Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting of the Council for Interethnic Relations in Astrakhan supported the proposal to create a law on the Russian nation. Experts in the Volga region gave their assessment of this initiative and possible ways implementation of the law.
VITALY STANYAL, Chairman of the Central Council of Chuvash Elders, Cheboksary:
- Probably, by the "Russian nation" we have to understand the civil and political community of all the peoples of the country, numerous migrants and representatives of foreign countries living in Russian Federation. Then the indigenous ethnic communities (Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashs and others) lose the definition of "nation": the "main" nation cannot recognize some small nations next to it ...
Russifiers of all ranks and merit fought for centuries with their foreigners, did a lot of grief and injustice, but they could not destroy the multinationality of the empire
I think that in Russia it will be difficult to artificially create a capitalist, so-called (according to E. Smith) aristocratic nation, because in our multinational country, after all, the roots of a civil community lie in ethnic, popular structures. Chauvinists and Russifiers of all ranks and merit fought for centuries with their foreigners, did a lot of grief and injustice, but they could not destroy the multinationality of the empire. Maybe now, when the country is flooded with millions of migrants, sovereign Moscow will be able to put small nations and peoples on the shoulder blades along with the unfortunate guest workers.
Back in 2012, reflecting on the article by V.V. Putin "Russia: the national question", many of us in our articles on the problems of Russian citizenship, defending the values of nations, peoples, nationalities, ethnic communities, offered Moscow political scientists the term "meganation" to refer to the all-Russian nation. What was the answer? Called ignorant!
The capital did not and does not know how to hear the aspirations of the working peoples
So it is pointless to talk about the "Law on the Russian Nation" in some Shubashkars, Ishkars or Yoshkars. Moscow is a gentleman, and it will be as she said. The capital did not and does not know how to listen to the aspirations of the working peoples. Only in great need did she remember the Volga foreigners, and the rest of the time she baked only about conquering and managing them. Therefore, apparently, the proposed version of "On the Russian Nation and the Management of Interethnic Relations" sounds rougher to me than the reports and speeches of Stalin a hundred years ago.
The option "On the Russian nation and the management of interethnic relations" sounds rude to me than the reports and speeches of Stalin a hundred years ago
In materials about the Astrakhan meeting of President V.V. Putin's clarity in the concepts of nations and nationalities, I failed to catch. The President talks about the “key role of the social, spiritual unity of our people”, about the preservation and protection of “the culture, traditions, languages of the peoples of Russia”, but state advisers write not about peoples, not about the reciprocity of national identity with Russian citizenship, but about ethnic groups and migrants, about the uncertainty of a quarter of Russians in the benefits of multinationality, about the threat ethnic conflicts. Local government officials are in full swing persecuting public associations that are not subject to them, and Cheboksary clergy immediately continue an uncompromising war with the Chuvash ancient ethno-religion ...
Sometimes it seems to me (probably because I live among a quiet and patient people) that they deliberately disturb us on the national issue and look for the wrong reasons among the indigenous Volga nations and peoples for the causes of troubles with migrants, terrorists, corrupt officials. As the elders say, "Utne citmen - turtine" (Those who don't get a horse hit the shafts).
STANISLAV SHKEL, political scientist, doctor of political sciences, Ufa:
– The concept of Russian identity, the concept of a Russian civil, political nation, without any ethnic characteristics, is the only non-conflict concept that can create conditions for the coexistence of different ethnic groups in Russia and generally consolidate Russian society. Moreover, in fact, this concept has already become a reality - sociological data show that if in the early 1990s only a minority of the inhabitants of the Russian Federation identified themselves as members of the Russian nation, citizens of the Russian Federation, then since 2011, according to sociologists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at least 70 percent of the inhabitants of Russia identify themselves in this way. In my opinion, this is a working model of all civilized countries.
