‘The double standards of an illegitimate state’
In response to numerous requests, we present this legal and historical analysis—one that is systematically suppressed. When I refer to an ‘illegitimate state’ in this work, I am speaking of Russia, a designation I will substantiate through documented evidence. This analysis examines legal and historical facts that are often deliberately suppressed.
I want to bring to your attention a legal and historical analysis that is often deliberately glossed over. It is silenced for obvious reasons in Russia, and it is silenced on various international platforms, be it PACE, OSCE and the United Nations. Everyone has their own reasons, but in all this the truth and the truth is silenced. Therefore, the objective of this article is historical and legal enlightenment. My goal, there is such an intention, is to enlighten at least some part of it, to write what really happened and what is really happening. It will be about the right of the Chechen people to self-determination and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to independence.
I want to show the legal mistakes made by the Russian Federation in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and how the Chechen Republic acted. Chechen leaders acted strictly within the framework of the Constitution of the Soviet Union and all norms of international law, realising their right to self-determination. In contrast, the Russian Federation violated a number of key provisions of Soviet Union law and international obligations.
The Chechen Republic’s Legal Path to Independence
On 8 June 1991, the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic declared its independence within the Soviet Union and withdrew from the RSFSR in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Soviet Union. I would like to recall that the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic.
According to the Constitution of the USSR, the RSFSR had a number of autonomous republics, including the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic, and the RSFSR was part of the Soviet Union. This is for the understanding of those who do not know about these events, who may not have heard about it. That is, at that time in the Soviet Union the Russian Federation was one of the union republics, just as Ukraine, Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan and so on were.
The Law of the Soviet Union ‘On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of the Union Republic from the Soviet Union’ (this is the name of the law, dated 3 April 1990, numbered No. 1409-1, Article 3) states: ‘The peoples of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to independently resolve the issue of the withdrawing Union Republic’s stay in the Union of the USSR’. As well as raising the question of their state-legal status through a referendum of the people of the republic.
I have now quoted the law of 1990, 1409-1, Article 3, which guided everything in the Soviet Union, including the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Guided by the above-mentioned law of the USSR, 1409-1, Article 3, the Supreme Soviet of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic on 27 November 1990 adopted a resolution on the independence of the republic and changed the status of an autonomous republic to a union republic.
I wrote above ‘They have the right to change the status of the republic’. According to this right, the Supreme Soviet of the The Chechen-Ingush ASSR changed the status of the autonomous republic, proclaiming the Chechen-Ingush Republic with the status of a Union Republic within the USSR. Let’s establish this point.
On 27 November 1990, according to the law of the Soviet Union, the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic through the decisions adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Chechen-Ingush Republic changed its status of an Autonomous Republic according to the law of the Soviet Union, leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Soviet Union with the status of a Union Republic. This is very important, and we have recorded it. Since November 1990 the Chechen-Ingush Republic had the status of a Union Republic within the Soviet Union.
In the subsequent time the Chechen-Ingush Republic, for our understanding, did not take part in any affairs related to Russia. That is, the Chechen Republic had no connection to Russia. The Chechen Republic existed as a separate republic, just as Russia itself had its status of a Union Republic within the USSR.
On 11 March 1991, the Supreme Council of the Chechen-Ingush Republic adopted a resolution refusing to hold a Russian referendum on the introduction of the post of President of Russia, on the territory of the Chechen Republic. That is, a referendum was held in the Russian Federation, where they raised the question of introducing the post of President of Russia. The Chechen Republic refused to hold this referendum on its territory, despite the fact that Moscow asked and demanded to hold this plebiscite. The authorities of the Chechen Republic refused and stated that Russia had nothing to do with them.
