Zatulin explained why battalions with the names of Russia’s opponents in the Caucasus were allowed
The press service of State Duma deputy Konstantin Zatulin distributed the deputy’s speech, where he explains why Moscow had to make compromises and agree with the right of the Chechen Republic to form battalions named after historical figures who once fought against the annexation of the Caucasus to Russia.
Let us recall that Ramzan Kadyrov recently announced the creation of two such units – one within the Ministry of Defense and one within the Russian National Guard – which sparked heated debate among observers.
“What is the problem that initially exists in any multinational country such as Russia. Our Constitution speaks of the equality of all, regardless of gender and nationality, and we must adhere to this principle. We must understand that if we consider the history of peoples who did not voluntarily enter Russia and do not want to leave it voluntarily (as they sometimes say in Dagestan), then we will be faced with the fact that they or we have some heroes who do not like us or them, respectively, due to the fact that they were on the other side in our military clashes. If we are not talking about terrorists, fanatics, criminals from the point of view of universal human morality, then we must get used to the fact that the heroes of some nations may not coincide with the heroes of other nations. For us, Ermolov is a symbol of the Russian officer, hero, annexator of the Caucasus. For the Circassians, Circassians, and even for the Chechens, Yermolov is the man who exterminated their ancestors, and for this reason there should be no monuments to him. For us, neither Sheikh Mansur nor Benoevsky can be heroes.
I don’t feel any pleasure from the fact that, for example, some military unit is named after Benoevsky. But let's figure it out now. We are interested in the Chechens being loyal, so that they, just like during a special military operation, fight at the front without sparing themselves, so that they suffer losses while defending our common interests, and so on. If so, then we must allow some compromises. I don't think these trade-offs are limitless. But we must understand that if there are no glaring contradictions, then this has to be tolerated, especially in certain circumstances. There is no need to make this fact a touchstone in our relations with the Chechens and Chechnya,” Zatulin said on the air of “Moscow Speaks”.
According to the deputy, Russia will have to make similar compromises in international relations.
“Was there a Mongol-Tatar yoke or not? Today or yesterday they said that in Mongolia they are going to restore the capital and move to the capital of Genghis Khan’s empire - Karakorum. This is the time when the Rus' of that time was drained of blood as a result of the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and all sorts of languages along with them. And for at least a hundred and fifty, or even three hundred years, she found herself under their rule, which means a lot in Russian history. Should we apply this to today's relations with Mongolia? Today we are interested in Mongolia. I was just in Mongolia. I know that they have just rebuilt the Genghis Khan Museum; less than a year has passed since it was put into operation. All this is told there.
We must understand that history in this regard not only unites, but also divides. But we need to be more calm about this, if it doesn’t come to the point where it becomes a reason for strife. Then this must be stopped. It seems to me that we need to be patient and take it calmly,” Zatulin urges.
But political scientist Roman Antonovsky, author of the “Sons of Monarchy” channel, calls for the popularization of other historical heroes in the Chechen Republic - loyal to Russia.
“The modern hero of pro-Russian, Russian-friendly Chechnya should be Major General of the Tsarist Army, Artsu Iskhakovich Chermoev, a Chechen who took part in the capture and execution of Baysangur Benoevsky, a glorious son of his people and a loyal warrior of Russia. The mountain battalions in the Russian army deserve to bear the name of this military officer of the Russian Imperial Army, and not the murky pro-Turkish abreks,” writes Antonovsky.