Such subtle matters as national identities are not created by laws
The law has not yet been written, it is difficult to discuss it, but it seems to me that it will not affect anything. Such subtle matters as national identities are not created by laws. Such long-term phenomena are created more by a chain of positive events that consolidate people, make them involved in a common cause. For example, these are political elections or referendums, when people jointly decide on the fate of their country. Of course, elections must be free and fair, only in this case they create a sense of belonging to a common cause. Otherwise, they generate only apathy, disappointment or protest mobilization. An equally important role is played by the country's overall success in science, technology, sports - all this gives rise to pride in the country, forms a nation.
The politicization of ethnicity is the road to separatism
An alternative to the model of a single civil nation is the politicization of ethnicity, which is the road to separatism. It must be understood here that the concept of the Russian civil nation does not at all exclude ethnic identification. If we observe reasonable parity, allow all ethnic diversity to develop and integrate it on the basis of this umbrella concept of a common civil non-ethnic political nation, then ethnic concepts may well coexist with it.
We must get rid of the rudiments of the "republican sovereignties" of the 1990s - they, apart from ethnic authoritarianism and the threat of separatism, have given nothing and will not give Russia
Within the framework of the Soviet Union, the first experience of the formation of a general civic, Soviet identity was carried out. This Soviet identity was very powerful and still many people feel nostalgic. Therefore, I do not think that this experience was unsuccessful, rather the opposite. Another thing is that the USSR was very inconsistent in national policy - along with the formation of the Soviet project, which was quite successful, the communists also quite successfully developed the policy of "indigenization" of nationalities, in fact, stimulated the development of ethnicity. And these contradictory processes eventually blew up the Soviet Union from within. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the USSR and politicize ethnicity. Moreover, these mistakes and diseases from the Soviet legacy have migrated to the current legislation. In itself, the concept of "multinational people of the Russian Federation", as stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in my opinion, absolutely does not correspond to the realities and the need to form a single Russian civil nation. It is necessary to get rid of the rudiments of the "republican sovereignties" of the 1990s - apart from ethnic authoritarianism and the threat of separatism, they have given nothing and will not give Russia anything.
ILDAR GABDRAFIKOV, regional coordinator and expert of the International Network for Ethnological Monitoring and Early Warning of Conflicts, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Ufa:
- The formation of a Russian civil nation is the right idea, but such things are not carried out by the adoption of laws. Here the consciousness of belonging to a single state of the citizens of our multinational, polyconfessional country should work. There is a basis for this - we all have Russian passports, we all use the benefits of this country, we bear some obligations, we are proud of the country's successes, we worry about some of its miscalculations. Of course, this is not enough - in order to create a strong Russian nation, civil society institutions are needed, transparent, honest, fair elections are needed. We need a developed infrastructure, good communications everywhere, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. It is necessary that a citizen of Russia everywhere, throughout the country, can feel safe, cozy and comfortable. But I do not think that all this needs to be enshrined in some new law.
It is necessary that a citizen of Russia everywhere, throughout the country, can feel safe, cozy and comfortable
In addition, there are acts already in force - there is a law on national-cultural autonomies, there is a Strategy for the state national policy of the Russian Federation, there is a federal target program "Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethno-cultural development of the peoples of Russia." They are enough, I think. If some kind of framework law is needed, then perhaps a declarative one.
A resident of Russia may well feel a citizen of the Russian Federation, and at the same time remain Russian, Tatar or Bashkir
I believe that, in principle, the Russian civil nation has already been formed in the minds of many people. You just need to explain to people what it is. It is known that in the national republics there are opponents of this concept - they argue that it carries a threat to ethnicity. That Russia, by adopting such laws, seeks to neutralize all national diversity and, ultimately, to eliminate national-territorial formations. I think that their fears are in vain - one may well complement the other. After all, a person is a carrier of many identities, and a resident of Russia may well feel a citizen of the Russian Federation, and at the same time remain Russian, Tatar or Bashkir.
I would also note that there are very few ethnic federations in the world in general. There was Yugoslavia - it fell apart. There was Georgia, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia withdrew from it. There are separate national-territorial formations within Uzbekistan and China. But there is no such ramified ethnic federalism as in Russia. Most countries prefer territorial federalism as a model.
