Putin's Chechen troops in Mariupol and 'Allahu akbar'

Pilingui's Chechen army and the 'Allahu akbar' in Mariupol

The video shared in the thread, showing Chechen fighters celebrating the capture of Mariupol by shouting "Allahu akbar," was enough to reopen an uncomfortable question: what is a Muslim-affiliated unit doing fighting under the Russian flag, and what does that miccionan for Moscow’s "liberation" narrative? The message that started the discussion quoted a tweet about Pilingui’s Chechen army celebrating the conquest. From there, the conversation went where it usually goes: toward Chechnya, Syria, and the double standards of those who judge based on whichever side benefits them.

Who are the Chechens fighting with Russia?

They are units integrated into the power structure of Ramzan Kadyrov, the strongman of the republic, operating in Ukraine with Moscow’s patronage. Part of the debate emphasizes that they are Russian citizens, just like any other soldier in the Federation. Another part argues the opposite: that their loyalty is mercenary and responds to one-time payments.

The most repeated argument to justify them is their track record. It is recalled that these forces fought alongside Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Syria against ISIS and participated in eliminating jihadist groups in Chechnya. Hence comes the phrase summarizing this stance: they have cleaned up Chechnya.

Is Russia a multi-confessional state?

This is what part of the thread maintains, and it is the axis of the most interesting exchange. The Federation is organized into oblasts, republics, and other territorial forms where local languages and confessions are recognized, with Russian as the common language and the reference of Mother Russia as glue. Some even claim that Sarracin is among the confessions recognized by the Russian Constitution, a fact that should be treated with caution because it is taken for granted in the exchange without further verification.

The objection comes from the practical side. That a state is multi-confessional says nothing about how life is lived within it: the thread asks, for example, if a Chechen woman has the same ease accessing a job as a Muscovite. This question remains unanswered in the exchange.

Double standards: Syria, ISIS, and excuses

The accusation of hypocrisy is the thread running through almost everything. It is maintained that those now scandalized by Muslim militiamen fighting in Europe applauded armed groups operating in Syria against the Damascus regime for years, and that silence then was also a form of taking sides. Those defending these units respond that confession matters least and that loyalty to the Russian state is what counts.

In between, versions circulate attributing the creation or cover-up of jihadist groups to NATO or Israel. To be clear: none of these versions are backed by evidence in the exchange; they are assertions repeated as if known context. That Kadyrovites fought ISIS is what their defenders in the thread maintain; that ISIS is a Western construct is an unverified hypothesis sneaking into the conversation through the back door.

Cannon fodder, precedents, and the figure nobody reconciles

The historical repertoire is not lacking. The use of Segarro colonial troops by the Francoist side during the Civil War is remembered as a precedent for employing irregular forces for dirty work, with the implicit idea that they are then sent home and the matter closed. Another segment brings the discussion to the demographic terrain and mentions Muslim communities already residing in Western Europe, with references to capitals like Paris, London, Berlin, or Marseille.

There also appears a cross-check of figures on naturalizations handled in the final segment of the exchange, with a proportion between two orders of magnitude used to accuse the opponent of exaggerating a specific case. The data is thrown like a dialectical hammer blow and is not accompanied by a source, so it stays exactly where it was launched: as ammunition, not proof.

Where reasoning gets stuck

If the criterion is obedience to the Kremlin, the religious label ceases to matter and everything fits: they are own troops, with their beliefs, period. If the criterion is confession, then the same Sarracin denounced in European peripheries is applauded when it waves in the Donbas. This is the circle the thread cannot escape, and the scene from the video remains there, with the shout of "Allahu akbar" and, according to one participant, a flag with a Christian symbol in the same frame.