Article 72 of the Soviet Union Constitution provided for the right of the Union republics to withdraw from the Soviet Union. That is, in 1990 the Chechen Republic was in the status of a Union Republic, while the USSR Constitution allowed any Union Republic to withdraw from the Soviet Union. On 8 June 1991, at the Congress of the Chechen people, the Declaration of Independence of the Chechen Republic and the right to secede from the Soviet Union was adopted. Everything was according to the law. Nowhere did the Chechen society and the leaders of the Chechen people violate anything as they moved towards their statehood and independence.
On 27 October 1991, under the supervision of representatives of 27 states and organisations from all over the world, elections and a referendum were successfully held in the Chechen Republic. The President and Parliament of the Chechen Republic were elected and a referendum was held, de facto confirming the sovereignty and independence of the Chechen Republic. In October 1991, the Chechen Republic, which had the status of a Union Republic, seceded from the Soviet Union.
Many of you probably do not know the fact that the first republic that declared its independence and announced its withdrawal from the USSR was the Chechen Republic. Not Russia, Ukraine or Uzbekistan, it was the Chechen Republic that was the first to secede from the Soviet Union and declare its independence. Only two months later in December the USSR was dissolved, we will also consider this later.
Thus, the Chechen Republic was the first to secede from the Soviet Union two months before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination. Moreover, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, affirms the right of peoples to freely determine their political status.
In other words, we see how the Chechen people, consistently relying on the laws of the Soviet Union and guided by international law, moved towards declaring their independence. Thus, in spite of interference and provocations by Russia, under the supervision of 27 states, the Chechens achieved the organisational formalisation of their right to a state by holding a referendum and elections of the President and Parliament.
Violations of the law by Russia during the collapse of the USSR
Now let us return to the Russian Federation. I have set myself the task in this article to draw parallels between the behaviour of the two peoples, Chechens and Russians, the Chechen Republic and the Russian Federation, as to the legality of these states. I have shown above the way to independence of the Chechen Republic, how the Russian Federation moved. Russia violated the norms of international law at the collapse of the Soviet Union, and on the basis of documents, this can be proved. I don’t think there will be any problems or there should be any special knowledge in understanding these arguments.
On 26 December 1991, the Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a declaration on the termination of the Soviet Union. The Law of the Soviet Union numbered 2392 of 1990 required a referendum and the consent of the Union Republics to withdraw from the Soviet Union. Did Russia hold a referendum? No.
While still part of the Soviet Union, Russia violated and ignored Law No. 2392 of 1990, Russia simply ignored the Law. Instead, Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk (Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus) signed the Belovezhskie Agreements to end the Soviet Union. This was on 8 December 1991.
On 12 December 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic ratified the Belovezhskie Agreements. Thus, Russia destroyed the USSR through violations of Soviet law and withdrew from the Soviet Union, not according to the law.
That is, Russia broke the law. Now let’s move on. The Soviet Union no longer exists, there is Russia, life there must go on. The agreements on the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not settle the status of territory between these states, including issues within the Russian Federation itself.
Border issues between republics within the Russian Federation were not legally formalised at all. The autonomous republics of the RSFSR remained in an undefined legal status.
When Russia proclaimed itself a federation, this structure presupposed that member republics would establish their relationships by treaties and agreements defining the relations enshrined in the documents on the creation of this Federation. The Federation was proclaimed unilaterally, and the peoples living on this territory had no status. But they chose to proceed in a characteristically Russian, lawless manner.
Those who initiated these changes, proceeded from the considerations that we proclaimed a state, put bandits at the head of the state, and then as it turns out. If it doesn’t work out at all, it’s no big deal, they didn’t worry much about it, they fell back on their time-tested approach used in centuries, “we’ll resolve everything through Russian military force”. Only on 31 March 1992 the Federal Treaty was signed. It was called ‘Delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers between federal bodies’.
The Chechen Republic and the Republic of Tatarstan did not sign the Federal Treaty. By the way, Tatarstan signed this treaty only in February 1994. At the time of signing the Federal Treaty Russia was weak, we remember ‘Bush’s legs’ (referring to American chicken leg imports in a food aid program), banditism, hungry Russia, America pulled it out then and saved it.
