So let’s continue yesterday’s analysis of Ruslan Kurbanov’s arguments about the war in Ukraine (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=40612). First of all, we need to respond to some commentators who think that we should stop «promoting» Kurbanov because «everything about him is already clear». But let’s look at things objectively. First of all, Kurbanov does not need our promotion, because his audience is definitely not smaller than ours. And secondly, some people understand it, others don’t, which is why readers keep asking us to react to the Kremlin’s agenda wrapped in an Islamic garment. We, in turn, need to convey this to those who are being misled by the manipulations of pro-Kremlin «Muslim bloggers».
So, yesterday we talked about Kurbanov’s manipulations regarding historical issues, and today we will talk about manipulations regarding the present and the future. But let’s start with another historical issue he raises that has direct relevance to the present.
Kurbanov argues that when Putin annexed Crimea and recruited Mustafa Dzhemilev and other leaders of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, they should have put the interests of their own people first, not the interests of Ukraine. And in this case, if they had asked Putin to make Crimea a Crimean Tatar republic within Russia in exchange for their support, he would have granted it to them.
The problem is not that Kurbanov either does not understand that Putin’s actions in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine are driven by the Orthodox-Russian project, or that he relies on those who do not understand it. For them, Crimea is the «baptismal font of Rus», the place (in Chersonesos) where, according to them, Rus was born, since certain Slavic tribes subsequently became Russian. The same motives also explain the main goal of the war against Ukraine, which is covered by talk of NATO bases, etc., while the main task is the «return of the lands of ancient Rus,» for the sake of which people from Muslim nations in Russia are dying in large numbers.
The point is that Kurbanov either does not understand or deliberately distorts the historical and political realities of the Kremlin’s relations with the peoples who have put their trust in it. For example, unlike Ichkeria, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan signed agreements with Moscow in the format demanded by Crimean Tatar leaders like Kurbanov. They signed these agreements in 1994, and even before that, other republics signed the federal agreement. And what happened to these agreements? Putin threw them in the trash, and Kirienko, commenting on the non-renewal of the agreement with Tatarstan, said that he had fulfilled his mission and no longer needed them, because Russian statehood is not built on a contractual basis. Once again — Russian statehood is not built on a contractual basis, in other words, all agreements concluded with the Kremlin, especially at moments of its weakness, are not worth the paper they are written on.
Therefore, first of all, Putin would most likely not give a Crimean Tatar Republic in «Russian Crimea» by dividing the Mejlis leaders for participation in the government, various benefits, programs, etc. And secondly, even if he did, it would become the same fiction that most other republics within Russia are today. Not to mention that they would lose their positions on the international stage and become traitors by the time Ukraine regains Crimea with the help of the international community.
Now for Kurbanov’s other theses on the present and the future. They can be described as follows: if Russia suffers defeat in the war with Ukraine, it will lead to its disintegration; if Russia disintegrates, the Muslim Caucasians will lose because they will not be able to unite and will immediately start settling scores with each other; and also, if Russia disintegrates, the Muslims in Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, and indeed the whole world will have no one to rely on.
Therefore, to prevent these horrors, Russia must not lose in Ukraine. Moreover, unlike many hawks who demand the complete destruction of Ukraine as a state, Kurbanov «generously» agrees to its existence so that its Muslims will not suffer. However, for this to happen, for Russia not to collapse, and for Muslims in Russia and around the world not to suffer, Muslims in Ukraine must agree that Russia should take something away from Ukraine. At the very least, Donbass, and at the most, Donbass, Slobozhanshchina, and the entire Black Sea region.
It is, of course, extremely difficult to comment on this while remaining within the bounds of decency… But let us point out the obvious — apart from the ethical aspect, Kurbanov’s argumentation is simply logically fallacious. For besides Russia’s partial victory in the war and its collapse in the event of the failure of its «military operation,» there are other scenarios. For example, Putin could be deposed in a coup and blamed for the war and its defeat. Or, conversely, the Kremlin declares that the goals of demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine have been achieved, with the imposition of repression against anyone who refuses to recognize this.
As for the claim that Muslim countries will lose if Russia disintegrates, the absurdity of this conclusion is obvious. On the contrary, Turkey will completely replace Russia in the South Caucasus and the Turkic republics of Central Asia, and will begin to expand its influence in the North Caucasus and the Volga region. And in Tajikistan, the Taliban will bring a loyal opposition to power. And as for the suggestion that Pakistan or Qatar or Saudi Arabia will be lost without Russia, countries that have never relied on it, there is no need to comment on that.
Now, as for the balance of opportunities and risks that will arise in this case for the Muslims of today’s Russia, especially in the Caucasus. Yes, it must be honestly admitted that there is a risk of the scenario described by Kurbanov. But what is he doing to prevent it? Is he working on the Kremlin’s agenda among the Muslim public and presenting it as Islamic? But this manipulation will not prevent the scenario he fears if it happens. Because the only thing that could prevent it is the emergence, at least on the public level, of a Caucasian project or platforms for Islamic opinion leaders from the Caucasus, who would already start discussing what should be done and what should not be done in case of a collapse of the Kremlin, in order to be able to take advantage of it instead of becoming its victims.
It must be understood that no Islamic project can be implemented under the Kremlin. And, of course, there will be no Islamization of Russia as a reward for the participation of «Putin’s foot soldiers» in the war. To believe otherwise is either self-deception or deliberate deception of the public. Islamic and other projects will be possible only after the collapse of the Kremlin’s vertical power structure and the emergence of a window of opportunity when peoples and regions are left to their own devices.
At that moment, the task of Muslim forces and opinion leaders should be to ensure that Muslim peoples and communities either unite or at least agree not to fight each other and postpone the resolution of all ideological and territorial disputes to the future, relying solely on peaceful methods. As for the political formats of action, theoretically there are many of them, from the regions that have gained autonomy demanding the real federalization of the present Russian Federation with a veto power for Muslim regions, to the creation of federations (Caucasus, Volga) or separate states with the formation of interstate alliances (Chechnya — Georgia, Bashkortostan — Kazakhstan, etc.).
Yes, undoubtedly, we should not succumb to wishful thinking and believe that if the Putin regime collapses or Russia disintegrates, everything will be fine. These scenarios carry significant risks, but it must be understood that if we bury our heads in the sand, we will not avoid them, we will simply not be prepared for them when the time comes, whereas we must prepare for them now. But the main thing that needs to be understood is that with the preservation of the Putin regime and the preservation of Putin’s Russia, there are definitely no prospects for Muslims. Therefore, it is criminal and short-sighted to work for such preservation while demanding that Muslims from other countries sacrifice their interests for it.