As Russia’s war in Ukraine enters its third year, attention has increasingly turned to the demographic costs of the conflict. Recent investigations have revealed a disturbing pattern: ethnic minorities from Russia’s periphery are disproportionately conscripted, deployed, and killed. Among these overlooked communities are the Ahiska Turks, a stateless Muslim minority with a long history of forced displacement, discrimination, and marginalization. Originally deported from Georgia in 1944 by Stalin, denied repatriation, and targeted in repeated pogroms and discriminatory campaigns, the Ahiska today face a new and dangerous chapter.

What distinguishes the Ahiska Turks is not only the severity of their historical trauma but also the way they have been rendered invisible in contemporary policy discourse. Despite being subjected to systemic exclusion in both Russia and Ukraine, their story remains largely absent from geopolitical analysis. Their experience sheds light on how non-Slavic populations are used as expendable resources in times of crisis—both as political scapegoats and battlefield fodder. It also highlights the crucial role of humanitarian resettlement, as exemplified by their earlier relocation to the United States, and the challenges of integration under conditions of legal precarity.

Historical Roots of Marginalization

The persecution of the Ahiska Turks dates back to the Second World War. In 1944, Joseph Stalin ordered the mass deportation of approximately 155,000 Ahiska Turks from the Samtskhe-Javakheti region of Georgia to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Labelled as potential collaborators with the enemy, they were transported in freezing cattle cars under horrific conditions. Tens of thousands died en route. (1) Unlike other deported groups, the Ahiska were never granted the right to return to their homeland—a denial that persisted through the Khrushchev thaw and beyond. (2)

In 1989, amid rising nationalist sentiment in Uzbekistan, the Ahiska faced renewed violence in the Fergana Valley. Pogroms forced tens of thousands to flee again, this time to Russia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine. Many settled in rural regions such as Krasnodar Krai, where they hoped to find peace. Instead, they encountered entrenched xenophobia, bureaucratic obstruction, and organized harassment. (3)

In Krasnodar, Ahiska Turks were refused registration under the propiska residency system, effectively denying them access to employment, education, and healthcare. (4) Regional leaders and neo-Cossack groups vilified the community as alien and threatening. (5) One notorious case involved a 10-year-old Ahiska boy falsely accused of sexual misconduct, which was used to justify vigilante violence. (6)

The 2004–2006 U.S. Resettlement Program

In response to the deteriorating conditions in Krasnodar, the United States launched a rare humanitarian visa-waiver program in 2004 to resettle Ahiska Turks. Roughly 10,000 individuals were relocated to cities including Phoenix, Lancaster, and Dayton. This marked the first large-scale Muslim refugee resettlement to the U.S. after 9/11 and provided a lifeline for a population systematically denied rights in Russia. (7)

However, the program was abruptly halted in 2006. Though the reasons remain opaque, some speculate that Russian President Vladimir Putin pressured the U.S. to stop the program to avoid international embarrassment. Thousands of Ahiska Turks remained in Russia, stateless and vulnerable. Unlike other ethnic minorities, the Ahiska lacked an internal homeland within the Russian Federation—a factor that left them especially exposed to state and non-state hostility. (8)

Post-2022 Conditions in Russia and Ukraine

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has intensified the persecution of minority communities. Mobilization policies have disproportionately affected ethnic minorities, including Buryats, Tuvans, and Dagestanis. While comprehensive data on Ahiska conscription is scarce, anecdotal and journalistic sources suggest similar patterns. (9)

Unlike other groups, the Ahiska have no territorial base to which they can appeal for protection. They are dispersed, politically weak, and often undocumented. This makes them ideal targets for conscription drives that seek to minimize resistance. As with other marginalized groups, Ahiska men have been deployed to front-line positions with little training and few options for evasion.

These abuses have unfolded in a climate of escalating repression. In December 2021, Russian courts ordered the closure of Memorial International, the country’s oldest human rights organization. Memorial had long tracked state abuses against minorities, including the Ahiska. Its closure signaled a broader assault on civil society and made it nearly impossible for affected communities to seek redress or visibility.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the situation is more complex. Before the war, roughly 5,000 Ahiska Turks lived in regions such as Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea. Some faced xenophobia, (10) while others reported full integration. (11) Since 2014, and especially after 2022, many have fled, some aided by Turkish government evacuations. Notably, some Ahiska Turks have reportedly taken up arms in defense of Ukraine. (12)

The Second Wave of U.S. Arrivals

Following the war, a new wave of Ahiska migrants has arrived in the U.S., though this time through informal channels such as tourist visas, humanitarian parole (i.e., United for Ukraine), or asylum applications. 

Research conducted in Dayton, Ohio by a research team that I was part of—home to a vibrant Ahiska community—offers valuable insight into this second wave. Surveys and interviews we conducted indicate high levels of legal insecurity. Most newcomers are awaiting asylum decisions or living without any formal status. (13) Unlike the structured support received by the 2004 cohort, these individuals rely on mosques, nonprofit organizations, and personal networks for survival.

