russian colonialism 101: the danger of 'good russians.'
Russian Colonialism 101 is the first newsletter to shed light on Russian colonialism. The opening essay is public; the curated reading lists are behind the paywall. Your paid subscription will power my mission to mainstream awareness about Russian colonialism.
Just recently, I got westplained (again) that I can't tell the stories of the colonized without offering the same space for 'good Russians' to weigh in. I was told my message wouldn't be credible without them corroborating it. I was told I won't be able to secure much Western backing for my projects if I don’t include Russians. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Westerners force more and more Ukrainians into the same spaces with Russians to 'hug it out' and 'work it out' and 'be civil.' But this is another manifestation of the colonial gaze.
Let me explain what I mean.
Many 'good Russians' exploit this opening to hijack Ukraine conversations and, once again, reproduce their colonial narratives. It happens almost instinctively, and most cannot even help it or self-reflect on how problematic it is.
Most ‘good Russians’ sell the image of mythical 'great Russia' and 'great Russian culture' that exists in complete divorce from the centuries-old practice of conquering, exterminating, and looting neighboring lands. They equalize their dissident hardships, which involve minor fines or hypothetical jail terms or lack of a Starbucks nearby, with the ruin of mass extermination that Ukrainians face. They appropriate Ukrainian identities and then misrepresent Ukraine — just to avoid responsibility for another genocide.
And for all of that, 'good Russians' get celebrated and praised and amplified by the Western establishment circles. While Ukrainians who protest it are called emotional, irrational, and hysterical.
Why? This phenomenon is a good illustration of the deeply-rooted colonial and orientalist perception of Ukrainians and eastern Europeans in the West. When white Russians find Western empathy and solidarity on stand-by no matter how insignificant their virtue signaling is. While Ukrainians are endlessly forced to pass a test of being worthy of foreign solidarity — even amid genocide.
So how does Russian imperial ‘self-victimizing’ work in practice, and why is it so dangerous to platform it abroad uncritically? Check my essay bellow.
here is what’s in store for you this week:
the phenomenon of foreigners forcing Ukrainians to share the space with Russians and hug the genocide away: explained and illustrated;
how do we end up with colonial gaze coverage of Ukraine in Western media;
plus, happy pride month for queer Ukrainians defending Europe from Russian fascism.
like it?
then let's go.
COLONIALISM BEHIND THE “GOOD RUSSIANS” PHENOMENA
You can reproduce colonial stereotypes without even realizing it. That's why colonialism is still a thing in the 21st century. That’s why I know for a fact that some of those Westerners shoving Ukrainians into the same spaces with Russians mean well. But that's why it is also essential to realize why this practice is wrong and how exactly it reproduces the same culture that led to the ongoing genocide in Ukraine. I'll recruit several pieces of great analysis from fellow Ukrainians (and one fellow European) to illustrate that.
first problematic angle: “objective” colonizer and “hysterical” colonized.
Equalizing the struggles of 'good Russians' with what Ukraine is going through diminishes the tragedy of tens of thousands of Ukrainians being slaughtered and millions displaced. It is the same as, say, comparing the hardships of Germans in the post-WWII years and survivors of the Holocaust. Here's a brilliant and raw take by Ukrainian writer Anastasia Kosodiy:
'I guess this is how a mindset of a metropolis works — even now when thousands of Ukrainians are being killed, tortured, raped, stripped of their homes and all the life they've built for themselves, Russians still think it is okay to take the microphone and tell the world their important thoughts. On the opposite side are 'emotional' Ukrainians, who for some reason don't want to stand on the stage — in a real or metaphorical sense — with Russian 'colleagues.'
The reason why Ukrainians are 'emotional' is simple. What 'good Russians' are really doing right now on the European stages — is washing their personal reputation and reputation of the country. Pretending that there is some other Russia, without Putin and all bad things. I am sorry to bring it to you, but the Russian state destroyed the cultures and lives of its neighbors for hundreds of years. This is why — still — Europeans know so much about great Russian culture and close to nothing about Ukrainian.'
second problematic angle: equalizing the abuser and abused.
In the case of Ukraine, equalizing the victims of genocide and a representative of a group that genocides them reproduces the same colonial narrative that Russia uses to justify the atrocity: that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. But it's also a form of emotional abuse of the genocide survivors. While their genocide-induced trauma is still raw and developing, sharing a space with a Russian citizen often turns into a psychological trigger, retraumatizing the survivors even more.
third problematic angle: ‘self-victimizing’ by the abuser.
In an imperial Russian mindset, any atrocity committed by the Russian state always produces an almost instinctive reflex to hijack the focus and make it all about how “I am the real victim here.” Nothing about this is accidental or random. The practice is part of Russian imperial culture that helps to avoid any personal or societal responsibility for centuries of horrific colonial atrocities committed in the name of the Russian people.
