This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

‹ The template below (WikiProject Russia) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › Russia: Economy / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Belarus Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Ukraine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this entry except it does not adequaltely cover ALL non-Russian territories of the empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article is quite useless. It seems like the author's intention was to spawn more revert wars, as if we don't have enough with similar idiotic entries, e.g., anti-Romanian discrimination. He alleges a certain capital flight (using an egregiously modern expression, by the way) from Ukraine to the Russian Empire, as if the former was not the part of the latter! This example is enough to show that his ability for logical reasoning is seriously impaired.

No mention is made of the enormous benefits that the Russian domination brought to its former satellites and to the capital flight and continual subsidizing of the "metropoly" to the "colonies". If other colonial powers drained the colonies of resources and finances, in Imperial Russia it was completely otherwise. As soon as the countries gained independence, most of them collapsed into the ruin of poverty, illeteracy, and corrupted administration. Those who didn't - like Ukraine, Belarus, and Baltic States - enjoyed billion dollars of Russian subsidies each year. In short, NPOVing is needed. --Ghirla | talk 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wi should remind, on the other hand, that Russia and Soviet Union have benefited of natural resources in colonial territories. Very different is the case of Italy, that invested great amounts of capital in its colonies without any return.--Deguef (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. I am a postcolonialism student. What you have just written is the typical narrative of a russophile historian. Origin of phrase is irrelevant; most terms to describe colonial practices were created after 1950. Ghirla, where did the wealth for these so-called subsidies come from? You need to source your information if you are to launch any sort of credible criticism.

• Postcolonial studies is not a POV. Until you find academic sources for your rebuttal, the NPOV tag is being removed. For sourcework surrounding reciprocity, see source: Subtelny.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakym (talk • contribs)

First of all, much of the article's content relates to Russification, a valid topic in itself, but a different thing from colonialism. The view that Ukraine was indeed a "colony" rather than the province of Russia is highly unorthodox and needs to be presented in an atributed form as an opinion of the specific scholar (or scholarship). Finally, removal of the explained POV tag is generally frown upon and, if not always WP:Vandalism borders it in any case. As per above, I will restore the tag. --Irpen 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go on. The relations between "Great Russia" and "Lesser Russia" within Russian Empire were not unlike relations between England and Scotland within United Kingdom. Yakim, you don't think that Scotland is a colony, do you? Obviously, you need to revise the standard of your sources. --Ghirla | talk 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your comparison with Ireland is incorrect. Ireland was a colony indeed. Relations between Greater Russia and Lesser Russia are, on the other hand, closer to those between England and Scotland: used to have a common language, centuries of common history and religion, closely related ethnically. --Ghirla | talk 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Irpen. I will change the article to denote the difference of conventions of study. Note - many Russian historians (et al) shortly after 1900, including Lenin, referred to Ukraine and other regions as colonies of Imperial Russia. Until the early 1930s, there were many communist historians (ie Volobuev) who held similar lines, but were victims of the purge. The topic reemerged in the 1950-60s, but not within the USSR herself (Walter Kolarz). The postcolonial perspective on Ukraine and other parts of imperial Russia has been applied more actively since 1991, especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine, which I have noted in the talk:Kiev section. In Ukraine, colonial/postcolonial history has become part of history curricula (and verified in Catherine Wanner's anthropology book, Burden of Dreams). I will change the article to reflect this when I can access the Wanner book to properly cite all needed information. I also agree, much of the article covers Russification, but Russification is not an isolated policy; it does assist in achieving political goals (unity) and economic goals. Likewise, I will make necessary changes to denote this more clearly. --Yakym 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the factual accuracy of the article, every fact in the article is sourced. Notice I do not refer to Scotland in the article, but to Ireland - as Ghirla incorrectly notes. Ghirla, you are the one needing to revise the (embarrassing) standards of your sources. Based on this, the factual tag is removed. --Yakym 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policies of the Greater Russia towards Ukraine were indeed assimilationist and directed towards achieving and securing the concept of "united and indivisible Rus'". This, however, has nothing to to with colonialist policies whose primary goal is the pure economical exploitation and achieving the unity and uniformity between the metropoly and the colony is not ever in the picture. While to some extent, the colonialism concept may apply to Russian policies in Asia (better ask the specialist), Ukraine and Belarus were totally integrated in the empire or, at least, every attempt was made to integrate them. During the Russian industrial revolution, Ukrainian economy, as well as the Belarusian one, boomed as much as in the rest of the empire. Kiev boomed amazingly and became the third most important city of the empire by the end of the 19th century in whose beginning it was a sleepy and obscure town, a status at which it ever remained since its demise by Mongols and through centuries of Polish domination. Those times were indeed the times of "colonization" of Ukraine (by Poland) and this exact term is used by Britannica (see talk:History of Kiev for a quote).

