Historians point to threat of conflict over monuments to conquerors in the Caucasus

The installation of controversial monuments in the regions of the Caucasus can be explained by the desire of the authorities to gain favor with the federal center, experts interviewed by the "Caucasian Knot" assert.

The "Caucasian Knot" has reported that the World Forum of Tatar Youth and Astrakhan Muslims had criticized the city administration for an online vote on the initiative to perpetuate the memory of the first Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible on the central square of Astrakhan. The monument to the conqueror of the Astrakhan Khanate would undermine the foundations of the interethnic and inter-confessional peace in the city, the forum said to the governor.

The Dagestan historian Khadzhimurad Donogo sees links between the installation of monuments and the activities of the regional authorities aimed at demonstrating their loyalty to the federal center. According to Donogo, in Dagestan, there is no monument to Imam Shamil, but there are three monuments to Peter the Great. "Why is there no monument to Imam Shamil? But then there are three monuments to Peter the Great - the conqueror, who came to Dagestan with fire and a sword. How can you put a monument to him? This is an initiative of local authorities who are striving to gain favor with Moscow," he said.

A senior researcher at the Center for Caucasus Problems and Regional Security at MGIMO, Akhmet Yarlykapov sees the potential for conflict in installation of monuments to the conquerors of the Caucasus. Monuments to Russian tsars and generals are intended to confirm the “Russianness” of the Caucasus, but in fact the opposite effect can be achieved, he says.

This article was originally published on the Russian page of 24/7 Internet agency ‘Caucasian Knot’ on January 27, 2020 at 04:54 am MSK. To access the full text of the article, click here.