Russian Imperialism and Ukrainian Colonial Experience Discussed in Vienna
An international discussion titled “A Post-Colonial Conflict? Russia, Imperialism, and the War against Ukraine” was held at the University of Vienna, dedicated to examining the Russo-Ukrainian war in the broader context of imperialism, colonialism, and historical memory.
One of the speakers at the event was Olesya Isaiuk — a guest researcher at the Pylyp Orlyk Foundation, historian and essayist — who presented a paper titled “Ukrainians in the Service of the Empire: Voluntary Renegades or Victims of System Genocide?”.
Three Questions About Choice and Coercion
In her research, Olesya Isaiuk addressed one of the most complex and least explored questions in Ukrainian history: why Ukrainians found themselves serving the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union at various historical periods — and how free that choice truly was.
She proposed examining this problem through three key questions: whether such participation was voluntary, who made the decisions and set the rules, and who stood to benefit most from Ukrainians’ involvement in imperial structures.
From Cossack Officers to Soviet Officials
The paper analyzed a range of historical examples — from descendants of the Cossack officer class who built careers at the imperial court and Zaporozhian Cossacks following the destruction of the Sich, to Ukrainian peasant settlers, Soviet party functionaries of the 1930s, and officials sent to Western Ukraine after World War II to implement Sovietization policies.
According to the researcher, in all these cases the decisive factor was not so much the free will of the individual as the system of circumstances created by the empire. The destruction of Ukrainian political institutions, the elimination of the Zaporozhian Sich, serfdom, the Holodomor, political repression, and deportations shaped an environment in which opportunities for independent choice gradually narrowed.
The Image of the “Janissary” in Ukrainian Culture
Special attention in the presentation was given to the image of the “janissary” in Ukrainian culture — a person who renounced their own community and began serving the empire. Olesya Isaiuk showed that this theme runs through Ukrainian historical memory from Cossack dumas and the works of Taras Shevchenko to contemporary literature and public discourse.
At the same time, the researcher emphasized that the empire demanded from subjugated peoples not only political loyalty. To become part of the imperial system, a person often had to adopt a Russian political and cultural identity as their own. Social advancement, career prospects, and access to privileges frequently became possible only at the cost of gradually abandoning one’s own identity. Yet, as the researcher noted, renouncing one’s identity alone was not sufficient — the empire required absolute loyalty of a different order. A person had to not merely disavow their own roots, but place devotion to the empire above basic moral principles. This, in Olesya Isaiuk’s view, was the most effective mechanism of breaking people: even a fully Russified person could be drawn back through family ties or sentiment toward their homeland. But one who had once crossed a moral line — say, by participating in requisitions or denouncing others — was cut off from their community forever. Such people could no longer be brought back. This is precisely how the empire forged its true soldiers.
Trauma as a Precondition for Servitude
The theme of trauma occupied an important place in the paper. According to Olesya Isaiuk, nearly every instance of imperial service was preceded by an experience of violence — from the destruction of Baturyn and the liquidation of the Zaporozhian Sich to the Holodomor, mass repressions, and Soviet terror policies. It was this experience that created situations in which a person was forced to choose between survival and resistance.
In conclusion, the researcher proposed viewing the history of Ukrainians within imperial structures as part of the broader experience of colonial subjugation. In her view, the primary beneficiary in all examined cases remained the empire, which gained human resources, administrative cadres, and instruments of control over subjugated territories — while Ukraine lost its own elites, social bonds, and opportunities for independent development.
About the Researcher
Olesya Isaiuk is a Doctor of Humanities, historian at the National Museum-Memorial of Victims of Occupation Regimes “Prison on Lontsky,” researcher at the Center for Liberation Movement Studies, and guest researcher at the Pylyp Orlyk Foundation. Her academic interests include the history of the Ukrainian liberation movement, Ukrainian prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, historical memory, and the understanding of collective trauma. She is the author of numerous scholarly and popular works, including the book “Roman Shukhevych. The Life of a Legend”.
The participation of the Pylyp Orlyk Foundation’s researcher in the international discussion became yet another contribution to presenting the Ukrainian perspective on the nature of Russian imperialism and its consequences for Ukraine within the European academic community.