And so in that dire situation, and weak government, Russia, was flexible and soft in its dealings with the peoples of Russia. You know, it reminds me of the 18-20s, in the early 20th century, when the Bolsheviks, being weak, not having the ability to keep non-Russian peoples in obedience, including the North Caucasus, promised them everything, and I’m literally quoting from memory, ‘live your life (govern yourselves as you see fit)’. At that time the Bolsheviks were telling the mountaineers of the North Caucasus ‘establish your own Sharia courts, have and carry your own weapons, keep your morals, your customs as you wish, organise your life’. In the 30s, as soon as the Bolsheviks got a little stronger, they carried out terror and destroyed everyone who believed them, cancelled everything they allowed.
And in 1992, when Russia was signing a treaty with the republics, some republics showed their character, they wanted horizontal relations with other states, and they got the right to do that. This is in addition to the fact that they delegated their rights to the Federal Centre. And there were several such republics: Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, Komi, Yakutia, North Ossetia, and Tatarstan. By the way, later, as soon as when Putin consolidated power, these republics lost these preferential arrangements. Unilaterally, without consulting the republics, Moscow simply cancelled these horizontal relations of the republics with partners from other countries.
On 12 December 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted. It was proclaimed that in the part where the Federal Treaty conflicts with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution has the prevailing right, because Russia is a constitutional federation rather than a contractual (treaty) federation. That is, when Russia was weak, the Russians allowed the peoples of the republics to play at federalism, and threw their elites a bone, but once they grew stronger, they cancelled everything and quickly snatched the bone back.
The problem of Russia’s international legitimacy
Now let’s try to assess Russia’s behaviour from the point of view of international law. I have clearly shown you above how they within Russia itself did not respect the Constitution, did not respect the laws and violated the rights of people and nations, and how they illegally withdrew from the Soviet Union. And now let’s look at Russia’s behaviour in its relations with international organisations, from the point of view of international law.
Russia’s status in the UN as a legal successor of the Soviet Union is violated proper procedures. After the Soviet Union’s dissolution in December 1991, Russia did not follow the formal UN membership application procedures, as required by the Charter of the United Nations. That is, Russia did not do so. What does that tell us? The General Assembly did not vote to accept the Russian Federation in place of the USSR.
No General Assembly vote was held on Russia’s membership status. The United Nations Charter does not provide for the automatic transfer of a seat on the Security Council from one State to another without a decision by the General Assembly. We remember that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council.
Russia is illegally a permanent member of the Security Council today because it has no right to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, due to the fact that it is not a member of the UN. How did they set up this forgery? Yeltsin wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 24 December 1991. Based on this letter, by default, Russia continues to be a non-member of the United Nations and positions itself as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The question may arise, what if this is possible under UN procedure?
Absolutely not—this is categorically impossible under UN procedures! When Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, the United Nations refused to automatically recognise Serbia as the legal successor of Yugoslavia. That is, Serbia had to go through the UN admission procedures.
The issue of Serbia was put on the agenda of the UN General Assembly meeting. The procedure of Serbia’s admission to the UN was passed, and as a result of voting, Serbia was accepted as a member of the UN.
Serbia received its status as a result of voting at the General Assembly meeting. Thus, we see that in 1991 Russia was admitted to the UN by letter, and in 1992 Serbia was not admitted by letter, based on the UN Charter. And why not accepted? Because the Charter of the United Nations does not provide for that.
And why Russia was admitted to the UN in violation of the UN Charter? That is, Russia is in the UN not by right. And it turns out that all procedural issues, voting, decisions that are taken on Russia’s initiative, some decisions are blocked by Russia’s will as a permanent member of the Security Council, it is all a fiction. It is invalid. If there are good law firms or advanced lawyers in the world today and they start to sue, in this case they will win the case without a doubt. Because outside of Russia and similar authoritarian states, the law is still observed in some places.
