Recently, Ramzan Kadyrov’s position as Chechnya’s leader has become unstable amid growing tensions with other Kremlin insiders and a surge of criticism from pro-government bloggers and Russian media.
Kadyrov has ruled Chechnya since 2007, creating a virtually autonomous regime in exchange for ensuring regional stability for the Kremlin. In return, he received broad authority and significant budgetary benefits. For years, Kadyrov was considered one of Putin’s closest allies. The Kremlin overlooked harsh repression, corruption, abductions of opponents, and assassination attempts in the republic.
Recently, however, state propaganda abruptly shifted. A dispute between Kadyrov and General Shamanov was emblematic: at a Duma session, Shamanov criticized the renaming of Cossack settlements in Chechnya and denounced Kadyrov. In response, Kadyrov accused Shamanov of crimes and suggested he be sent to war. Kremlin propagandists sided with Shamanov. For the first time, state media openly challenged Kadyrov’s formerly loyal image, with social media attacks following suit.
Tensions escalated further during the vote over the design of a new 500-ruble banknote. Kadyrov promoted “Grozny City” while ultranationalist bloggers accused his team of vote manipulation. The controversy deepened divisions within the Kremlin elite, with the resulting vote outcome leading to heated debates and mutual accusations of fraud and discrimination.
These developments were accompanied by discussions of Kadyrov’s possible succession. In May 2025, he reportedly suggested passing power to his son, but Putin declined. Meanwhile, Moscow’s nationalists and security officials are growing more influential, casting further doubt on the Caucasus’ loyalty to the Kremlin.
The public attack on Kadyrov—once untouchable—signals a shift in the Kremlin’s domestic policy toward regional leaders. Even minor deviations from the “party line” are now under scrutiny and could put Kadyrov at risk. This marks the end of an era for untouchable figures and represents a move toward deeper centralization of power in Moscow. The outcome depends on Russia’s ongoing internal and external shifts.
