By Newsman Nona
December 15, 2024
The Daily Handle
Russian historian Botakoz Kassymbekova asserts that Russia’s colonial and authoritarian identity is structurally entrenched, resisting reform or democratization. She highlights how the country’s imperial system disproportionately burdens ethnic minorities and its “national republics,” while fostering privileges for metropolitan Russians, perpetuating inequality and unrest.
Russia’s deep-rooted colonialism and imperial identity are not reformable, argues Botakoz Kassymbekova, a historian specializing in Eastern European studies at the University of Zurich. Speaking about Russia’s persistent dominance over its ethnic minorities, Kassymbekova emphasized that imperialism remains central to the nation’s authoritarian governance system.
“Russian dissidents want to retain the empire, which means they want to maintain the status quo,” she said. “This status quo will never bring democracy, simply because an empire is an authoritarian system.”
Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, calls for the decolonization of Russia—a sprawling state that spans 11 time zones and houses over 140 million people—have intensified. Activists argue that Russia operates as one of the last empires in existence, with centralized control exercised from Moscow over its numerous “national republics.” These republics, ostensibly autonomous regions designed to accommodate ethnic minorities, are ruled by Moscow-appointed governors and lack meaningful self-governance.
Russia’s National Republics: A Colonial System
Nine out of Russia’s ten poorest regions are national republics. These areas bear the brunt of Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine, suffering disproportionately high mobilization rates and battlefield deaths per capita compared to metropolitan areas like Moscow and St. Petersburg. Calls for decolonization and the rejection of Russification—a policy erasing local identities—are gaining momentum in these marginalized regions.
Kassymbekova, originally from Kazakhstan, draws a sharp contrast between these republics and former Soviet states such as her homeland, which regained independence in the 1990s. Kazakhstan and other nations have fought hard to reclaim their languages and cultures after decades of Russification. By contrast, Russia’s national minorities remain politically and economically dependent on Moscow.
The Soviet Legacy: Myth vs. Reality
Romanticized perceptions of the Soviet Union as an anti-imperial, egalitarian state endure in some Western circles. However, Kassymbekova dismisses such views as misguided. “The Marxist theory privileged by some Western scholars often overlooks the human suffering caused by centralized control,” she said. The Soviet model, built on central planning and authoritarian rule, caused widespread oppression, famine, and death, particularly under Joseph Stalin.
The historian sees strong parallels between the Soviet famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) and a similar famine in Kazakhstan, both caused by forced collectivization. These shared traumas, along with efforts to erase cultural elites and suppress independence movements, underscore the colonial nature of Soviet policies.
The Revival of Russian Imperialism
Under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s government has revived Stalin-era rhetoric and embraced an imperialist narrative. This includes promoting the idea of the “Russian world,” portraying the country as a sacrificial force bringing good to others. Kassymbekova explained that this narrative, rooted in religious archetypes like martyrdom, frames Russian imperialism as altruistic, while suppressing dissent by glorifying suffering.
“The annexation of Crimea allowed Russians to feel privileged,” she noted, reinforcing a sense of superiority over non-Russians and solidifying support for authoritarian rule. Despite these dynamics, Kassymbekova is skeptical about meaningful change arising from Russia’s political opposition, which she claims is often complicit in maintaining imperial structures.
Opposition Without Decolonization
Russian dissidents, often hailed as reformers in the West, resist discussions about dismantling the empire, Kassymbekova said. “Many Russian opposition figures want to preserve the empire and maintain their privileges,” she observed, accusing them of ignoring voices from national republics such as the Bashkirs, Tatars, and Chechens.
Recent proposals for a new Russian constitution, created by Russian intellectuals abroad, even suggested abolishing national republics without consulting their representatives. “This erasure of national identities highlights the deeply ingrained racism and xenophobia within Russian political culture,” she argued.
A Turning Point in National Republics
While Russia’s metropolitan elites remain entrenched in imperial privilege, Kassymbekova sees hope in the rising national consciousness of its republics. Many of these regions share historical traumas with Ukraine, fueling their determination to resist Russian domination.
In regions devastated by high war casualties, a critical mass of citizens is rejecting the Kremlin’s authority. Kassymbekova sees these national republics, rather than Moscow-based dissidents, as the most likely catalysts for systemic change in Russia. “We are at a historical moment,” she said. “The myth of the Russian Empire and its greatness has died and won’t be revived anytime soon.”
She concluded that Russia’s colonial identity is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. For meaningful transformation to occur, Russia must confront its imperial history and relinquish its hold over the national republics. Without this reckoning, she warns, the authoritarian regime will persist.