There may have been some "exploitation" of imperial provinces by the imperial capital, but this is the eternal Russian problem and Ukrainian guberniyas were "exploited" in this respect no more than the provinces in the Russia itself. --Irpen 08:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations have been added for proof of economic exploitation, which should satisfy the requirements for the removal of the original research tag. As for the NPOV perhaps this article should be renamed Russian Colonialism in Ukraine and limited to this scope only?--Yakym (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Colonialism-term used in history to specific conditions and actions of Russian Empire that are similiar in form to colonialism in different parts of the world. Article should be improved, deletion isn't right for widely used term. Russian Identity, Nationalism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism Ewa M. Thompson, Professor of Slavic Studies, Rice University http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/ewt/1.html

I shall try to expand article. My country suffered from Russian Colonialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomLis (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All right, I will wait a week, as you requested before submitting it for deletion. --Irpen 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be centered solely upon Ukraine (with little accuracy). How about the conditions in other parts of the Russian Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.97.122 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization and colonialism are two distinct phenomenon and should not be confused. Everywhere it occurs colonialism brings changes. Marx considered it a necessary evil on the path to modernization. Views of leaders and historians of the imperial powers must not overshadow the views of the colonized who were not always of a difference colour than the colonizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.247.106 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I post this, the Table of changes is not in true chronological order. Some years are out of correct sequence. If there is not a reason for this, other than error, a regular editor here is encouraged to fix it. 5Q5 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason the era from 1939 to 1941 seems to be missing from the article. The Soviet Union (representing Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution) invade/occupied in part or in total the countries of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania during that period. Is there some ulterior motive, why this isn't mentioned in the article? --105.0.4.229 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Historical map of Georgia AD 1801.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ymblanter. You reverted my change of the name of the city to Kyiv, with the assuing edit summary Undid revision 979078206 by Mzajac (talk) clear disruption, historical usage have not been discussed. This article states its own scope clearly in the introductory paragraph as “the course of over five centuries (1533–present).” But the usage of the name is not historical, it is in an encyclopedic article current as of 2020. So please explain what interpretation of the consensus about Kyiv you are imagining.

(And if you think I’m being disruptive, then please start a civil discussion or initiate an administrative action, but please don’t drop unproductive accusations in your edit summaries.) —Michael Z. 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The usage is historical, and the Kyiv RfC did not even discuss historical usage, It mereky concluded that the current English name of the city is Kyiv (along with Kiev). It did not say anything about the name of the city in the 17th century. You are welcome to start a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requested move said the name of the city is Kyiv, without qualifications. Perhaps you haven’t thought this through. For example, in the 17th century the city was called Kiow or Kiovia in English. And would you rewrite History of Kyiv which covers 2,000 years using different spellings for the sections “Kingdom of Poland,” “Russian Empire,” and “Independent Ukraine”? Of course, not, because that would be confusing, and nobody writes like that. But if you still insist, I can start a process. —Michael Z. 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sorry but I have to insist. I have seen literally a dozens of users during this rename frenzy who stated that the move only concerns the current name of the city, and some going as far as saying that for example Kiev / Kyiv Oblast would require a separate RM. Whereas I am pretty sure that Kiev Oblast would be moved after an RM anyway, and there is no reason to send people for RM, for historical usage, including this case I reasonably expect that there is at least some opposition, and RM is the best way to proceed. I would advise not just do it on this page, but find something more generic (like indeed History of Kyiv), make it an RfC, make it clear that it is about historical usage (and if there is a difference, only give different option what would be the cut-off time) and announce it centrally and on corresponding Wikiprojects. If this has not been done, I am afraid, at some point the community would just vote to bot-revert everything. You can also notice that your viewpoint is really extreme: You not only think that the real name of the city was Kiev already many years ago, but you also repeatedly called names those who opposed this opinion. I do not think at this point you should be sanctioned for this or topic-banned, but I am afraid you are operating, without realizing this, under understanding that your opinion is English Wikipedia mainstream, whereas it is factually not. Please have this in mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all have opinions. You’re asking me to start a big project, and I am not prepared to do that. I think this article is a good one to set some precedents because it crosses subject fields, it is not overly broad but not too specific. It would make editors think about some of the thorny issues this question brings up, and their resolution would help make similar decisions elsewhere, and help inform adjacent topics. I will call an RFC here, with a simple, neutral question “should the city’s name be spelled Kiev or Kyiv in this article?” It is, after all, the crux of our disagreement. —Michael Z. 19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just in this case the result, whatever it is, which I am not going to contest (in fact, I am not even going to vote at RfC) will apply to this article and nowhere else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Now, after my reply, I noticed Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles where you are the only user arguing for automatic move/replacement of historical names, and everybody else in the discussion either oitright opposed or said it must be discussed separately. This was yesterday. You have replied to the discussion and are clearly aware of its existence. Thus, I am sorry, but your claim that there is consensus for such change is - how should I say - highly questionable, and you are perfectly aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Say what, now? I did not argue for automatic move or replacement of anything. I suggested Fyunck create a central discussion for discussing renaming all of the “[Kniaz] of Kyiv” articles, which I thought should wait until later. I have manually reviewed every instance in text that I have changed, checked original sources and translations, and in moves have fixed double redirects and checked image permissions. The only error I’ve missed was apparently caused by the visual editor requiring link and text to be edited separately, and that had no ill effect on text or link. —Michael Z. 20:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the article on which talk page we are now you have replaced Kiev with Kyiv in the context of a 17th century usage, without any discussion, and argued that this replaced has been mandated by the RM, even though the discussion you have participated in yesterday suggested that there is no consensus for such automatic applications of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not quite following. I’m not RM-ing anything, just editing article copy. The article covers 1533 to 2020. Even if it was about only the 17th century, the city’s name is Kyiv, and it hasn’t even changed in that time. Our spelling of it changed two days ago. I suspected someone might object, but I don’t see any solid argument to oppose this edit.

