Explore the vast range of titles available.

The period of Khan Zhangir’s rule over the Inner Horde of Kazakhs (1824-1845) provides an extraordinary case study to demonstrate the potential of an entangled history of metropolis and periphery in the Russian Empire. The concept of colonialism, clearly applicable to other peripheries in the Tsarist Empire since the 18th century, is suitable only to a limited extent for describing this relationship. Rather, with the Inner Horde being politically autonomous in the first half of the 19th century, the roles were blurred when the Kazakh Khan pursued Russian civilisational policies to improve the living conditions of the Kazakh community and to strengthen the political and cultural independence of the Inner Horde while Russian troops helped him to crush inner-Kazakh resistance. Although ego-documents are lacking, contemporary observers stress that Khan Zhangir did not see himself as a stooge of the Tsarist side. Rather, he was perceived as an independent and enlightened actor. His numerous political initiatives, which did not necessarily align with Russian interests, also testify to his agency. These initiatives were aimed at creating educational opportunities for Kazakhs, continued with the establishment of a rudimentary health system and reached their greatest political relevance when he set out to build a capital for the Inner Horde that was to reflect Kazakhstan’s cultural heritage and become its spiritual, trading and administrative center. Khan Zhangir apparently envisioned a cultural-political autonomy for the Inner Horde under the umbrella of the empire. This vision does neither fit the criteria of colonialism as outlined by Osterhammel, nor does it represent the roots of a national state, even if the latter has become the dominant narrative since 1991.

The period of Khan Zhangir’s rule over the Inner Horde of Kazakhs (1824-1845) provides an extraordinary case study to demonstrate the potential of an entangled history of metropolis and periphery in the Russian Empire. The concept of colonialism, clearly applicable to other peripheries in the Tsarist Empire since the 18th century, is suitable only to a limited extent for describing this relationship. Rather, with the Inner Horde being politically autonomous in the first half of the 19th century, the roles were blurred when the Kazakh Khan pursued Russian civilisational policies to improve the living conditions of the Kazakh community and to strengthen the political and cultural independence of the Inner Horde while Russian troops helped him to crush inner-Kazakh resistance. Although ego-documents are lacking, contemporary observers stress that Khan Zhangir did not see himself as a stooge of the Tsarist side. Rather, he was perceived as an independent and enlightened actor. His numerous political initiatives, which did not necessarily align with Russian interests, also testify to his agency. These initiatives were aimed at creating educational opportunities for Kazakhs, continued with the establishment of a rudimentary health system and reached their greatest political relevance when he set out to build a capital for the Inner Horde that was to reflect Kazakhstan’s cultural heritage and become its spiritual, trading and administrative center. Khan Zhangir apparently envisioned a cultural-political autonomy for the Inner Horde under the umbrella of the empire. This vision does neither fit the criteria of colonialism as outlined by Osterhammel, nor does it represent the roots of a national state, even if the latter has become the dominant narrative since 1991.

The short article argues for revitalizing historical research to questions of the longue durée and, in analogy to the New Imperial History, considers the emergence of a New National History possible. Above all, the article calls for a continued decolonialisation of Russian history and, in this context, also for a strengthening of the Ukraine and Belarus focus in research, teaching and language mediation as well as in the form of a German Historical Institute in Kyiv.

The eighteenth century represents a key turning point in Russian ideas about who in Russia was to be regarded as “Other” and how they were to be designated. With the conquest of the Baltic provinces, the expansion into the Far East and Russian America, and the acquisition of the southern Steppe, the Crimea, and domains in partitioned Poland, the tsarist empire not only made decisive territorial gains. This was also a period of profound change in traditional ways of thinking and in how power politics was practiced by Russia’s elites. Only at this point did the change in mindset result

The period of Khan Zhangir's rule over the Inner Horde of Kazakhs (1824-1845) provides an extraordinary case study to demonstrate the potential of an entangled history of metropolis and periphery in the Russian Empire. The concept of colonialism, clearly applicable to other peripheries in the Tsarist Empire since the 18th century, is suitable only to a limited extent for describing this relationship. Rather, with the Inner Horde being politically autonomous in the first half of the 19th century, the roles were blurred when the Kazakh Khan pursued Russian civilisational policies to improve the living conditions of the Kazakh community and to strengthen the political and cultural independence of the Inner Horde while Russian troops helped him to crush inner-Kazakh resistance. Although ego-documents are lacking, contemporary observers stress that Khan Zhangir did not see himself as a stooge of the Tsarist side. Rather, he was perceived as an independent and enlightened actor. His numerous political initiatives, which did not necessarily align with Russian interests, also testify to his agency. These initiatives were aimed at creating educational opportunities for Kazakhs, continued with the establishment of a rudimentary health system and reached their greatest political relevance when he set out to build a capital for the Inner Horde that was to reflect Kazakhstan's cultural heritage and become its spiritual, trading and administrative center. Khan Zhangir apparently envisioned a cultural-political autonomy for the Inner Horde under the umbrella of the empire. This vision does neither fit the criteria of colonialism as outlined by О sterhammel, nor does it represent the roots of a national state, even if the latter has become the dominant narrative since 1991.

Putins Rede von der historischen Einheit der Russen und der Ukrainer dient der ideologischen Rechtfertigung des Krieges. Neu ist dieses Denken nicht. Es geht auf das 17. Jahrhundert zurück. Zugrunde liegt ihm die Vorstellung von der „allrussischen Nation“, zu der „Großrussen“, „Kleinrussen“ und „Weißrussen“ gehörten. Hinter dieser Idee versammelten sich im späten 19. Jahrhundert die zarische Regierung und das Gros der russländischen Gesellschaft. Selbst Angehörige der liberalen Intelligenz sprachen den Ukrainern das Recht auf eine eigene Nationsbildung ab. Russland unterdrückte jede Regung ukrainischer sprachlicher und kultureller Autonomie. Diese Repressionen und die Unterdrückung der ukrainischen Nationalbewegung sind Teil der ukrainischen kollektiven Erinnerung von heute. Putin’s talk about the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians serves to justify the war ideologically. This thinking is not new. It goes back to the 17th century. It is based on the idea of the “all-Russian nation”, to which “Great Russians”, “Little Russians”, and “Belarusians” belonged. The tsarist government and the bulk of Russian society congregated around this idea in the late 19th century. Even members of the liberal intelligentsia denied Ukrainians the right to form their own nation. Russia suppressed every flicker of Ukrainian linguistic and cultural autonomy. These repressions and the suppression of the Ukrainian national movement are part of today’s Ukrainian collective memory.

The short article argues for revitalizing historical research to questions of the longue durée and, in analogy to the New Imperial History, considers the emergence of a New National History possible. Above all, the article calls for a continued decolonialisation of Russian history and, in this context, also for a strengthening of the Ukraine and Belarus focus in research, teaching and language mediation as well as in the form of a German Historical Institute in Kyiv.