Imperial Transformations – Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet History

The American Historical Review, 1999

Course Objective: The Russian Empire was among the largest in world history, spanning the entire Eurasian continent. This course explores the factors that made Russia so powerful at its height, only to collapse in the world's first socialist revolution – an event that shaped the twentieth century and reverberates through global politics still today. Coverage is comprehensive, beginning in the eighteenth century, but focusing on the latter half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth. Geographically, the course ranges far beyond the capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg to consider questions of colonialism, ethnicity, and religious pluralism, from Poland to Siberia. Considerable attention will also be given to ideology, literature, serfdom, and underground revolutionary movements.

Slavic Review, 2008

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The

In this article, I examine what the Soviet case can contribute to the study of imperial formations. I find the straightforward “application” of existing postcolonial theory to the Soviet case not very satisfactory. The Soviet Union was a sprawling, multiethnic entity characterized by inequalities and hierarchies of all sorts; its citizens were subject to political and economic decisions made far away, over which they had no control. However, while having certain similarities to various kinds of empire, the Soviet Union also differed in significant ways from the overseas colonial empires that have inspired much of postcolonial theory. I argue that the Soviet Union was far more similar to a different kind of modern polity—the activist, interventionist state that seeks to sculpt its citizenry in an ideal image. Confronting the Soviet case through the literature on empire suggests many fruitful questions: Where does empire end, and where do other forms of non-representative or authoritarian polity begin? When can empire be used in thinking about the forms of political inequality in the twentieth century? What are the specificities of colonial difference?

Slavic Review, 2020

Cenasiaduediligence.uk , 2023

Although the author is neither a Russian citizen nor an expert on this country, the wars that were unleashed by Moscow, first against Georgia and then against Ukraine, as well as threats from the Russian ruling elite, began to be heard more and more often against Kazakhstan, force us, the citizens of the Central Asian states, to pay our attention to where this country is going and how the problem of neo-imperial claims on its part should be addressed. Although, as we can see, the Russian political opposition is being engaged in the task of rebuilding Russia and its political system, there is no certainty that this opposition, represented by its leaders, sees the fullness of the problem and proposes sufficient measures to overcome the country’s imperial legacy. Our concern is that there are still birthmarks of imperial consciousness in the views of the Russian opposition. which forces us, the citizens of other post-Soviet countries, to figure out for ourselves how this country can get rid of its imperial hallucinations. (The Russian version is coming)

Every century in every country and every history has its own specifics, originality and distinctiveness. The special time in modern Russian history belongs toto the 20th century. This century in Russia, which went through a number of revolutions, formation of the first-in-the-world Socialist state, the temptations of totalitarianism, enormous sufferings and great victories has been especially outstanding and unique. In order to understand this let’s delve into the Russian twentieth century, doing this through the spectrum of different points of view, evaluations and interpretations.

This article explores how Bolshevik/Soviet authorities took on and adapted the Russian imperial topography of power i.e. the system of special structures that intended to convey state ideology (monuments to tsars and statesmen, emperors' residences with their various ceremonial spaces, administrative buildings, and those museums which play a role in power representation). The research traces the changing attitudes to the Russian Empire's space of power in 1917late 1920s that varied from destructing such spatial objects to adapting them to the objectives of propaganda. It argues that with the time being appropriation strategies (renaming, recoding, creating of revolutionary memorials etc.) appeared to have better prospects than straightforward disavowal or destruction. The imperial space of power provided some opportunities to propagate novel and/or universal connotations of power and gradually was found relevant for the needs of the Soviet regime.

European Journal of Social Sciences, 2019

The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War incited the beginning of a new World order of international relations and the creation of new actor roles in this new stage. In the last 25 years Russia’s role as a great power had a different context, from an empire in free fall to the revitalization of its international role. The main question this work asks is: Which is Russia’s position in the international arena after the disintegration of the Soviet Union? The answer to this question is given by researching under the prism of the creation of a new vision, around what Russia represents in two and a half decades and how its role is represented in a different context of international relations. It will be also researched on the perspective of Europe as an instrument to balance and obstruct the Russian expansion. The work will be based on the analysis of the archival information of the period of time. The methods of historical, logical and comparative analysis have been used...