Thread by @kamilkazani

At October 2, 1552 Kazan fall to Ivan the Terrible. The city was destroyed, its population massacred. Although guerrilla lasted for decades, systematic devastation of the country eventually broke the armed resistance. I believe the story of Kazan fall to be quite instructive

In 1549 Safa Giray Khan dies leaving his two year old son as an heir. His widow Suyun Bike becomes a regent. Ivan IV tried to use the moment. In 1549-1550 Russians besieged the city but were defeated

(You can find a contemporary Tatar account in Zafer name-i Vilayet-i Kazan)

1550-1551 expedition was more successful. Russian troops built a fortress Sviyazhsk* in about 30 km upstream from Kazan, blockading the main transport artery. That allowed to effectively cut the right ("hill") bank of Volga off the left ("meadow") one, cutting the country in two

At this point Kazan asked for peace. Ivan demanded to accept his puppet Shahghali as the new Khan and extradite regent Suyun Bike with the infant Khan Ütämeşgäräy to Moscow. In return, he offered the peace and lifting the blockade. Kazan agreed

Once Shahghali assumed the throne in Kazan, Ivan declared that he is not going to return the occupied right ("hill") bank anyway - by the right of conquest. Shahghali and Kazan must formally cede the right bank to Russia, otherwise Ivan would resume the hostilities

At August 14, 1551 Shahghali convened the Qurultay, or the "council of all the land" in the Russian sources. It was mostly clergy and aristocracy. They tried to argue against the annexation, but eventually agreed to ratify the treaty. Right bank of Volga became formally Russian

In January 1552 the Russian government declared its new goal - the abolishment of khanate and its full annexation by Moscow. The puppet Khan would have to give place to the Russian governor. In March Shahghali left the city, so it was ready to accept the governor

At March 9 the new governor prince Milulinksy departed from Sviyazhsk to Kazan. Still, once he reached the city gates, he wasn't allowed in. Apparently in the absence of Shahghali, the city rebelled and new authorities decided not to follow with the annexation plan

They refused to accept the initial annexation of the right bank either. Soon, the entire right bank came out of the Russian control and only the Sviyazhsk remained in their hands. New government invited a prince Yadegar Mokhammad from the Nogay Horde to be the new Khan

In summer 1552, Russia resumed the war. In mid-August the Russian troops reached Sviyazhsk. Now they enjoyed the better situation than in any previous siege, having a major logistical hub just a few dozens kilometres upstream from the city. By August 23 it was fully encircled

Through the entire September the Russian army was trying to breach the walls by artillery and explosives, first unsuccessfully. On September 30, they managed to blow up the wall and did the first assault. But it was beaten back

At October 2, 1552 the wall was blown up in another place - this time they managed to break inside. According to Kurbsky they were nearly driven out again because too many soldiers started to plunder the city instead of fighting. But then Ivan sent more reinforcements

By the end of the day resistance was broken. According to the legend, the last defenders of the city took their last stand at the Khan's palace and at the main mosque, led by its imam Kul Sharif - descendant of the Prophet

By the end of the siege, the city was completely destroyed. The entire male population of the city was slaughtered, female - partially slaughtered, partially enslaved. Only a few managed to break through the encirclement and escape to the forests

The fall of Kazan manifested the beginning of guerrilla war that lasted for decades. Interestingly enough, it was called the Cheremis (Mari) war in the Russian sources. Most probably the countryside population of Kazan was still predominantly Finno-Ugric and pagan back then

Guerrillas made some successes. They built a new capital (fortress basically) cutting the communications between the Russian-occupied Kazan and Sviyazhsk, destroyed a few Russian expeditions, made rads into Russia proper. Still, they were eventually defeated

After the fall of Kazan the occupying army devastated the banks of the main rivers: Volga and Kama exterminating/enslaving the population or driving them away from the waterways. This paved the way for the Russian colonists who would then settle along the rivers

Kazan was cleansed from its original population and became a fully Russian city for centuries. By the late 18th Tatars could build some minor settlements on its outskirts. Still, even by 1900 the city was around 70% Russian. Repossession of Kazan happened only in the 1990s

After 1552 the native Turkic and Finno-Ugric people from the region were subject both to religious and to the socioeconomic oppression. On the one hand, they suffered from the continuous waves of forced Christianisation that did not really stop until 1905

On the other hand, they were subject to the regime of comprehensive socioeconomic discrimination. For example, working with metals was prohibited and was punishable by death. As metalwork is essential for farming, the native farming population was effectively criminalised

The extrajudicial executions of those caught doing the metalwork (e.g. changing the hoof) continued well into the 19th c. Whereas 1905 revolution brought the formal civil equality, informally the imperial authorities still considered natives as a risk and a socio-cultural problem

I think this story is quite instructive. Every concept and every idea, including "deescalation" has its limits of applicability. In the real world, "deescalation" too often serve as an euphemism for the appeasement of an aggressor. Which does not necessarily lead to peace

The entire idea of "deescalation" is based upon assumption that the opposite side also wants to deescalate and is just as conflict averse as you. But what if this assumption is false? Well, then this strategy becomes suicidal

The idea that you can "deescalate" in each and every situation is delusional. From time to time you must stand up and fight and there is no way around it. You may choose whether you will take a fight in more favourable or less favourable situation - that's it

In this case deescalation is suicidal because. With every concession to an aggressor your position becomes less and less tenable. So once you will have to stand up (as there is no around it), you won't have a single chance. You lost them one by one, while deescalating. The end

PS Most of the narrative is based on M.G. Khudyakov “Essays on the History of the Kazan Khanate”. To my best knowledge this work has not been translated to English, yet