VALIAKHMET BADRETDINOV, Head of the Interregional Public Organization "Union of Bashkir Public Associations "Arkadash", Ufa:
The Bashkir public, the intelligentsia will be against its adoption
– The idea of creating such a law has been pushed for many years by such scientists from the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, headed by Valery Tishkov. They are following the wrong path, which they have already followed in the Soviet Union, constructing the "Soviet people" community. Then the advocates of this path advocated a gradual reduction in the use of national languages, suggesting that everything be replaced by one Russian language, propagandizing "the merger of nations." Yes, and in modern Russia, more than once attempts have been made to eliminate schools with teaching in national languages. It is impossible to create such communities as a nation by laws, decrees or directives. National unity does not appear immediately, but over a long period of time, on the basis of common life practice.
2155 0
What is the Russian nation? Who and what creates a nation? What is the national identity? These questions are answered by the editor of the website's policy department, political scientist Alexander Mikhailov
In 1991, a new, democratic Russia emerged from the ruins of the Soviet empire. This historic event ended the era of the global political experiment implemented by the famous politician and terrorist Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin). Russia's failures in the First World War, the betrayal of the monarchy by Tsar Nicholas II and conflict political elites played their historical role in this bloody, controversial experiment that radically changed the course of the history of the Russian state.
The experiment ended with the collapse of the system, leaving a lot of unresolvable questions for future generations. At the same time, it cannot be said that the attempt to build socialism led to the collapse of the Soviet nation. Quicker, soviet nation transformed along with the republics of the former USSR, having inherited the adjective "Russian" and rejecting the term "Soviet" as not corresponding to the political reality of the late 20th century.
Probably, I will not be mistaken if I note that the majority of Russian citizens do not realize that the events that took place two decades ago began the process of creating a new Russian nation. Or, after all, the Russian people?
In general, what is the Russian nation? Who and what creates a nation? What is the national identity?
Thinking about the answers to these questions, we "turn on" our idea of the historical path of development of the Russian nation and the Russian state. If you go the simplest way and look into terminological dictionaries, it turns out that, according to the scientific definition, a “nation” is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of: a common origin, language, territory, a common sphere of public self-government, a mental warehouse that manifests in the community of culture.
By this definition, a group of people living in the same area, having a similar culture, way of government or a common language, can be safely called a "nation". However, trying on scientific definition to the term "Russian nation", one involuntarily stumbles upon obvious contradictions.
Today it is already obvious that one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was also culturological: a fatal mistake was made in Soviet ideology when the concept of “nation” was transferred to a level below the national level, to the level of individual ethnic groups. It is possible even today to endlessly turn away from unpleasant consequences public discussion of national problems, but as a result, the existence of national issues has to be put up with, at least in a multinational society, which is the Russian nation.
By the way, there is a similar error in the Russian Constitution. It again speaks of the multinational Russian people, and not of the Russian nation. It turns out a similar picture: according to the main document of the country, Russian people- these are Russians, Tatars, Chuvashs, Kalmyks, etc., that is, people who are connected in a single term by the presence Russian passport. But this is fundamentally wrong: Russians, Tatars, Chuvashs, etc. - these are ethnic communities, in other words - individual peoples, but we have one nation - Russian.
Many historians and political scientists do not like the word "nation". From him, we agree, a little smells of the term "Nazism" and fascism in general. Perhaps that is why this word itself is artificially erased in political discussions: the danger of opening another "Pandora's box" is too great.
Thus, one of the tasks that I set while working on this book is to return the meaning to the term "Russian nation" in order to understand ourselves that all of us, the inhabitants of Russia, are a single nation.
If we talk about the origin of the Russian nation, then we should first consider approaches to the origin of nations in general. Some researchers consider all ethnic groups to be nations, which are “suprahistorical formations” and have retained their traditional, unchanged essence for centuries. Unfortunately, it was this direction of geopolitical philosophy that became the basis for manifestations of nationalism, which led to the collapse of many states.