The law, I am convinced, should be binding for everyone, regardless of status or whether someone has atomic weapons. I mean, what I want to say is that Russia was admitted to the United Nations without a full legal procedure, and it is not legal.
It’s not valid. Russia does not have the right to have a vote, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Western economic interests in Russia
Why did Russia have such preferential treatment that it could violate procedural issues at the United Nations? Why didn’t they raise the question of the illegality of its presence in this international organisation? I will answer you. Because Russia, since its inception, has been patronised by the United States of America and some European countries are associated with it. Because the United States of America had its own pragmatic interest in this new Russia, participated in Russian business projects, and influenced the decisions made by the authorities of the Russian Federation.
Let us now consider a Russian business project, which has flourished and brought huge profits, which has simply incredible assets. And these assets are counted in billions, and even trillions of dollars.
These economic interests explain the international community’s ambivalent attitude toward Russia. Why many people turn a blind eye to Russia’s crimes, including those countries that position themselves as democratic, liberal countries, standing in defence of democracy and righteousness. For them all this is just a prank, when Russians kill Chechens, Georgians, killed Syrian Arabs, and now they do it to Ukrainians. And the secret of permissiveness of Russia lies in its natural resources. And foreigners in the development of these resources are represented a lot. Understanding the extent of foreign ownership in Russian business reveals foreign interests in protecting Russia. Why, in fact, today some countries so openly and shamelessly defend Russia and justify its crimes. They insistently try to fence Russia in and do everything so that Russia does not answer for its crimes. Let’s see, what is the most valuable thing in Russia? It is gas, oil, gold, aluminium, coal, metallurgy.
The share of foreigners in Russian business is oil and gas. The main players here are Rosneft, Gazprom, and Novatek. Foreigners own 25% of the assets of these Russian or near-Russian players that I have named.
Gold. The following companies are engaged in gold in Russia: Polyus, Polymetal, Petropavlovsky. How many assets do you think foreigners have there? That’s right, a lot – 40% of the shares of Russian gold production are held by foreigners.
Aluminium, Rusal. We remember Rusal, how they behaved there and persecuted Bykov (Anatoly Bykov is a former chairman and co-owner of the Krasnoyarsk Aluminum Plant (KrAZ), who was a powerful figure in the 1990s Russian aluminum industry, later marginalized and imprisoned after conflicts with Rusal and its owner oligarch Oleg Deripaska, amid criminal allegations and violent power struggles over control of the plant). 35% of Rusal’s shares are owned by foreigners.
Coal. Coal is slowly receding into the background with the emergence of new energy sources. However, coal accounts for a huge percentage of the world’s consumption. SUEK, Mechel, Kolmar are engaged in coal in the Russian Federation. And 20% of coal is owned by foreigners.
Iron and steel industry, Severstal and Novolipetsk Steel. I had the good fortune at one time to work as a plant director in Lipetsk, I knew Novolipetsk Steel and its management. It was indeed an advanced plant at that time, the 1980s in the Soviet Union. There were advanced technologies, but this plant was created by the efforts of all the people of the entire Soviet Union, and it was appropriated by a few people. 30% of the assets of the entire iron and steel industry belong to foreigners. Now I will try to decipher a little bit what I was talking about.
Oil and gas, as I wrote, 25% are foreigners. Foreign investors were present until 2022, many of them left, had to leave, but of course they are trying to stay and control their assets under various pretexts. So, foreign investors were present through depositary receipts on the London and New York stock exchanges, strategic shareholders of BP and Rosneft.
Gold, 40% of the assets are owned by foreigners. Large foreign funds BlackRock and Vanguard, owners of significant stakes.
Aluminium, Rusal. 35% of assets are foreign. Shares traded in Hong Kong and London. Foreigners owned a large stake through the public market. And so on down the list of all natural resource areas.
