Manfred Quiring argues that the Circassian tragedy was not only a case of mass killing and forced displacement, but also a deliberate process of historical erasure. According to him, while Circassians themselves never forgot their past, the international community effectively “forgot” them, especially as other post-Soviet conflicts in the 1990s pushed their case out of global attention.

A central point in his argument is his eventual acceptance of the term “genocide.” Although initially hesitant, Quiring states that after examining archival sources, testimonies, field research in Adygea and Kabardino-Balkaria, and the UN Genocide Convention criteria, he concluded that the events can only be meaningfully described as genocide in moral and historical terms—even if the legal category did not exist in 1864.

He also emphasizes the destruction of Circassia as a historical and symbolic space. Once widely marked on European maps, Circassia was gradually removed not only through imperial conquest but also through what he describes as a “mapping out” of memory—its name, geography, and visibility erased from international historical consciousness. This erasure was reinforced by administrative fragmentation policies in the Soviet period and later neglect.

Finally, Quiring highlights the importance of memory politics, particularly in places like Sochi, where he argues that key sites of the Russo-Circassian War were transformed into modern infrastructure without meaningful acknowledgment of the past. For him, contemporary recognition efforts—such as parliamentary acknowledgments—carry primarily moral and symbolic significance, serving as partial restitution for a people he believes were not only expelled from their homeland but also pushed out of historical narrative itself.