There is another opinion, according to which nations are presented as ideological structures that are created by elites in order to consolidate their compatriots. And there is much more reasonable grain in this approach, because the course of history can develop in such a way that even people from the same ethnic group do not form their own nation. And vice versa, when people of very different ethnic and racial origin able to form a nation in the full sense of the word, as, for example, in the United States.
The Russian philosopher Lev Gumilyov in his work “From Rus' to Russia” wrote that the entire history of mankind consists of a series of changes. Maybe the change of empires and kingdoms, faiths and traditions does not have any internal regularity, but is an inexplicable chaos, Gumilev wondered? Since ancient times, inquisitive people have sought to find an answer to this question, to understand and explain the origins of their history.
The answers were different, because history is multifaceted: it can be political, economic, military, etc. Therefore, if the historians of the law school studied the laws and principles of the state structure, then the historians-philosophers viewed history through the prism of the development of social forces and social classes, the ethnographers-linguists studied the evolution of languages, and someone even relied in their studies on national psychology. Is it possible to imagine human history how is the history of peoples?
The lessons of national history show us how Moscow princes, Russian Tsars and All-Russian Emperors carried out the expansion of Russia in practice, who managed to unite the entire set of Eurasian peoples, found optimal measures for their reunification into a huge state and for centuries maintaining the national and confessional balance of our country.
According to Gumilyov, the formation of a new ethnos is always associated with the presence in some individuals of an irresistible inner desire for purposeful activity, always associated with a change in the environment. Under favorable conditions for themselves, they commit (and cannot but commit) acts that break the inertia of old traditions and initiate new ethnic groups.
Lev Gumilyov suggested calling this phenomenon the term "social passionarity" to describe it (from passio - passion). Passionarity is the ability and desire to change the environment, or, translating into the language of physics, to violate the inertia of the aggregate state of the environment. The impulse of passionarity is so strong that the carriers of this sign - passionaries cannot force themselves to calculate the consequences of their actions. This is a very important circumstance, indicating that passionarity is not an attribute of consciousness, but of the subconscious, an important feature, expressed in the specifics of the constitution of nervous activity.
For us, as researchers of the formation of the Russian nation, the question arises: did our compatriots retain their previous level of passionarity, did they not lose it during the numerous wars of their history, two world wars, civil war, Stalinist terror, socialist stagnation, Gorbachev's "perestroika"? Have the Russians become a weak-willed toy in the hands of manipulators, including as a result of a completely conscious conspiracy of foreign elites?
The formation of modern Russia from the Middle Ages to the present day has been around the Great Russian center - the Moscow principality, which was determined by the passionary impulse that, according to Gumilyov, passed through Great Russia. Among the many positive qualities of the "Great Russians", we note what F. M. Dostoevsky called "the ability to understand and accept other peoples." The historian Klyuchevsky wrote that "the whole history of Russia is the history of colonization".
The history of the successive annexation of Siberia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia shows that the inclusion of vast territories into Russia was carried out not through the extermination of the annexed peoples, not by forcibly driving them into reservations or violence against their traditions and faith, but on the basis of bilateral agreements and the voluntary entry of peoples under the protection of Russia. At the same time, the Russian ethnos became a “system-forming ethnos”, around which other, less numerous ethnic groups gathered and mutually integrated.
Let us also note the constant presence of a "system-forming religion" - Orthodoxy - a religion that miraculously merged with the Slavs and the traditional way of life of the ancient Slavs. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy is the brightest Christian religion that does not emphasize original sin, and calls for the salvation of the soul with the help of personally performed good deeds and “self-expiation of sin” through repentance (unlike Catholic indulgences and the Inquisition). Orthodoxy, in addition, was not characterized by "militant missionary work", thanks to which Orthodoxy has always coexisted peacefully with other confessions and cultures.
But back to the history of Russia. In the era feudal fragmentation isolated in independent principalities, Rus' could not throw off the Horde yoke. The course of history demanded from the Russians a significant strengthening of statehood. As a result, there were tendencies towards the unification of Russian lands around Moscow and, as a result, the centralization of power.