We could now also talk about hydro and nuclear energy. I assure you, there are foreigners present in these business projects of the Russian state. I may be told that every state has this, the presence of foreign capital. That’s true, but in other countries these assets are taxed heavily in favour of the state, and in the case of Russia, Mishustin, who has been the head of tax services for a long time, in agreement with Putin came up with schemes where foreigners practically avoided paying taxes. In gratitude for this, Mishustin was made Prime Minister, by the way, who raped the population of the Russian Federation with heavy taxation to compensate for unpaid taxes by oligarchs and foreigners.
And that’s not all, there is another side to this story. What I have stated is that on average 30 per cent of assets, if not more, are owned by foreigners, and this data corresponds to reality, because we work exclusively on the basis of published data, which is verified and accurate. By the way, these foreigners are contributors to the presidential campaigns of Trump, Biden, Clinton. These sponsors insist that Russia face no any restrictions and actively lobby for Russian interests. And we see the line of behaviour of these presidential candidates and incumbent presidents because their campaign sponsors continue to have their assets in the Russian state.
But I want to develop my thought further and complete it. 30% of the assets are held by foreigners, well 30% or even 35% of the assets are owned by oligarchs, “Semibankirshina” (The seven-banker oligarchy group), people whose families live in Tel Aviv, London, Paris and California. And these people also withdraw money, they also evade taxes, if they pay them at all, and they are in one way or another connected to Trump, Biden, and other influential politicians, presidents of America and European countries.
By our most conservative estimate, 60% of all assets and monetary resources in the Russian state are directly or indirectly controlled by foreign interests. After all this, one should not wonder why America supports Russia, and it is easy to guess why. The owners of these assets and create the conditions for Putin to commit crimes against peoples and states.
You could name names here, and names, names of companies and states, there is no need. And when someone there says that America is trying to destroy Russia, I would like to say, what are you talking about? America goes to great lengths to ensure that Ukraine does not defeat Russia. Even Biden, with all the pro-Ukrainian position of the Democratic Party, did not allocate resources for the victory of Ukraine, it was calculated so that Ukraine did not lose, but also did not win.
Ukraine’s Struggle and the Importance of Freedom
This is the law of big politics, it is bitter to realise, but it is true. Chechens were bandits, separatists, international terrorists, they were accused of whatever sins they were accused of, whatever they were accused of. It was only after Russia, with its Nazi ideology of the Russian world, openly invaded Ukraine, which is Europe, and its army began to commit murder and violence, began to wipe cities off the face of the earth and kidnap children, that the world began to wake up. Europe is trying to open its eyes and finally behave appropriately.
I assure you, if there was no danger to Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Ukraine would have gone unnoticed. Left alone, in fact, on its ruins, if it were not for the fear of European states from the possible invasion of Russia. This is the unique case when fear and interest came into conflict, and this is also the truth of big politics. It is the interest that determines the behaviour of big states towards small states and small nations in the geopolitical layout of the modern world. And democracy and liberalism, elevated to the rank of religion, is just a rhetoric of cover, and no more.
That is why when I talk to audiences, when I meet with students, with young people, one would think that we are doomed to defeat. And I say, no. People need an objective, realistic assessment so that they do not fantasise, so that they do not deceive themselves with false expectations. We need it so that people can mobilise themselves, so that people concentrate internally and soberly calculate what their assets and expectations are. It is necessary to have absolutely reliable information about who their enemies are and who their allies are. And on the basis of this analysis to build a construction of their behaviour, to build their struggle, a struggle for their survival, for their people, for victory, for their right to the state.
I have no doubt that those who fulfil these conditions will win. Some people tend to think, having huge losses, receiving destruction, is it worth it to fight with such hardships? Here the question is addressed to each person separately, he has to answer himself. What he chooses, a gold chain around his neck and a dog kennel built of pure gold, or freedom. But this chain will always remind him that he is a slave, that he lives by the values of another culture and prays to other people’s gods.