Here's an excellent explainer by Ukrainian researcher of decoloniality and Russian imperial culture, Mariam Naiem:
It isn't only Putin who is attacking us; it isn’t even only the victims of his propaganda who are attacking us. The attack on Ukraine is part of Russian society’s imperialist culture and its natural product. Today's war is the consequence of the aggressive expansive policy of Russia as an empire, that existed for centuries. As some countries host a robust conversation on their imperialist past, Russian imperialism is not explicitly acknowledged or considered as anything wrong inside Russia. Moreover, it is central to their propaganda—the Great Empire is another reason to be proud of being Russian. Not a single well-known Russian opposition figure has uttered words of recognition that their country has been exploiting their neighbors as colonies for centuries. That this is not Putin, but the Russian culture that has an aggressive expansive character.
There are many warnings not to cancel Russian culture, but not nearly as many calls to re-evaluate the Russian culture from the standpoint of imperialism. Almost every classic of Russian literature has examples of dismissive attitudes toward Ukrainians and other cultures. Imperialism in Russian culture is like a cancerous tumor: its metastases can be found everywhere, including in the opinions and actions of the opposition, intellectuals, journalists, and cultural figures of the past and present. The problem is that no one has yet been treating this tumor. Many people are focusing on Putin, but he is not the essence of the problem; he’s just a metastasis of Russian imperialism. The majority of Russians have a positive attitude if not towards the war, then towards the idea of their culture being dominant.
The West's misunderstanding of the situation is very similar to other instances of systemic injustice. For example, when we discuss issues of gender inequality, we do not want to invite men to the discussion. Because in the relationship between men and women there is a hierarchy of power and privilege. When we talk about the war in Ukraine, we should not invite the Russians for the same reason. We are not in equal positions, and we have never been. Now is not the time to create panel discussions about how bad is the situation for the Russian people. However, now is an excellent opportunity for Russians to start an internal public conversation to reflect on and repent for their imperialism.
fourth problematic angle: excuses inaction in the face of genocide.
If everyone’s a victim and nobody is responsible, then it is much easier to keep ignoring the collective responsibility of stopping this atrocity. And stopping any fascism is possible only by force. This is a great quote from a must-read on 'canceling Russia' by prominent Ukrainian thinker Vasyl Cherepanyn:
When the West plays its game of declaring support equally to Ukrainians resisting the Russian military as well as to Russian dissidents opposing Putin’s rule, it doesn't just make an insulting equation between the massacre of Ukrainians by the Russian army and the hardship of Russian civilians: the West also evades questioning its own fatal inaction.
It’s symptomatic indeed how quickly the Ukrainian appeal to introduce a no-fly zone became virtually utopian. Today, we are not even allowed to think that the West with all its capabilities could show enough courage to step in to prevent further atrocities. We, of course, know very well the “no NATO intervention” argument, but how does this inertness, hiding behind the European Wall and observing the unbearable, affect the state of democracy as such? What kind of democratic society do we have if the infamous “red line” doesn’t actually exist as the continuous cycle of war disasters always appears to be insufficiently unbearable to directly stop them?
Russian dissidents in exile may go on with their radical chic revolt against Putin, waiting for the “wonderful Russia of the future” to come. But it won't come by itself, and Russia’s regime change isn’t going to happen in Berlin or in Amsterdam but in Moscow. Radical political language should be tested by radical political action. Now of course they all oppose Putin’s war and feel guilty and ashamed of their country. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s too late and not enough.
fourth problematic angle: orientalism.
This celebration of ‘good Russians’ at the expense of Ukrainians is not new and exposes much deeper perspective problems when it comes to the Western view of Eastern Europe. This is a quote by Fabio Belafatti from his excellent breakdown of how exactly Western commentary on Ukraine is colonial and orientalist. The most shocking thing is that it was published in 2014 but still carries the same weight.
We Western Europeans regularly accept the idea that this part of the World falls within Russia’s “sphere”or should just be Russian. This generates appalling ideas that Russia is right in interfering in Ukraine because it already “had to give up” the Baltic States in the past and “the West” really shouldn’t “deprive” it of other countries, or that Ukraine is too important for Russian national identity because of the Kyivan Rus, as if this was enough to ignore the desires of the millions of people who had (and have) to suffer to allow Russia to freely define its identity.
For far too many Western experts what really matters is the Russian feelings. Everything else, what Ukrainians, Poles, Moldovans, Balts, Georgians, Armenians may think, is much less significant, because it’s just the feeling of “others,” subaltern subjects, unworthy of the dignity of actors, at best reacting victims of an orientalist interpretation of history that Westerners apply far too often to their Eastern European neighbors.
The disproportionate attention for Russia’s feelings, the solidarity for the Russian “tragedy” of losing its empire and the insensitivity to other peoples’ priorities become possible only if one places the Russian nation in a hierarchically superior position, applying the orientalist misconception that only a former power can have the dignity of an actor. European colonialists saw the East as a mere object they could play with.
