Ramzanistan. Russia's Chechen Problem. OSW POINT OF VIEW Number 54, 2015-08-25

The political activity and growing independence of Chechnya’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov raises questions about his loyalty and the possibility of his openly renouncing his servitude to Moscow. Such a scenario seems unlikely because of the dependence of Kadyrov’s regime on Russia. He is burdened by his republic’s financial dependence, the stain of collaboration and the crimes committed on his own people, and so his regime cannot exist without Moscow’s support. However, Kadyrov’s dependence on Moscow and the apparent stability of the situation in Chechnya do not mean that a lasting peace has been established there. The current plan for governing the republic and the relationship between Moscow and Grozny is a temporary solution, based not on durable solutions, but on the situational convergence of the Kremlin and Kadyrov’s interests. A change of government in the Kremlin, or to an even greater degree a domestic crisis in Russia which weakens its position in the Caucasus, would mean the fall of Kadyrov’s regime, and the reactivation of pro-independence rhetoric in Chechnya

On the periphery of global jihad. The North Caucasus: the illusion of stabilisation. OSW Point of View Number 45, November 2014

The situation in the North Caucasus has stabilised, in comparison with previous years, mainly as regards the activity of the Islamic military underground. This is an effect of ideological changes among the militants which have led to a dilution of the Caucasian armed struggle and its marginalisation in global jihad, since top priority has been granted to the Middle Eastern front. The factors which have contributed to this stabilisation are the organisational crisis in the Caucasus Emirate and the outflux of militants to the Middle East, as well the successful ‘carrot and stick’ policy adopted by Moscow. However, the partial stabilisation in the Caucasus is inherently precarious, being a contingent outcome of the situation rather than the result of systemic change. The region’s pressing problems remain unresolved; and these problems are generating chronic instability and cauing the Caucasus to drift away from Russia in civilisational terms. An economic or political crisis in the Russian Federation may result in the conflicts in the Caucasus unfreezing, including a reactivation of the idea of Chechen independence as well as the idea of the Caucasus Emirate, which is a part of global jihad

Russia's policy in the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. OSW Study 23/2006

The Southern Caucasus and Central Asia are priority areas for the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Russia mainly sees its influence in both regions as an important factor determining its international stature, and as a precondition for reinforcing its position as a world power. The Caucasus and Central Asia are also important for Russia from the points of view of economy, especially because of those area's natural resource wealth, and security, as both regions generate serious potential threats to the Russian Federation, including Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, the drugs trade and illegal migration

Russia’s ‘Middle East’: the escalation of religious conflicts in the Northern Caucasus. OSW Commentary Number 207/04.04.2016

The eastern part of the Northern Caucasus (Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia) is becoming an increasingly distinct region in cultural, civilisational and social terms when compared to the rest of the Russian Federation. The situation on the ground there bears greater resemblance to the Middle East than to Russia: Islam is the key factor organising socio-political life, and conflicts inside the Muslim community, often involving bloodshed, are the driving power of developments in the region. The conflict is between the two main branches of Islam in the Northern Caucasus: Sufism linked to the official clergy and government, and Salafism which is gaining more and more supporters among young people in the Caucasus. Tension, including clashes over mosques, attacks, mass detentions, etc. has been observed mainly in Dagestan and Ingushetia

From apathy to nationalist mobilisation: politics makes a comeback in Armenia. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 215 | 08.06.2016

In the military dimension, the Four-Day War in Nagorno-Karabakh (2–5 April 2016) changed little in the conflict zone. It has, however, had a significant impact on the situation in Armenia. The country was shocked out of the political malaise that had been the dominant mood in the last few years, and the Karabakh question, which used to animate political life in the late 1980s and early 1990s, once again became a driving force behind developments. In the internal dimension, the renewed fighting galvanised the political scene, triggered a rise in nationalist sentiments, mobilised the public and consolidated it around the Karabakh question, overshadowing the frustrations caused by the country’s difficult economic situation. In the external dimension, the war, which was viewed as Moscow-endorsed Azerbaijani aggression, undermined people’s trust in Russia and the Armenian-Russian alliance. It also made it clear for Armenians how uncertain the Russian security guarantees were and exacerbated their feelings of vulnerability and isolation on the international stage

Electroprotests in Armenia as a Manifestation of the State's Crisis

Protests against the increase in electricity prices, which broke out in Armenia in mid-June, were a manifestation of the increasing social, economic and political crisis that has been haunting Armenia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The protests were anti-systemic and - regardless of the declarations of the protesters themselves - contained anti-Russian elements. They triggered serious anxiety in Moscow, which in an attempt to appease the tension made several unexpected gestures. The protests are a new and important phenomenon in Armenian politics, but they are unlikely to generate processes that could affect the direction of developments in Armenia, as the country's internal situation largely depends on the geopolitical situation in the region, which is unfavourable for Armenia

Returns from Income Strategies in Rural Poland

In order to stabilize and improve their income situation, rural households are strongly encouraged to diversify their activities both in and outside the agricultural sector. Most often, however, this phenomenon takes on only moderate proportions. This paper addresses issues of rural households’ income diversification in the case of Poland. It investigates returns from rural households’ income strategies using propensity score matching methods and extensive datasets spanning 1998-2008. Results suggest that returns from combining farm and off-farm activities were lower than returns from specialization, namely, concentrating on farming or on off-farm activities. Generally, farming seems to be the most attractive option for rural households and income difference between farmers and those who combine farming and off-farm activities increased after Poland joined the EU.Income diversification, rural areas, propensity score matching, Poland, Community/Rural/Urban Development, D31, O15, Q12,

The Great Game around Turkmenistan. OSW Point of View, August 2008

The rise of a new leader of the state of Turkmenistan – President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, who became ruler of the central Asian state after the 21-year rule of Saparmurad Niyazov, the self-proclaimed Turkmenbashi, who died on December 21, 2006 – has initiated changes in Turkmenistan’s political life. The new president has broken with the previous policy of self-isolation, and has directed the country towards openness to the outside world. Opportunities have thereby arisen for competitors in the ‘Great Game’, to gain political influence in Turkmenistan and access to hitherto unexploited Turkmen deposits of gas and oil. A new stage in the Great Game, which has been played for influence in Central Asia and control of access to its energy resources for many years, can thus be said to have been launched, and Turkmenistan has become the main setting for it. The major actors involved are Russia, the United States, China and the European Union