Glorifying Colonialism: Kuban as an Example
Adel Bashqawi
April 26, 2026
Recent political discussions about the future of Russia’s regions have revived long‑standing colonial narratives, particularly in the case of “Kuban.” A Kyiv conference held in April 2026 presented studies envisioning ten potential post‑Russian states, including Kuban, yet did so without consulting the indigenous Circassian people whose homeland was violently annexed and restructured by the Russian Empire. The administrative entity known as “Kuban” was created in 1860 by Russian military authorities after a brutal campaign of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement. Treating this artificial construct as a legitimate historical region erases the crimes that produced it.
The conference’s portrayal of Kuban as an economically strong region ignores the foundational injustice of its creation. Kuban is originally the name of a Circassian river and basin marking the northern boundary of Circassia. Its transformation into a Russian province followed a scorched‑earth war that destroyed Circassian society and forcibly removed its population. Any contemporary analysis that adopts these colonial boundaries without question risks legitimizing the very structures built on dispossession.
This issue is especially striking given the context. Many of the same voices condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appear indifferent to the parallel history of Russian aggression against Circassians and other Caucasian peoples. Such selective outrage reveals a troubling double standard: the suffering of some nations is recognized, while the suffering of others is dismissed or forgotten. The crimes committed against Ukraine—occupation, annexation, demographic engineering—mirror those inflicted upon Circassia in the nineteenth century. Yet some actors continue to treat “Kuban” as a neutral or legitimate category, thereby perpetuating the legacy of Russian imperialism.
The persistence of these colonial frameworks is not merely an academic concern. It has real implications for how post‑imperial futures are imagined. Accepting the legitimacy of entities created through genocide and occupation undermines the rights of indigenous peoples and normalizes the outcomes of colonial violence. Mature political thinking cannot endorse such constructs, nor can it accept for others what it would never accept for one’s own homeland.
Circassians, for their part, have consistently supported Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression, recognizing in it the same imperial ambitions that devastated their own nation. Ukraine’s recognition of the Circassian Genocide in January 2025 reflects this shared understanding. Yet even as solidarity deepens, some external actors continue to promote frameworks that disregard Circassian rights and historical realities.
The promotion of “Kuban” as a future independent state exemplifies this selective approach to freedom. It ignores the fact that the region’s indigenous population was exterminated or expelled, and that its lands were illegally annexed. Such proposals risk becoming tools of propaganda that inadvertently reinforce Russian colonial narratives rather than dismantle them.
Historical evidence contradicts these narratives. An 1855 British War Department map titled “Circassia and the Russian Territories North of the Kuban” clearly depicts the region before Russian occupation, underscoring the artificial nature of the later administrative divisions. Restoring historical accuracy requires acknowledging these facts and engaging in genuine dialogue among peoples affected by colonialism.
Ultimately, addressing these issues demands adherence to international legal principles, including those articulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. True decolonization cannot be selective. It must confront all forms of occupation, annexation, and demographic engineering—past and present—without exception.
Selective Freedom is not Real Freedom
• Since the outset of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, the Circassian people have unequivocally affirmed their support for Ukraine’s steadfast resistance to Russian expansionist policies. They recognize these contemporary colonial practices as mirroring the historical injustices inflicted upon Circassia and its population by the Russian Empire.
• The published “Kuban” study constitutes material that appears to function as propaganda and as an instrument for promoting Russian imperial and colonial narratives—particularly in territories where the indigenous population was subjected to extermination and their lands subsequently annexed. This issue remains unaddressed to the present day. It is inconceivable that any people or nation victimized by Russian colonial aggression would willingly accept the dubious notion of “selective freedom.”
• In this regard, the Human Rights Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations may serve as the ultimate arbiters. As articulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”