The rise of Moscow, in the past - a modest principality of the Vladimir-Suzdal land - was facilitated by: geographical position(the city was located at the crossroads of important trade routes and was isolated from external enemies by other principalities) and the centralized policy of the Moscow princes. The rise of Moscow led to the subsequent unification of Russian lands around it, aware of their cultural and religious community, bound by a common desire to gain independence.
The beginning of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow was preceded by a struggle for power between the Moscow and Tver principalities, from which Moscow emerged victorious. In the future, the Moscow princes managed to keep the grand prince's throne behind them. And when the Moscow prince Dmitry Donskoy began an open struggle with the Golden Horde and in 1380 won a brilliant victory over the Mongol-Tatar army on the Kulikovo field, this victory strengthened the authority and importance of Moscow, turning it into the actual capital of Rus'.
By the middle of the 15th century, conditions had developed for the completion of the unification of Russian lands and the creation of a single state. The completion of the unification process falls on the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries and is associated primarily with the name of Ivan III, during the years of whose reign the Grand Duchy of Yaroslavl, the Perm Territory, the Rostov Principality, Novgorod and its lands, the Principality of Tver, Vyatka land were annexed to Moscow. Ivan III also demonstrated his independence in relation to the Tatars, refusing to pay tribute, and the historical "standing on the Ugra" in 1480 put an end to the Mongol-Tatar yoke.
The creation of a unified state had a serious impact on its economic development. The nature of the land tenure of the princes changed, serious changes took place in the army. From the end of the 15th century, social classism began to take shape, and by the beginning of the 16th century, an autocratic monarchy was established in Russia, where political power belonged to the Grand Duke. In fact, at this stage we can talk about the full formation of the Russian nation.
The history of the Russian nation is amazing in its ups and downs. Formed as single state, Muscovy soon entered a long-term era of systemic state crisis.
First of all, the crisis was associated with the reign of Ivan the Terrible, whose contradictory domestic and foreign policy led to the destruction of the economy, the loss of many Western territories, and the aggravation social conflicts within the Muscovite state, which embraced the entire Russian society.
With the end of the dynasty of the house of Kalita, Boris Godunov becomes a key figure in Russian politics. Godunov radically changed the nature of the domestic and foreign policy of the state: he began the development of the southern outskirts, Siberia, made attempts to return the western lands. However, the systemic crisis, laid down by Ivan the Terrible, could no longer stop. In April 1605, Godunov died unexpectedly (as historians believe today, as a result of poisoning), and already in June False Dmitry the First entered Moscow, who was also killed after 11 months of his accession to the throne.
The next stage of "distemper" is associated with Vasily Shuisky, an intriguer and alleged customer of Godunov's murder. He ascended the throne immediately after the death of False Dmitry the First by the decision of Red Square, but already in 1610 the Polish troops defeated Shuisky's detachments, and he was overthrown from the throne, and the "seven boyars" began to rule the country.
It is on this historical stage revealed the true popular will"of the Russian nation, which independently took up the establishment of political order in the state. The second zemstvo militia, which arose in Novgorod under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky, in the autumn of 1612 managed to take the Moscow Kremlin.
The results of the "Time of Troubles" were monstrous: the total death toll was equal to one third of the population, the global economic catastrophe affected all spheres of life of the Russian nation, significant territorial losses cut off important trade routes from the state.
The emergence of a new royal dynasty in 1613, when Zemsky Sobor elected 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, was the beginning of the revival of the Russian state. The first representatives of the Romanov dynasty were forced to solve three main problems of the state - the restoration of the economy, the return of lost territories, the formation of a reliable system of public administration.
At the end of the 17th century, when Tsar Peter I came to power, Russia was still going through a difficult period in its history. Unlike the technologically developed Western European states, Russia remained an economically backward country, where there were no large industrial enterprises, there was no access to the seas through which it could develop trade, and there was no own navy. The army that inherited Peter was morally obsolete, and consisted mainly of noble militia.