You seem to think I’m breaking some principal I promised to honour. Please quote me, because I don’t know what you mean that I “suggested that there is no consensus for such automatic applications of RM.” —Michael Z. 20:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are clearly talking past each other. I do not see your point, you do not see my point. I think my point is obvious and can not be explained further, you think your point is so obvious that it is difficult to explain it better. Contrary to what your blocked friend thinks, I am not seeking any sanctions against you at this point, not do I have a strong opinion what the most common name of the city is and in what situations this applies. It is trivial to check that I have not voted at the Kiev RM. My role as an administrator of this project is to enforce policies, in this case, WP:CONSENSUS. I think we should stop here and see what consensus actually is, by inviting other people to the discussion, either by opening an RfC or a RM. My concern is that if this RfC/RM concerns only this page, then we have a similar story at Kiev Governorate (18th century), and all over the place. But apparently you do not see it as concern, and I have no means to force you to do anything or to organize such a discussion myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter RE your statement It is trivial to check that I have not voted at the Kiev RM: I also did not vote in the Kyiv/Kiev RM, although I left many comments there; similarly to me, you also did not vote in the Kyiv/Kiev RM, but you made comments there (such as this one). p.s. RE your statement that mentions me Contrary to what your blocked friend thinks, I am nobody's friend (including Mzajac's), as I have no friendship-like relationship with anyone on Wikipedia.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we’ll agree to disagree. I’ll start a simple RFC here as described above. I could ask post it under the Wikipedia style and naming topic. For now I won’t solicit input input from talk:Kyiv, Wikiproject Russia, and WikiProject Ukraine, but it could balloon. Any other suggestions? We’ll see what happens. —Michael Z. 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the style topic is for discussing policies, not their application. I will choose the History and Geography subject area. —Michael Z. 21:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, I would like to close the RFC below, if you don’t object. The opinions are 7 to 7, and in the last two weeks the discussion has only grown by 1 to 1, so I don’t foresee any significant change. —Michael Z. 17:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I agree with your conclusion, I generally think that a user who started the RfC should not close it. It is easier to list it at the requests for closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, okay, I will post there. —Michael Z.

Regarding the above discussion and inconclusive RFC, since there is no specific consensus to apply the “historical article” exception, this article would revert to using the main-article title Kyiv, per the decision at talk:Kyiv/Archive 7 § Requested move 28 August 2020 and our naming conventions, for example, in MOS:CAPS § Place names, “In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then . . .” As mentioned by the RFC closer, this is also affected by the consensus at talk:Kyiv § RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles, which gave its definitive example of an “unambiguously current / ongoing topic,” Kyiv Metro, a survey article with an extensive, long history that includes the post-Soviet period, like this one. No doubt someone will disagree.

