Search results

In 2019, the Swedish government officially switched terminology from using the traditional endogenous term Vitryssland to the exogenous Belarus. Vitryssland (lit: White Russia) had been in use in the Swedish language since the 17th century, and the decision was neither easy nor swift. There was no consensus about the utility of the change, and significant opposition from linguists and editors against abandoning a term which had emerged and become established over centuries of contact. The debate preceding the switch was often shrill, led by activists and steeped in identity politics. In fact, controversies regarding what to call the country were nothing new, highlighting diverging visions of its geopolitical and cultural position between East and West. Discussions mirrored the far more emotional and polarized discussions among Belarusian nationalists in the 20th century, which at times became violent. Kryvia, Byelorussia, Greatlitva were but some of contenders. This article is an attempt to place discussions about the Swedish terminology in the larger context of history, memory, geopolitics and identity politics.

Martin Kragh, Deputy Director of the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS) and Senior Research Fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, reviews Ingerid M. Opdahl's book, The Russian State and Russian Energy Companies, 1992–2018 (Routledge, 2020).

Author and journalist Halvor Tjønn reviews Erik Kulavig's book, Face to Face with the Russians: From the Middle Ages to the Present (Pantheon, 2020).

Niels Bo Poulsen, director of the Department of Military History and War Studies at the Royal Danish Defence College, reviews Industry, War and Stalin's Battle for Resources: The Arctic and the Environment by Lars Rowe.

Susanna Rabow-Edling, from the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, reviews Glenn Diesen's book, Russian Conservatism: Managing Change under Permanent Revolution (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021).

Abstract in English"That kind of mother": Stigmatisation by the Russian child protection servicesHow does stigma influence the extent to which the child protection services in Russia undertake preventative work with vulnerable families in order to avoid taking the child out the family? Based on an analysis of previous research and my own fieldwork from St. Petersburg and Moscow, I note the gap between expectations towards vulnerable families, and their actual living conditions and potential for meeting these expectations. This gap results in a stigmatising categorisation of families who find themselves marginalised as neblagopolutsjnye – socially disadvantaged. Although Russia's officially 'family-oriented' child protection system is expected to base its work on objective methods, stigmatisation influences the decisions of social workers, making the system risk-oriented in practice. This is due to little or inadequate specialised education among social workers, resulting in the strong presence of the human factor: subjective, non-professional evaluations are made. With scant intersectional cooperation among state actors, there is little space to counteract or modify subjective evaluations. Thus, stigmatisation serves to limit the extent to which vulnerable families in Russia receive help, thus creating and upholding 'social orphanhood'.

Emil Edenborg (Swedish Institute of International Affairs and Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies at Stockholm University) reviews The Shortest History of Russia: From the Vikings to the Present Day (Den korteste historien om Russland: fra vikingene til våre dager) by Peter Normann Waage (published in 2020 by Wigmostad & Bjorke).

Svein Mønnesland, professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, reviews Yugoslavia and Political Assassinations: The History and Legacy of Tito's Campaign against the Émigrés, by Christian Axboe Nielsen, published in 2020 by I.B. Tauris.

Astrid Bjønnes reviews Multiple sides of Russia (Flere sider af Rusland) by Eva Ravn Møenbak, published in 2020 by Frydenlund.

Rasmus Nilsson, University College London, reviews Constructions and Instrumentalization of the Past: A Comparative Study of Memory Management in the Region, edited by Ninna Mörner (CBEES, 2020).

Flemming Splidsboel Hansen, Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, reviews Putin, by Hans-Wilhelm Steinfeld (Cappelen Damm, 2020).

Helge Ø. Pharo, University of Oslo, reviews The Logic of Fear. The Cold War - a New Global History 1917-1961, by Poul Villaume (Gads forlag 2020).

Håvard Bækken, Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, reviews Putin's Russia and the Falsification of History: Reasserting Control over the Past, by Anton Weiss-Wendt (Bloomsbury Academic, 2021).

The Russian Path: Ideas, Interests, Institutions, Illusions by Dmitry Travin, Vladimir Gel'man, Otar Marganiya, is reviewed by Ingerid M. Opdahl, associate professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.

Russia as a Military Power, edited by Niels Bo Poulsen and Jørgen Staun (Djøf Forlag 2021) is reviewed by Tor Bukkvoll, of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI).