Decolonization in the Case of Russia Isn’t the Same Thing as Disintegration, Orlova Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 22 – Many Russians, when they hear the word “decolonization,” think that it is the same thing as the disintegration of their country, Vasilina Orlova says; but that is a misconception:  disintegration can occur without decolonization; and decolonization can take place without disintegration.

            “In reality,” as the experience of Russia shows, the Russian scholar currently studying anthropology at the University of Texas says, the center may “retain the entire array of colonial mindsets and continue to base its imperial policies on them” even if it has lost much or even all of its empire (wschody.net/chto-stoit-za-slovom-dekolonizacziya/).

            And “conversely,” Orlova says, “decolonization without a breakup is possible” as other former empires have shown after they “abandoned their colonial ambitions” but succeeded in remaining intact as states and the same could hold true for Russia” in the future it its rulers and people gave up their current imperial mindsets.

            It is generally the case that the latter process is easier if the state consolidated before acquiring an empire and if the empire it established was separated from the core state by great distances and especially bodies of water. But even if, as has been the case with Russia, the polity became an empire before it became a self-standing state, decolonization is still possible.

            Orlova continues that she studied Russians in Siberia and found that they believe they contributed all kinds of positive things to what had been up to then a vacant and backward space; and thus for them, “decolonization as a threat to their traditional way of life” and opposition to it entirely justified.

            Such Russian attitudes are especially widespread and strong concerning the numerically small peoples of the north, Siberia and the far east; and these nations thus “remain the most vulnerable” to imperial attitudes and actions. That in turn means that those who support these nations must be very clear about what decolonization is about.

            These numerically small peoples must be allowed to make decisions for themselves,” she continues; and “the Russian democratic opposition must learn to listen to and recognize the independent organizations of such nations such as the International Committee of the Indigenous Peoples of Russia, the Batani Foundation, and the like as equal interlocutors.”

            Such recognition requires something else: these issues must be discussed now and not after some cataclysm happens. As Orlova points out, “no one discussed the collapse of the USSR in advance, and the price of that has been paid in Karabakh, Transnistria, Chechnya and now Ukraine.”

            “The less we talk about decolonization,” as some Russian democrats are urging, ”the greater the likelihood that the transition after Putin, whatever form it takes, will be especially painful and protracted and cost many lives.”  All those who care about the fate of these numerically small nations must keep that ever in mind.