Olexander Hryb. Understanding Contemporary Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism: The Post-Soviet Cossack Revival and Ukraine’s National Security. Ukrainian Voices Series. Stuttgart: ibidem Verlag, 2020. xvi + 311 pp. $40.00 (paper), ISBN 978-3-8382-1377-4.
Reviewed by Richard Arnold (Muskingum University )
Published on H-Russia (October, 2022)
Commissioned by Eva M. Stolberg (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
This is the second time I have had the pleasure of writing a book review for Olexander Hryb’s excellent and timely book on the Cossack revival, which tries to explain the differing paths such a revival has taken in Russia and Ukraine. I say timely because of the dearth of English-language scholarship on Cossack traditions in any country. At the same time, the Cossacks are manifestly an important element of Russian and Ukrainian societies, as well as, one might argue, societies in which they have established émigré communities, such as the United States and Canada. The first two chapters situate the puzzle in the academic and theoretical literature, while two important empirical chapters follow. Chapter 5, concerning the “normative theory of nationalism,” concludes that “introducing the concept of societal security into security analysis allows us to see, therefore, what analysis based on state-as-actor theory tends to obscure: that on a societal level the war between Russia and Ukraine has been in process since the collapse of the USSR” (p. 233). The two appendices provide detailed accounts of the author’s fieldwork.
Hryb’s central concept is “societal security,” referring to “threats to national security which are not related to threats to the state as a whole” (p. 94). Russian Cossacks, some of whom quickly allied themselves with the state after the fall of Communism, became one of the means by which Russia projected power into neighboring countries, especially Ukraine. Corresponding suspicion of Cossack military formations in Ukraine meant the Cossacks could not be integrated into the armed forces; instead the Cossack idea “did not develop any ideology other than a moderate Ukrainian ‘civic’ nationalism” (p. 207). With a Gumilevian concept of “nation” (and the concomitant ethnopolitical risks that implies), Russia prepared Cossack groups to undermine Ukrainian independence, whereas in Ukraine they evolved to champion it. No wonder, then, that Russian Cossack movements have been treated with suspicion in Ukraine and in other countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU), even as they have evolved to being one of the Kremlin’s most important prewar “soft power” tools. The book is thus as timely as it is prescient, offering valuable insights into the origins of the present Russo-Ukrainian war and the other means by which Russia tried to influence Ukraine in earlier times.
The book has other strengths, including a true tour de force of both Eastern and Western theories of nationalism, which are admirably integrated into Hryb’s literature review. The notion of societal security is surely a neglected element in most studies of nationalism, so in presenting a model for how it can be included, Hryb has provided another service to the discipline as well as policymakers. Indeed, his mastery of the literature shows many connections to other works as well as a genuine lacuna among Western social science in taking the primordial concepts of their Russian counterparts seriously. Likewise, the appendices recounting the author’s fieldwork might serve as models for doctoral or master’s students interested in writing working papers.
One might critique Hryb’s argument in terms of the principal-agent debate, as his account treats the group as nothing more than extensions of the Russian government, seemingly manipulable at will. Indeed, he says: “both Chechen wars crystallized a clear tendency in the Russian Cossack movement to evolve in two different directions. The first path is that of a revival of the Cossack culture and way of life, Cossack identity and history.... This cultural movement does not necessarily claim that the Cossacks are a separate ‘ethnic community’ and often sees Cossack culture as part of a wider Russian culture as such. It is this movement that is encouraged by the Russian government inside the ethnically Russian oblast’ of the Russian Federation (e.g., Krasnodar Krai). The other path is represented by the ‘ethnicization’ of Cossack history and claims that the Cossacks are a separate ‘ethnic group,’ a sub-ethnos or ‘ethnos’ with its own history and ‘ethnic territory,’ often disputed with other peoples and ‘ethnicities.’ It is this second movement that is supported by the Russian government outside of the ethnic Russian oblast’. The Russian government played ‘the Cossack card’ in Tatarstan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Transdniestria, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, to exert pressure on either the federal republics of the Russian Federation, or the FSU countries, in order to gain ‘ethnic leverage,’ politicizing the Cossacks as ‘an oppressed minority” (pp. 275-76). Aside from the chronology of events being a little confused (the first Chechen war only began in 1994, for instance, after the most substantial secessionist activity in both Tatarstan and Transdniestria), the actual Cossacks are left out of the account entirely, seemingly rendered into pawns to be manipulated. One wonders, for instance, whether and why there were cases in which there was resistance to government attempts to downgrade the ethnic component in Cossack societies. Such information would be incredibly valuable for a Russian Federation in which there is so much uncertainty—except that the future of the country after COVID-19 and the current war will be different. Given the Cossacks' rapid rise to national prominence, Western scholarship urgently needs both theoretical and empirical work on them. Of course, no book can do everything and so this should be seen as an invitation to future research more than a criticism.
As with any book, however, certain topics are omitted or in need of future development. I will mention three. First, Hryb’s stated concern is with Russian Cossacks, yet his focus is nearly exclusively on the Don and Kuban Cossack hosts (with a few exceptions). There are another nine Cossack “hosts” in Russia (ten, if one includes the recently created Black Sea host in occupied Crimea), not to mention distinctions between “free” and “service” Cossacks. Reducing such a disparate movement to limited voices necessarily excludes some opinions and is in line with the above point about the subjects of the study lacking agency. Similarly, Cossack nationalism (in the sense of secessionism) itself is not directly addressed by the book, although such nationalists did and do indeed exist—in the like of the Chechen ethnic republic. Opposition to the removal of the “Cossack” category from the list of ethnicities on the census in the 2000s generated cultural protest in Rostov. Second, while there is some brief attention to the Cossacks after 2000 (“Don and Kuban Cossacks formed entire military battalions in Eastern Ukraine” in 2015-17), by far the bulk of the work concentrates on the Cossacks in the 1990s. There is no systematic account of the domestic functions of the vigilantes—how the Cossacks entrench and contribute to Russian autocracy—despite a series of decrees and their ever-expanding role in the provision of security and other public goods. Other scholars should take the opportunity to build on Hryb’s foundation to update and supplement his work. Third, some of the evidence used is short, lacks discussion, and offers no estimation of its significance, but this again provides future opportunities for scholars.
In all, Hryb’s worthy book is an admirable and timely first step in the discussion of a much-neglected yet important group in Eurasia. All wars create upheaval and unforeseeable consequences and the Russo-Ukrainian war, which started in 2022, will be no different. It is probable, however, that the Cossacks will continue to play an important role in Russia’s future.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-russia.
Citation:
Richard Arnold. Review of Hryb, Olexander, Understanding Contemporary Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism: The Post-Soviet Cossack Revival and Ukraine’s National Security.
H-Russia, H-Net Reviews.
October, 2022.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=58264
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. |