“Russians” as Colonial Unification: From Subjection to a Fictitious National Identity
In the context of post-imperial decline (1990s), it became clear that the “Russian people” were not the result of ethnogenesis, but of a de-rationalized policy of unification.
Unlike all the “titular nations” of the Russian Empire, the USSR, or the Russian Federation, the “Russians” have never had an officially designated federal subject, no autonomy bearing their name, nor any cultural-institutional center outside of Moscow itself.
The entire apparatus of Russian, and later Soviet, federalism operated on the principle of “national self-determination for non-Russians,” leaving the “Russians” as a silent background mass — ethnically amorphous, legally non-subject, politically instrumental.
This essentially proves that the “Russians,” as a nation or a people, have never existed — not in a cultural-ethnic, nor in a political or anthropological sense.
A Pseudo-Ethnonym as a Tool of Assimilation
The term “Russians” (russkie) emerged in Muscovite political practice not as an ethnic self-identification, but as an administrative category of Orthodox subjects loyal to Moscow. Starting in the 16th–17th centuries, one became “Russian” not by belonging to a certain nation or culture, but by accepting the Muscovite church canon and allegiance to the Tsar.
In this sense, “Russianness” meant subjection — a colonial status imposed on local groups in exchange for ritual conformity, service, and rejection of prior identity.
Gradually absorbed into this group were:
Slavic groups of the North and Center (Vyatichi, Slovenes, Krivichi),
Finno-Ugric tribes (Merya, Ves, Chud, Moksha),
Turkic peoples of the Volga and Urals.
The result: a unified legal and cultural substrate to which the Muscovite state gave a name — but denied self-awareness.
The Absence of “Russians” in the Federal Model
In 1918, the RSFSR was proclaimed as a federation of nations, but from the earliest years the Bolsheviks actively began forming national republics for non-Russian peoples — the Bashkirs, Tatars, Udmurts, Kalmyks, Buryats, Komi, Chechens, and others. All received ASSR status, funding, schools, cultural associations, and even — in the 1924 and 1936 Soviet Constitutions — the formal right to secede.
By contrast, only the “Russians” were left without any designated territory — which directly contradicted the proclaimed principle of “equality among nations.” Officially, they were said to be “dissolved” into the administrative structure of krais, oblasts, and gubernias. But in truth — they weren’t. Because there was nothing to dissolve.
None of the 15 Union republics, no autonomy, no cultural self-governance was created by or for the “Russians” as an ethnic group — due to the sheer absence of one.
This decision not to give the myth a foundation was not accidental. It was a conscious colonial choice — to prevent any questioning of the imperial center’s legitimacy.
Moscow as Metropole, “Russians” as Subject Mass
In a classical empire there is a triad: metropole, periphery, and colonized peoples. In the RSFSR model:
Moscow = the metropole that governs and represses.
2. Autonomies and republics = peripheries allowed limited ethno-cultural expression.
3. “Russians” = the name given to all colonial natives, a shapeless mass needed only as:
a mobilization resource for war,
a labor reserve (slaves).
This formed a unique political construction — an imperial people without their own land, without a nation, and without the right to exist outside of function.
Ideological Fiction: “State-Forming People”
The most cynical part: throughout the history of the USSR, the “Russians” were officially declared the state-forming people. But this was an ideological fiction with no legal or institutional realization.
Anyone who considered themselves “Russian” effectively relinquished the right to subjectivity and were deprived of national representation — even in the symbolic form of an autonomous republic.
“Russians” as a Byproduct of Assimilation
In the context of post-imperial decline (1990s), it became clear that the “Russian people” were not the result of ethnogenesis, but of a de-rationalized policy of unification. The existence of a multitude of “Russian” regional identities — Siberians, Pomors, Don Cossacks, Uralians, Novgorodians — only confirms that the term “Russian” functioned as a signboard with no inner content.
What is labeled in historiography as the “Russian people” is in fact a colonially fabricated abstraction — constructed by Moscow to legitimize power and control.
Its primary function: to absorb, assimilate, unify, and suppress local national identities — leaving itself as the sole legitimate center of power, history, and culture.