Some are willing to do this as long as they are fed; they are willing to walk and grovel without the chain. But there are others who will never agree to be slaves under any conditions. By their origin, by the call of their blood, by their convictions, they cannot submit to the enemy, they protest against any arbitrariness. We now speak for these people, for these courageous people that every nation has. Some people have a lot of them, some people have very few, and some people have enough to form and lead the resistance and organise the struggle for their freedom. Therefore, when someone is going to fight, when he puts his life on the line, he must learn to win, and realise that there will be losses, that it will be necessary to retreat, to flee, to bypass and to advance. There should be no exaggeration and pathos, no rhetoric, only a pragmatic calculation of one’s capabilities and forces based on the strategy of victory.
The topic of the article is not simple, and the parsing of the time of the epoch and places of events is very complicated. It was not simple, also because it was built on historical-legal-legal norms of what happened in the considered part of history. Many of those who were not only witnesses but were also participants in these events are still alive. Many of them, who participated in these events, after the lapse of time, analysing the course of events, will probably think: what did we do wrong? Could it have been different? What should we do now? Some people think they should stop, others think they should have stopped for nothing, they should have kept fighting.
People are different, and they have different visions. But there are those who did not stop then, and now continue to move forward to achieve victory. These are really glorious, brave, courageous people, who without compromise, without any conditions continue to work on the way to victory. They do not position themselves as heroes, they do not ask to be given orders and medals. They are like workhorses labouring like wolves, boldly and bravely going forward, taking risks, losing, but they are full of hope that they will definitely win. If not them, their descendants will win.
I can safely say that Ukraine and Ukrainians are also facing such problems. They are in a position of active struggle not only with Russia, but also with those who would like to give Ukraine to the enemy. Fortunately, there are not many of them in Ukraine. America, Russia, they have tried quite persistently to put pressure on the president of Ukraine, on Ukrainians. You just have to understand what kind of concerted arguments they pulled out to suppress the will of President Zelensky and within Ukraine itself to stir up society, so that they initiated some protests, created Maidan. They did the dumps, claiming that President Zelensky is not legitimate, knowing full well that this is not true, in the conditions of war, no one has elected anyone yet. Ukraine has passed this test. I admire Ukrainians, I like them. I admire some people in Ukraine who risk their lives not only on the fronts, in Donbass, in Crimea, but also on the political field, not stopping, going forward. They are really making big bets, taking risks where they can actually become political bankrupts. But they are moving forward, and they will definitely win.
What I wrote, based on historical events, and showed what legal and legal norms guided the Chechen Republic and Russia, clearly showed their attitude to laws and law. Russia’s criminal behaviour also takes place in the events related to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
It is very sad, but Russia did not observe agreements and treaties with Ukraine, committed crimes for many years in occupied Crimea and part of Donbass. Now Russia, in front of the eyes of the whole world, continues to commit the gravest crimes in the occupied territory of Ukraine, where they have introduced their troops. All the described events, when Russia violated the laws of its country, bypassed and ignored international law, did not respect the rights of people and nations, started criminal wars, it is all connected. It is connected mainly by the behaviour of fascist Russia. Russia has always felt its impunity in any of its manifestations. Possessing enormous resources of opportunity, immeasurable money and immense power, Russia bought indulgence not to make mistakes from the ‘free world’. Confident in their impunity, Putin and the FSB gang of his henchmen committed crimes against the citizens of their country, against the Chechen people, against Muslims and Caucasians. In its crimes Russia has gone far beyond the borders of its territory, has made a mess in Georgia, in Syria, in Libya, in many parts of the world. At least now, when it has become clear to everyone what Russia’s role was in all these wars, and it has become obvious who is the initiator of these wars and the war in Ukraine, and it has become clear that Russia is a threat to the whole world, this criminal state must be stopped and held accountable for all its crimes.
President of the Assembly of Peoples of the Caucasus,
Doctor of Philosophy,
RUSLAN KUTAEV
