Paul B. Richardson, At the Edge of the Nation: The Southern Kurils
and the Search for Russia’s National Identity, University of Hawai’i
Press: Honolulu: 2018, 264 p., ISBN: 978-0-8248-7262-5
Christopher LenMore than seven decades after the end of the Second World War, the status of the four
southernmost Kuril Islands controlled by Russia, which Japan calls the Northern Territories located off
the Japanese coast of Hokkaido, continues to pose as a roadblock towards an official peace treaty
between Russia and Japan. Paul B. Richardson’s book, At the Edge of the Nation: The Southern Kurils
and the Search for Russia’s National Identity, published by University of Hawai'i Press in 2018, is a
recent addition to the literature exploring the linkages between borders, identity and territorial disputes.
This book is a valuable contribution for those seeking to understand the Russian dimension of this longstanding territorial dispute with Japan, and the islands’ significance in the struggle to define a newnational identity for post-Soviet Russia.
This is an especially timely book given the latest attempt by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin to accelerate the bilateral territorial and peace treaty
negotiations. Despite the early optimism and momentum following a meeting on the sidelines of theASEAN-Russia Summit on November 14, 2018, in Singapore, the two countries have yet to enter into
concrete talks over the disputed islands. At this time of writing, the two sides were unable to reach abroad agreement over peace treaty negotiations when Abe and Putin met during the G20 meeting in
Osaka in late June, as Abe had initially hoped for. Through this book, Richardson relates the numerouslost opportunities, mistimed overtures and mismatched intentions and expectations between the twosides in negotiations over the decades. While this book covers up to the 2015 period, what is detailed
inside will appear somewhat familiar to those following the latest negotiation efforts between Putin andAbe.
According to the author, the book analyzes “how territory, borders and the ideas of ‘national
identity’ and ‘national’ space are mutually constituted, interrelated, negotiated and contested.” (p. 3)
In this context, the author explores post-Soviet Russia’s search for a new identity through the prism of
Russian debates over the status of the Southern Kurils. Through the debates, he uncovers the competing
ideas and conflicting agendas, where,Russian national identity becomes refracted into a kaleidoscope of different ideas on the“nation” and “national” space. Each with divergent, competing and contradictory definitions
and desires. (p. 3)* Christopher Len, PhD, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute, National University ofSingapore. He can be contacted at esiclhl@nus.edu.sg.
DOI: 10.14943/ebr.10.1.134135

Eurasia Border Review < Book Review >Richardson’s analytical skills and his ability to draw out the multi-layered complexities andnuances surrounding the debates over the status of the islands in relation to Russia’s search for national
identity is reflected across the nine chapters of the book. The book is divided into two parts according
to the center-periphery framework which many scholars use to analyse Russia’s domestic situation. His
research focuses on the perspectives of leading politicians and public intellectuals at the center,followed by the perspectives of those at the periphery—namely, the regional elites and local islandcommunities.
The context of his research is meticulously laid out across the first two chapters of the book.
Chapter One provides his justification for research into this topic, together with an overview of his key
findings. Chapter Two lays out in detail key concepts and definitions applied in subsequent chapters.
Here, he discusses the construction of national identity, and explains the interaction between national
interests and foreign policy. Then he details the concepts and definitions associated with the term
“hyperborder” and how it applies in his own research on the extreme periphery of the state with theresidents of the Southern Kurils. In order to let readers understand the evolving status of the SouthernKurils in the context of Russia’s center-periphery relations, the author included a section detailing
Putin’s assertion of federal authority over Russia’s governors and republic presidents after coming topower. This chapter ends with a section on the origin and history of the Southern Kurils dispute. Theemphasis here is on the interaction between Japan and the Soviet Union during the 20th Century, up toDecember 1991 when the Soviet Union dissolved and with the coming into being of the RussianFederation.
Chapters Three to Five provide three perspectives on the debate regarding the status of theSouthern Kurils among different groups of elites, which Richardson refers to as liberal institutionalists,
territorial imperativists and pragmatic patriots. Each have their own thinking on the utility of theseislands in the context of Russia’s national identity and interests. Chapter Three covers the perspectivesof the liberal institutionalists, who believe in “returning” the Southern Kurils as a way for post-Soviet
Russia to overcome the “imperial syndrome” of the past. Chapter Four describes the position ofterritorial imperatives, who represent a broad coalition including “democrats” and “reformers”
alongside disenfranchised communists, military elites and elements of the far right. This group’s belief
that Russia’s territories are unnegotiable as national territory is linked to security, stability and even theviability of Russia.
Chapter Five details the pragmatic patriots who represent those who would consider aconcession of territory under certain limited circumstances as a means to secure Russia’s future status
as a Great Power. Some members of this group support the idea of forging a strategic and geopoliticalpartnership with Japan, and to use Japanese investment to counter the growing influence of China.
Richardson describes this as a “mixed-identity coalition” with the most significant member being Putin
himself. This is because of how the members of this group co-opt and fuse ideas and competing beliefsof the other two groups.
The prospects for oil and gas cooperation between Japan and Russia is also covered in Chpater
Five. Japan is actively seeking to diversify from Middle Eastern oil and gas and has been interested in
Russian resources for many years. In 2013, there were talks between Abe and Putin on establishing a136

