Drawing on the concepts of “political pilgrims” and “stealth issue advocacy,” this article critiques post-2022 debates surrounding Russian studies, moving beyond the problem of a Russia-centered ontology. It argues that counterhegemonic epistemologies and self-victimizing framings have deflected scholarly attention from Russia’s imperial nationalism and external colonization, while denouncing the West for “Russophobia” or “cancelling” Russia. Meanwhile, comparativists treating Russia as an authoritarian “laboratory” often advance depoliticized research agendas, evading critical engagement with the authoritarian regime. This article calls for Russian studies to engage with Ukrainian and other area studies to overcome self-victimization and overly depoliticized positivist postures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanshiro Hosaka (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: