Small state imperialism: the place of empire in contemporary nationalist discourse MARHARYTA FABRYKANT* , ** and RENEE BUHR*** *Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus **National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia ***University of St. Thomas, Saint Paul, Minnesota USA ABSTRACT. Many modern European nations can trace their heritage back to one of the large multinational empires that once encompassed much of the European landscape, and nationalising elites often refer back to their place in these empires for the materials upon which their nation was purportedly built. In this article we examine some Belarusian nationalising elites and their references to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in order to demonstrate a recent trend in East European small‐state national identity construction, which we refer to as ‘small state imperialism.’ Small state imperi- alism exhibits realist characteristics and paints the small nation's place in empires of the past as privileged and aggressive, and in this way deviates from the oppressed but morally superior image one typically expects of a small nation. This interpretation is not limited to Belarus; in a number of East European states a similar imperialist turn has taken root in nationalist discourses. KEYWORDS: Belarus, imperialism, Lithuania, nationalism, small states Introduction The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was recently placed by Norman Davies among other ‘vanished kingdoms’ belonging to the obscure and mostly forgotten margins of European history (Davies 2011). In the region itself, however, the Grand Duchy plays a prominent part in Belarusian and Lithuanian nationalist discourses. Some nationalising elites in Belarus, as in Lithuania, have interpreted the legacy of the GDL as a reason to embrace liberal democracy and ‘return to Europe’. However, in recent years some Belarusian nationalising elites have adopted a different interpretation, portraying the GDL as a powerful, centralised and militarily active empire spread from the Black to the Baltic Sea. They emphasise the moments when Belarusians ostensibly controlled the GDL and glorify some of its more aggressive tendencies, which until recently were seen as regrettable acts of aggression in an otherwise civilised kingdom. Nations and Nationalism 22 (1), 2016, 103–122. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12148 © The author(s) 2016. Nations and Nationalism © ASEN/John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2016 EN AS JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHNICITY AND NATIONALISM NATIONS AND NATIONALISM