Christopher Len

Russia-Japanese investment platform to develop Siberian gas fields. Unfortunately, this momentum
deflated soon after, as a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014. This development
complicated Japan’s efforts to engage Russia due to sanctions initiated by the West.
Chapters Six to and Eight cover the attitudes of both the regional elites in the Russian Far East,and the local communities from the Southern Kurils. In Chapter Six, Richardson asks “how and why
political and intellectual elites in the region went about constructing a symbolic image of the Kurils as‘the edge of the nation,’ and the wider resonance of these debates in public opinion.” (p. 94) It appears
that the people in the Far Eastern periphery possess a strong regional sense of belonging, along withembedded anxieties in being part of the frontier. According to Richardson, this explains the significanceof the Southern Kurils islands to the Far Eastern region’s identity and its symbolic and irredentist “overrepresentation,” particularly in the Sakhalin region.
Chapter Seven focuses on the locals on the Southern Kurils and the “hyperborder,” a blurred,
non-static ideational boundary which transcends “traditional understanding of state border and statesovereignty.” (p. 18) Richardson’s conceptual explanation of the hyperborder in Chapter Two isinstrumental in helping readers make sense of the lives and activities of affected individuals andcommunities depicted in this chapter. He explains that,[t]hrough the hyperborder can be exposed the dynamic, ephemeral, and contradictiory natureof bordering practices, as well as the various forms of power-economic, political, and socialthat are instrumental in both constituting sovereignty and “persuading people of their identity.
(p. 18)In this chapter, we learn that the islands have been regarded as a remote and backward edgeof Russia since the 1990s. They are populated by a small marginalized community with material needs
and a strong pragmatic desire for a better life. Here the author describes how local interactions withJapan led to the creation of a hyperborder which became a locale outside of Russian “national space.”
In this case, Richardson explains how the interstate border of the two countries “dematerialized” as aresult of legal and illegal economic contacts, and growing interaction between the island population
and Japan. (p. 141) This hyperborder created and revealed the ambiguous and divided loyalties of thelocal islanders between Russia and Japan, especially during the 1990s when the economic and social
situation on these islands reached an acute stage.
Chapter Eight focuses on the revitalisation programs for the Kurils from 2001 onwards under
the leadership of Putin. By 2006, the Southern Kurils had become the most subsidized region per headin Russia. Through these efforts, Putin managed to reassert the Southern Kurils’ status as part ofRussia’s national space and as a secured border. Dmitry Medvedev’s visits to the islands in 2010 andin 2012 is testimony to the islands’ significance to the center. However, questions remain about thelong term sustainability of such federal development programs. The book concludes with Chapter Nine
which succinctly summaries the earlier chapters.
Through this book, Richardson has provided a nuanced and compelling account demonstrating
the instrumental relationship between territory and national identity. He reminds us that the process of137

Eurasia Border Review < Book Review >constructing a “national identity” is never complete, and that it will continuously be reconstituted andchallenged. (p. 11) On the issue of territory, a key observation resonating with this reviewer is
Richardson’s remark early in the first chapter on how territory is “invoked as a shorthand to identify
the true [sic] meaning of a nation” and “often used to conceal wider strategic, economic, and politicalinterests,” as well as to justify and legitimise the actions and behaviour performed, “in the name of theself-interest of individuals and institutions.” (p. 3) This explains why attempts at settling territorial
disputes across the world are usually protracted even with goodwill and best efforts—because there aremany spoilers with vested interests who can disrupt the negotiation process.
Since the end of the Second World War, there have been numerous attempts at settling theSouthern Kurils islands dispute. Today, it remains unclear if this protracted territorial dispute can everbe resolved. However, to end on a positive note, both Russia and Japan have indicated their willingness
to improve relations. In a joint statement issued following a meeting between Putin and Abe in April
2013, both leaders agreed that the absence of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan is an abnormal
situation. It should be pointed out that while this dispute is a serious obstacle to improved official
relations between contemporary Russia and Japan, it is at least not a flashpoint between the twocountries. In this regard, credit should be given to the leaders of modern Russia and Japan for their
willingness to engage in dialogue and contribute to the peaceful resolution on this thorny issue.

138