Russia is the last intact European colonial empire. It was initially a relatively small state entity, the Principality of Moscow, whose enormous territorial expansion only really began in the 16th century. This period largely coincided with the founding of Europe’s first overseas empires.
Those who doubt Russia’s colonial character point to its differences from what is now seen as the embodiment of colonialism, the British Empire. In fact, Russian colonialism was very different from Anglo-Saxon colonialism. But on the other hand, it has strong similarities with Ibero-American colonialism.
We can understand Russia more easily if we see it as an unbroken Ibero-American type empire. Aside from the admittedly important issue of territorial continuity, the Russian Federation, which holds Siberia, is not fundamentally different from Spain, which holds Mexico, or Portugal, which holds Brazil.
The parallels with Spain and Portugal can also be useful to model a possible break with Russia. Since the internal structures of these empires are not dissimilar, the mechanism of their dissolution from their trigger (a military defeat at the hands of a third power) may be similar.
But defeat by Ukraine would have a greater impact on Russia than defeat by Napoleonic France on Spain and Portugal. Because Ukraine has never been perceived as an independent power within Russia, only as a separatist province populated by rednecks (admittedly related).
A Test of the Imperial “Myth”
The Russian Empire holds not only by force, but also by myth. This unfolds as follows:
From a Russian perspective, Ukraine is a rebel province. Therefore, the war with Ukraine is a test of the imperial myth. The renegade province will be defeated or revert to the Stone Age. If that doesn’t happen, it needs to be taken back to the Stone Age to perpetuate the myth.
The territorial integrity of Russia is thus upheld by the imperial myth:
These two hypotheses make it possible to maintain the empire. But both are being tested in Ukraine (that’s why Russia “must” destroy the infrastructure).
At this point, belief in Hypothesis 2 is very weak. Not only has Ukraine held its own (which very few believed in February 2022), but it was also capable of taking the war to Russia itself, hitting Russian strategic bombers far from the border. This makes any potential truce a bifurcation point. Two scenarios open up.
In the first case, Russia regroups, supplies, attacks again, and wins: Hypotheses 1 and 2 are true. In the second case, Russia fails: Assumptions 1 and 2 are wrong. The fate of the Empire depends on its ability to crush a rebellious province.
Suppose Russia failed to crush Ukraine and failed to convince its people that it would be able to do so in the future. This may be enough to shatter belief in the two assumptions of the imperial myth, thereby beginning the process of dissolution.
A scenario
Now let’s discuss the scenarios of this “national divorce”. What could it look like?
Most likely, it will not be created by political opponents or activists, but by pre-existing regional interest groups, the character of which can vary greatly from region to region.
The process will probably not start in the ethnic republics. Many people believe that ethnic separatism is in danger of destroying Russia, but that is precisely why it is very unlikely to happen: this scenario is so obvious that precautions are being taken, and will be for a long time. It must therefore be borne in mind that it is more likely to start in “Russian” regions, where the political risk seems lower in the eyes of Moscow and its services.
The process will most likely start de facto and may not find its legal formalization until much later, perhaps even very late. This is likely to take the form of more empowered local interest groups, more protectionist regional policies, etc., rather than outright declarations.
Where could this all begin? The three most likely candidates are shown on this map.
In purple, the Krasnodar Territory and the Rostov region; in green, the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions; in yellow the Khabarovsk and Primorsk oblasts. | Document provided by the author
All three are ethnically predominantly Russian. Few precautions are taken towards you. All three are wealthy if we look at them in isolation: these regions foot the bills of other regions instead of waiting for the federal government’s windfall. Finally, in all three, the regional elites are powerful and only partially controlled by Moscow.
The disintegration process is expected to take place in a few iterations. The less these regions obey Moscow and pay taxes, the less cost-benefit motivation the others have. Richer regions are more motivated than poorer regions.
Contrary to popular belief, disintegration and the formation of new states occurs on a regional rather than an ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ basis. Disintegration along ethnic lines is highly unlikely.
Historically, instruments tend to become institutions. Especially within empires, administrative borders become national borders. As in Latin America, disintegration will occur along administrative rather than ethnic lines.
The new states will probably look like a collection of n old Russian regions, with n ≥ 1. The old demarcations between provinces will become national borders.
Why favor this scenario where administrative borders become national borders? Ethnicity, “race” and culture are not enough to make new states successful. In order for them to succeed, they must be able to pay their bills. Therefore, the principle of economic clusters will be at least as important as the ethnic or cultural principle in defining their boundaries.
So the decisive question is not that of the Caucasus or even the Volga. That is the question of Siberia. Siberia is the jewel in the Russian crown, and it is she that pays the empire’s bills. If the Federation retains control of Siberia, they can easily retake everything else. If she loses it, it’s over.