Demographically, the new arrivals are diverse, including families and middle-aged individuals. Their even gender balance and presence of children suggest community-based migration rather than isolated flight. Most report low levels of overt discrimination in the U.S., contrasting sharply with their experiences in Russia and Ukraine. However, structural challenges remain, particularly in access to healthcare, employment, and education. (14)

Despite these hurdles, the Ahiska demonstrate remarkable resilience. Interviews reveal deep gratitude toward religious institutions and mutual aid networks. Many frame their migration as a sacrifice for their children’s future. This shows the importance of community in sustaining displaced populations, especially when state support is lacking. (15)

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The plight of the Ahiska Turks illustrates how Russia instrumentalizes minority marginalization to achieve both domestic control and military objectives. Denied rights in peacetime and targeted during wartime, they exemplify the expendability of non-Slavic populations in the Russian state imagination. The disproportionate burden of conscription placed on peripheral minorities is not incidental—it is a deliberate feature of authoritarian governance that treats certain lives as less valuable.

The Ahiska case points to an emerging concept in political science: authoritarian demographic engineering. In regimes like Russia, demographic manipulation is not a relic of Soviet repression, but an active strategy used to reshape national identity, suppress dissent, and supply military manpower. Unlike democratic states that must contend with public scrutiny over draft policies or refugee integration, authoritarian regimes can quietly absorb the human cost of minority marginalization. Recognizing this logic is essential for crafting effective sanctions, asylum frameworks, and broader geopolitical strategies.

For the United States and its allies, the Ahiska Turks represent a test case for moral and strategic consistency. Their experience highlights the urgent need to monitor ethnic dynamics within Russia, including patterns of forced mobilization and rights abuses. It also calls for renewed humanitarian pathways for at-risk communities. The 2004–2006 U.S. resettlement program stands as proof of what is possible when policy aligns with principle.

Despite decades of displacement and fragmentation, Ahiska Turks have preserved a vibrant communal identity rooted in language, religion, and shared historical trauma. This identity has evolved across multiple geographies—shaped by Russian repression, Uzbek pogroms, Ukrainian upheaval, Turkish ambivalence, and American multiculturalism. Their transnational networks, stretching from Krasnodar to Dayton, are a testament to their resilience. At the same time, this geographic dispersal complicates efforts to frame their plight within a single national or humanitarian framework.

As geopolitical tensions persist, the international community must not overlook the human cost of militarized nationalism. The story of the Ahiska Turks deserves far greater attention—not only for what it reveals about authoritarian statecraft, but also for what it demands from those who profess to uphold human rights and democratic values.

Endnotes:

 Yemelchuk, V. (2020). Deportations and Ethnic Cleansing in the Soviet Union. Moscow Press.

 Khazanov, A. (1992). After the USSR: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Politics in the Commonwealth of Independent States. University of Wisconsin Press.

 Swerdlow, S. (2006). “Understanding Post-Soviet Ethnic Discrimination: The Case of the Meskhetian Turks.” California Law Review, 94(6), 1827–1877.

 Light, M. (2016). “Post-Soviet Migration and the State: Managing Ethnicity in Russia.” Europe-Asia Studies, 68(4), 643–668.

 Popov, A. & Kuznetsov, M. (2008). “Ethnic Minorities in Krasnodar: State, Cossacks, and Social Exclusion.” Russian Review, 67(3), 405–429.

 Human Rights Watch (1998). Russia: Ethnic Discrimination in Southern Russia. HRW Report.

 Swerdlow, S. (2006). “Understanding Post-Soviet Ethnic Discrimination: The Case of the Meskhetian Turks.” California Law Review, 94(6), 1827–1877.

 Arnold, R. (2016). “Displacement and Disempowerment: Meskhetian Turks in Russia.” Nationalities Papers, 44(2), 253–275.

 Vyushkova, M. (2024). “Russia’s Ethnic Minorities and the War in Ukraine: A Disproportionate Toll.” Eurasian Monitor.

 Makovskaya, N. & Garas, I. (2021). “Xenophobia and Integration: Meskhetian Turks in Ukraine.” Journal of Ethnopolitics, 20(4), 467–479.

 Afanasieva, L., Malynovska, E., & Gomaniuk, M. (2021). “Forced Migration and Adaptation in Ukraine: The Case of the Ahiska Turks.” Migration Studies, 37(2), 223–240.

 Cookman, L. & Çaylak, E. (2024). “Fighting on All Fronts: Ethnic Minorities in Ukraine’s War Effort.” Eurasia Daily Monitor.

 Arnold, R., Secen, S., & Swerdlow, S. (2025). “From Regional to National Margins: The Ahiska Turks between 2004 and 2024.” Working Paper.

 Coutin, S. (2000). Legalizing Moves: Salvadoran Immigrants’ Struggle for U.S. Residency. University of Michigan Press.

 Ambrosini, M. (2021). “The Battleground of Asylum and Immigration Policies.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(3), 374–395.