Wishful thinking

These map moves come amid growing chatter and even calls in Western foreign policy circles for the break up of the Russian Federation into a multitude of smaller states. The thinking is that being split into smaller states would blunt Russia’s challenge to the West and its ability to carry on a war in Ukraine.

As a scholar of Russian regional identity and history, I believe the prospect of a broken-up Russia is unlikely, to say the least. But talk of Russia’s disintegration and the change in map names taps into themes worth exploring: Is there much appetite for independence in the far-flung regions of the Russian state? And if there were to be breakaway regions in the Far East, would that benefit the West or China?

In the book Failed State: A guide to Russia’s Rupture, political scientist Janusz Bugajski argues that the territories of the Russian Federation will in time declare independence. This, he and others argue, would be good for everyone outside Russia. A rump Russian state would have “reduced capabilities to attack neighbours,” Bugajski argues.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius has a gloomier view of Russian disintegration, writing in August that it would provide “a devil’s playground” that could pose a danger to the West.

Either way, a growing number of analysts now believe, in the words of Russia scholar Alexander J. Motyl, it is “time to start taking the potential disintegration of Russia seriously.”

Having worked on the history of Russian regionalism for two decades, I see serious obstacles to territories declaring independence. It is certainly true that centralised authority has been to the detriment — both economically and culturally — to some of the Russian Federation’s 83 regions. But there is a lack of mass public support for autonomy, let alone full-blown independence.

Not all regions in Russia are the same. In some, such as Tatarstan and Dagestan, autonomy has a genuine mass appeal.

Those in locations more suited to independence — say, those that have borders with neighbouring countries — often face other difficulties, such as being close to China.

In Russia’s Far East, there is concern among would-be breakaway regions that independence could lead to the possibility of an interventionist China either taking over or at least exerting its influence.

“Breakup boosters” — the term I use to describe those advocating for Russia’s disintegration — tend to assume that regions in the Russian Federation all have aspirations for independence, but a recent analysis of popular support for autonomy across Russia’s regions by Adam Lenton of Wake Forest University found a highly variable level of support.

The data shows that in many of the regions that have exiled independence leaders and are mentioned as potential breakaway states, the public doesn’t support that goal.

The data shows support for autonomy rather than independence. Autonomy would make the Russian Federation a real federation.

The region with by far the most support for autonomy is Tatarstan, a Muslim-majority republic home to the Turkic-speaking Tatar people in Russia’s Volga region. But arguing that this should lead to independence makes little sense — it would be completely surrounded by a hostile Russian Federation. An independent foreign and defence policy in such circumstances would be almost impossible. Some Tatars have themselves argued against independence for this reason.

The regions of the North Caucasus have some of the highest scores, plus a foreign border with Georgia making it potentially a better candidate for independence. But the region has a bitter experience with attempts to break away with Chechnya’s attempt at independence failing after a long and bloody war.

In Siberia, the region of Tuva has high levels of support for autonomy. But it is in China’s backyard — and this would make it geographically vulnerable.

Russia’s Far East includes the Amur region along the border with China and Vladivostok. These were taken from China by Russia during the mid-19th century, when Russian general Nikolai Muraviev-Amursky used Russia’s greater firepower and more modern army to defeat China.

But the status of territories in the region remained contentious. In 1969, China and the Soviet Union fought a seven-month undeclared war over border issues.

After 1991, China and Russia went through several rounds of talks and treaties to ensure that the border between them was ratified by both parties, with the last treaty signing taking place in 2004. Even so, not all groups within China accept the results.

Textbooks in China still mention its loss of 1.5 million square kilometres to Russia and note that Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, said he would “present the bill,” meaning that Russia would have to pay for what Mao perceived as the theft of Chinese territory.

The fear among some Russians — and those in the West — is that China could turn Russia’s Far East into its satellite, using it as a source of raw materials such as diamonds and gold, as well as oil and gas. And with economic hegemony comes political influence.

China faces challenges that make increasing its influence in Russia’s Far East particularly attractive now, including what experts see as a structural economic crisis and a rural education gap. Territorial expansion could provide economic growth while serving as a distraction from domestic issues.

But the breakup of the Russian Federation could also pose a security threat to China. The experience of Xinjiang serves as a warning. The region, which has been the focus of China’s persecution of the Muslim Uyghur people, had twice been a breakaway region under the protection of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party will be fearful that any unrest in areas of the Russian Federation that are close to Xinjiang might spill over.

And rather than hastening the disintegration of the Russian Federation, polls suggest that the war in Ukraine is having a unifying effect. Many Russians who were originally against the war have become reluctant supporters of it — in part because of propaganda that has emphasised the threat from the West to Russia’s territorial integrity. Since 2021, Russia’s military doctrine has highlighted this threat, stating that one of the main issues facing the nation was groups “aimed at violating the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.”

The calls in the West for the breakup of the Russian Federation might suggest to the Russian public that Putin’s territorial fears could become a reality. Moreover, dreams of a broken Russian Federation might distract those in the West from the very real problem of helping Ukraine protect its own territorial integrity.