Risky business

11 04 2025

The original version of Risk, the Parker Brothers board game of strategic territorial conquest first known euphemistically as “the Continental Game,” had Ukraine occupying Russia, or at least the historically pre-imperial territory of Russia, along with Belarus, the Baltic Republics, and much of eastern Europe (see below). As a kid, I used to play the game with siblings and cousins; I don’t recall us making too much of that reversal — it made sense to us diaspora Ukrainians. But it also meant that defending Ukraine was really difficult, as it could be attacked from six directions.

I’ve been trying to find out how that huge Ukraine got into the design. The game was created in the early 1950s by French filmmaker Albert Lamorisse, best known for the dreamy 1956 film The Red Balloon (a beautiful film made even more so by Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s 2007 remake The Flight of the Red Balloon; in retrospect, to us diaspora Ukrainians “Ukraine” was a bit like a red balloon, floating of its own accord like an imagined utopia well away from the world’s realpolitik). From what I’ve seen, the original version of the game, called La conquête du monde, had multiple names within territories; the one that became Ukraine had five names.

The game was redesigned by French game designer and philosopher Jean-René Vernes, and then bought out by Parker Brothers, a family-owned, Salem, Massachusetts based company famous for Monopoly, Clue, Sorry!, Ouija (acquired in 1966), and others, which created the original English-language version of Risk (the one we played, with the large Ukraine) in 1959. That was before the Cuban missile crisis, when westerners mostly knew Ukraine as a Soviet republic whose representation at the UN was fully subordinate to Russia.

I’ve heard theories that someone involved in the game design was Ukrainian (no doubt a diasporic one), but have not found anything to substantiate that. Was it a flight of fancy on the part of Lamorisse (a Persophile who died in a helicopter crash while making a documentary in Iran in 1970) or Vernes, who had spent a few years in a German PoW camp during world war two? According to Philip Orbanes’ book-length history of Parker Brothers, The Game Makers, the game’s tiny wooden armies were made by a Czechoslovak company, but Czechoslovakia’s location on the game board would have been an unidentified borderland of “Ukraine” and/or “Northern Europe.” Heading Parker Brothers at the time of the Risk acquisition was the company’s founder’s son-in-law Robert Barker, and a nephew, Eddie Parker, apparently played a key role in the game’s redesign (though the territorial map was hardly altered, from what I can tell). Neither of them seemed to show much interest in things Ukrainian.

Perhaps it was just the fact that Russia’s huge landmass would have been too large on the map of conquerable territories, and calling one piece of the six or seven that made it up “Russia” didn’t make much sense. “Ukraine” it was.

We might think of it today as an inspirational model for how to decompose the imperial-colonial construct known today as “Russia,” a decomposition some take to be inevitable.





Open Letter to Chomsky

20 05 2022

Since my response to Noam Chomsky elicited quite a flurry of feedback, both pro and con (and occasionally in between), I suspect readers will also be interested in the Open Letter to Noam Chomsky published yesterday by four Ukrainian academic economists.

The authors challenge Chomsky on several premises underlying his arguments concerning Ukraine and Russia. These include his denial of Ukraine’s sovereign territorial integrity (violated by Russia in contravention of several international agreements to which Russia was a signatory), his treatment of Ukraine as a pawn on a geo-political chessboard, the misplaced causality of his argumentation about NATO, and his utter incomprehension of the genocidal and frankly fascist motivations underlying Russia’s invasion. All of these premises are rooted in a selective anti-imperialism that, as I have argued , ignores the multiple forms imperialism can take in order to fight a single imperialism, equated with the U.S.-led West. The risk with such selectivity is that it chooses “strange bedfellows” (since it actually aligns with some fascistic anti-westerners like Dugin and now Putin).

As I argued in my E-Flux piece, the only kind of anti-imperialism that makes ethical and political sense today is a decolonial anti-imperialism, and “Decoloniality is by definition not just an anti-imperialism, but an anti-all-imperialisms. That makes every place in the world an ‘obligatory passage point’ for decolonialism.” Ukraine today is a site for decolonial, anti-imperialist struggle against a force whose cutting edge is the neo-imperial Putin regime, but whose fellow travelers are found around the world (especially, but not exclusively, on the political right).

Read the complete Open Letter here.





Bojcun: Peering through the fog of war

29 08 2014

in “Peering Through the Fog of War,” Observer Ukraine’s Marco Bojcun provides another solid analysis of the current situation of unannounced war between Russia and Ukraine.

An excerpt:

“If on the one side we heard the apologists of the Kremlin insisting all this is just a Ukrainian civil war without Russian state intervention, from the other side we have had yet another kind of illusory and hopeful thinking: that the Ukrainian government can win the war in the east militarily, that with just a little more firepower the separatists can be defeated. And Russia would have to accept that fact and back off. The illusion in this line of thinking is twofold: first, that for Russia the goals of the war are limited to the subordination of Ukraine; and second, that the outcome of this war will be decided by the balance of brute force on the front.”

The entire article is worth reading.





Arel: “Crossing the Line in Ukraine”

20 02 2014

Dominique Arel‘s comments delivered yesterday at the roundtable “Why Ukraine Matters?”, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 19 February 2014. Arel has held the Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Ottawa since 2003.

Crossing the Line in Ukraine

by Dominique Arel

My unvarnished thoughts on the deadliest events in Ukraine since the end of the UPA insurrection sixty-five years ago:

Read the rest of this entry »





Viatrovych on “the long road to freedom”

15 02 2014

This post takes a slightly different form than most on this blog, as it both summarizes and comments on an article not found (yet) in English translation.

83749

Volovymyr Viatrovych’s “The Long Road to Freedom” — an article which, in its title, is intended to echo Nelson Mandela’s autobiography — is one of the most interesting and detailed analyses I’ve read of the Ukrainian Maidan protest movement. Viatrovych himself is a very well positioned observer — a leader of the Maidan’s Civic Sector, which remains one of the most pluralistic and broadly based of the visible groupings in the Maidan movement.

The article presents a summary and evaluation of both the nonviolent revolution represented by the Maidan in all its variants, and the “violent turn” represented by the street actions of January 19th and some of those that have followed.

He begins from the premise that the Yanukovych regime cannot fall unless three prerequisites are met: (1) the revolution spreads to encompass a maximally broad spectrum of Ukrainian society; (2) a part of the pro-government elite and armed forces shift their allegiance to the opposition; and (3) the world community supports the movement, if only morally.

Read the rest of this entry »








Skip to toolbar