Abstract:
Western scholars writing about “Russian” history continue to use Russian imperial historical
frameworks that were used prior to the disintegration of the USSR. Although a Russian nationstate emerged in 1992 and has been independent for over a quarter of a century there ae no
histories of the Russian Federation. Since the late 1980s, Western historians of Ukraine, such as
Orest Subtelny, Paul R. Magocsi, Serhiy Plokhy, Serhiy Yekelchyk, and George Liber, have
adopted this approach.
Western histories of “Russia” thereby continue to ignore its territorial
limitations by conflating empire with nation-state. In doing so they subsume Ukrainians within
“Russian” history and Crimea is viewed as always being “Russian.” Western historians of
“Russia” have not adapted to the emergence of an independent Russia by using standard
Western frameworks whereby the histories of countries are the territories of nation-states. The
history of France and Great Britain, for example, includes all events that took place within the
internationally recognised boundaries of these nation-states.
