Liked the idea, disliked the execution
---
russian colonialism 101 is, I think, a necessary book. No other colonialist empire has so few history books about its crimes (compare it to the number of books available on French or English colonialism or on American imperialism). I realised while reading this book how many crushed independences by russia there have been, so many places I haven't even heard of (especially on the Asian side). I also really loved the design and the drawings.
HOWEVER. I feel the topic is being shallowly treated in this book. I understand that it is meant to be a brief summary on the subject. I *really* understand the urgency of publishing it during the russian invasion of Ukraine, to show to the English-speaking world the systemic russian methodology of invasion, occupation and extermination all around its former colonies. But I find the one-page synthesis per country too short (even for a Wikipedia page). The repetition of the same crimes/same words across the pages, without proper historical and cultural context for each region/country, had the effect of numbing me down instead of making me care (and I really do care about this subject). I also felt that all the countries were viewed through a Ukrainian lens and cultural reading which doesn't always apply as easily everywhere, even for their neighbouring countries.
The conciseness invariably leads to historical shortcuts and inaccuracies, which at times seem borderline dishonest. The sloppiness in the "exhibits" about countries I know better then made me doubt the accuracy regarding the pages about countries/regions of which I don't know anything about, which is a shame because I believe a lot of effort has been put in this compilation.
Just to give a few examples :
On page 47, when talking about Lithuania, the author talks about the 1919 russian capture of Vilnius, but fails to mention that from 1920 it is occupied by Poland until WW2, which seems a bit deceitful (this subject is covered extensively in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands).
When talking about the Republic of Moldova on page 39 : in 1917 "Russian empire regroups [...] and invades Moldova to "liberate" it. Romanians push Russians back but also take control over the young republic through formal "unification" [3]"
=> This is what I meant when I say some of the statements seem a bit light: Romania is here presented as another invader of the republic of Moldova (note the unification word between quotes). The source [3] regarding that sentence is a YouTube video. The unification is still a sensitive topic today and has been again discussed uninterruptedly since the fall of the URSS between the two countries, with citizens from both sides of the Prut having a 50/50 opinion towards it. When the author says that in 1917 Romania sort-of occupied Moldova it seems a bit inaccurate as Romania didn't exist as we know it in 1917. The name Romania was first adopted in 1862, after the first unification of Wallachia and the western side of Moldova (the side which is still in Romania today and where all my family comes from). Romania with the shape that we more or less know today has been founded after the second unification with Moldova in its entirety (western and eastern side of the Prut) and Transylvania, in 1918. There are of course dark areas during this reunification, be it with Transylvania or with Moldova, but I can't help feeling that the author projects a modern ukrainian view (as a transposition of russian occupation to "defend russophones") on a situation from over a century ago on a different country that cannot compare.
When later on the page, the author says "As part of a colonial pact with Nazi Germany, Russia reoccupies Moldova in 1940" or on the Romanian exhibit (page 69) "Russians murder thousands in ethnic cleansing and deport tens of thousands from annexed Northern Bukovyna and Moldova" : the issue I have here is that in reality, at the time, it wasn't russians exclusively doing all of this but soviets (which included Ukrainians). Of course Ukrainians had been forced against their will to be part of the USSR, but from a Romanian point of view what different does it make when it is soviet-Ukrainians or soviet-russians occupying your territory ? Seems a bit over-simplistic to pin it exclusively on one group.
Also, still on the Romania exhibit, nowhere does it say that Romania was actually allied to Nazi-Germany through its fascist leader marshall Antonescu. When reading it, it seems as if Moscow and Berlin are plotting above innocent Romania in 1940, but the story isn't so simple and I believe no CEE country was completely innocent during WW2.
This is why I think it is careless to oversimplify history, especially in central and eastern Europe where borders have change so much during the 20th century and historic shortcuts like these can lead to bitter quarrels.