The argument rests on two premises: Chechnya’s paradiplomacy is framed by the Kremlin’s proactive support and coordination, and Chechnya’s paradiplomacy is closely connected to the Kremlin’s security priorities. Since reincorporation, Chechen paradiplomacy has not been an addition to Russian federal relations but an intrinsic part of the post-2000 political arrangement between Grozny and Moscow. To empirically ground this argument, I trace the evolution of Chechen paradiplomacy across the three post-incorporation presidencies, ending in 2020.

This essay explores the constraints which determine republications of 'colonia' literary works in the serie called 'Autrement memes' (otherwise the same) (Ed. L'Harmattan), and their ambiguous institutional status in the tolerated margins of the field. In particular, it analyses the way discursive support tries to justify this republication and in the same time disqualifies the value it could receive. All this, through a case study: two republished novels of Jean Sermaye. After all, the study asks the question of the politically correcteness in the background, and questions the forced separation between 'colonial' and 'African' literary domains. Adapted from the source document.

This explorative study uses descriptive process tracing to outline the evolution of Chechen terrorism from 1994-2017. Analysis begins with simple descriptive statistics that characterize data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and identify those years in which significant changes occurred in the processes, environmental context, and overall security conditions in Chechnya. A detailed narrative is then given to contextualize the security scenario in Chechnya and to illustrate the transition from nationalist violence to religious-based terrorism.