Another alternative is to decide the article should be in its present state, where alternative spellings Kyiv and Kiev are used to refer to the city in different periods within the same article. Not a good precedent, in my opinion, and potentially leads to a tremendous number of long discussions and inconsistent style in hundreds of articles, since reliable sources now tell us that, at least for our purposes, history did not end in 1991. —Michael Z. 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I please remind you that it was you who added the post-1991 usage in the article, where it is completely unnecessary, to prove the point. The article was doing great for years without it. Just remove it and leave the 17th century instances of Kiev where they have always been.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t matter. This article still doesn’t meet the definition of “historical article” that you endorsed at talk:Kyiv. You are still advocating willfully ignoring guidelines and consensus over there, and insisting on applying the exception here, despite the absence of a consensus to do so. Maybe it’s time to move on? There’s got to be a threshold somewhere. —Michael Z. 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for any exception. This article does not need to mention Kiev at all. What it needs is to mention is Kiev Governorate. What you are arguing is that since you have added a mention of the city where it does not belong, all other mentions suddenly must become Kyiv, contrary to all existing reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re arguing to remove at least three independent mentions of Kyiv because you don’t like the spelling?

No. I am arguing to implement the 16 September consensus on the spelling of the main-article title Kyiv, because your argument that the 13 November RFC applies to this article has failed to achieve consensus.

Please let the healing begin. —Michael Z. 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not "healing", this is mass scale disruption. Achieve consensus first. So far, you have failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the uneeded mention (one, not three) of Kyiv. Now the article only mentions the city in the context of the 18th century and correctly spells it as Kiev. This is the current consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth move. Now fix History of Kyiv: you can just remove the city’s name from the post-Soviet period in all survey articles. I was joking, sorry, but perhaps you are actually in denial, if you can’t even tolerate the mention of Ukraine’s capital city. Fine. But you’re POINTedly ignoring what led to this debate.

This is about the spelling of Kyiv in the context of articles that are unambiguously historical. The bold text in the RFC says a debate is necessary to apply it in edge cases. I don't believe this one is an edge case, because “1533 to the present” is not unambiguously pre-1991, but anyway this RFC has failed to show support for using historical spelling here. —Michael Z. 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I abviously disagree with your interpretation and moved the matter to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Kiev Vs. Kyiv spelling problem seems to be only a problem in the Territorial evolution of Russia#Russian Federation section of this article in regard with the Euromaidan protest being mentioned there. But there is no need, and it is indeed a bit misleading, to mention Kyiv specifically in the section Territorial evolution of Russia#Russian Federation. Since Euromaidan was a nationwide protest movement, there where also protest in Kharkiv (actually it was more dangerous to protest there in the beginning days of Euromaidan then it was in Kyiv), Lviv and Dnipropetrovsk etc. (and of course the 2014 Euromaidan regional state administration occupations was also a part of Euromaidan, and those happened far away from Kyiv). So there is no need to mention Ukraine's capital here. I know that non-Kyiv Euromaidan demonstrations where largely ignored by non-Ukrainian media (probably by Russian media on purpose) at the time, but they were held. I made some adjustments in this article according to the reasoning I just mentioned. I tend to avoid articles about Russian things, but I am hoping I made a helpful edit in this one. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although indeed it appears that Viktor Yanukovych fled his post, he did went first on some strange presidential inspection tour to Kharkiv first, so there is no need to connect "Yanukovych fled his post" with Kyiv also (he seems to have fled to country after this Kharkiv presidential inspection tour). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit - I dont understand the justification here. "We do not have a separate page for the USSR" does not make sense as a justification to me. An article is supposed to serve as a collection for relevant information as it pertains to a particular subject, I don't believe it is a collection of random information Wikipedia lacks an article on.PailSimon (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article should clearly define its scope, and have the title, intro, and content reflect this. Is the subject the territorial evolution of Russia (including the RSFSR), or of Russia and the Soviet Union? In any case, edits to the article content should clearly distinguish these things. It’s not 1921 any more. —Michael Z. 18:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Russia is also not the same as the Russian Empire. The clarification is certainly welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says "The borders of Russia changed through military conquests and by ideological and political unions in the course of over five centuries (1533–present).", Present. I think this page can be developed this way. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject that needs good maps, and I think the ones currently used have a number of problems.

1. First off, the main "Expansion of Russia (1300–1945)" map. Why do the different regions use different colour schemes? I don't see any real benefit from it, and I think it makes it harder to judge the timeline of the expansion, because it means areas absorbed at similar times may have very different colours and shades.
2. The "Territorial development of the Grand Duchy of Moscow between 1390 and 1533" needs a key on the map itself. If you click on it, you do get a key in the description, but the colours don't match those on the map.
3. The "Russian expansion in Eurasia between 1533 and 1894" does what I think the previous two maps should do (has a key on the map itself, and uses clear colours for different eras), but the key obscures some of the baltic territory, and the image quality is terrible (most of the place names are illegible).
4. The other maps in the "Table of Changes" could also be improved. I think they would be most useful if they highlighted the newly gained territory and (in a different colour) the existing territory. Some do that, but most either only show the new territory, or show it on a map of current Russia borders. Iapetus (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]