At the same time, Russia and its rich lands aroused the predatory ambitions of its Western neighbors. It was urgently necessary to modernize the army, seize access to the seas and build a fleet, create a domestic industry practically from scratch, and rebuild the system of government. And Tsar Peter turned out to be just such a monarch - imperious, outstanding, intelligent, and these qualities played a leading role in the rise of Russia, which had not risen "from its knees" since the "troubles".
It should be noted that it was during this period of Russian history that the formation and development of secular national culture, serious changes in the traditional life of Russians take place. Secular schools began to open, education began to acquire a secular character. During the reign of Peter, major technical innovations and inventions appeared, especially in the development of mining and metallurgy, as well as in the military field. changed and appearance Russians: European style in clothing, he replaced the traditional clothes of Russians, especially in the urban environment, wigs were introduced and beards were prohibited.
Peter sent hundreds of young nobles to Europe to study various military specialties, mainly to master the maritime sciences. The tsar also took care of the development of education in Russia itself, opened educational institutions, and formed the Russian scientific elite.
In general, Peter I began the modernization of the Russian nation in literally this word. The tsar strove to overcome as soon as possible the Tatar-Mongol yoke inferiority and backwardness of Russia from Europe. The main result of Peter's reforms was the establishment of absolutism in Russia, the crown of which was the change in 1721 of the official title of the Russian monarch - Peter declared himself emperor, and the state began to be called the Russian Empire.
During the years of his reign, Peter achieved his plan: he created a state with a vertical control system, a strong army and a powerful navy, and a technological economy. The role of Peter the Great in the history of Russia cannot be overestimated; he is also one of the most significant figures in world history. And his reign was the revival of the Russian nation, which lost its significance for almost a century.
Peter's reforms to strengthen the Russian nation were actually continued by Empress Catherine II, who, having proclaimed herself the successor of Peter I, directed all her efforts to create an absolute state. Unlike her many powerful predecessors, Catherine II was a talented politician who understood perfectly well that it was no longer possible to rule in Russia by the old, archaic methods.
The policy pursued by Catherine II received in history the name of "the policy of enlightened absolutism." The socio-economic basis of the policy was the development of a new, in fact - the capitalist way of life of the European model.
Until the February Revolution, the Russian nation strengthened its authority in numerous wars and military conflicts. Russian-Turkish, Crimean wars, long-term clashes in the Caucasus, and, of course, the Patriotic War of 1812, allowed Russia to firmly take one of the leading geopolitical positions on the planet. Even the failure in the Russo-Japanese War and the bloody battles of the First World War could not even imagine what Russia was to experience after 1917.
In 1917 Tsar Nicholas II betrayed Russia. It is impossible to name the emperor's act of renunciation of power in other words. IN hard time for a country in dire straits on the western front, Nicholas II betrayed not only Russian monarchy, but also the entire Russian nation, dooming the peoples of their state to civil war and anarchy.
At the same time, it cannot be said that the betrayal of Nicholas II was the first betrayal of the Russian people by the authorities. From the course of history, we remember how Tsar Ivan the Terrible left his country to be torn to pieces by the oprichnina, and he actually moved away from government. What this led to - we already said: "time of troubles" and the Polish intervention.
Nevertheless, then there were people's forces who managed to save the country from collapse and division of territories. And 1612 was the year of the revival of the Russian nation, the rallying of the people's ranks, the return of national unity. Unfortunately, in 1917 the "miracle" did not happen: the history of the country followed the bloody path of Bolshevism.
The terrorist and Bolshevik Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) came to power not as a Russian politician, but as a representative of Germany's national intervention on its own cash. In fact, Lenin betrayed the national interests of Russia, and if the results of the First World War would have been different, and Germany and its allies would have won, fate Russian territory would be in the hands of the German government.
On October 25 (November 7), 1917, as a result of an armed coup in Russia, the Provisional Government was overthrown. On the night of October 27 (November 9), the congress created the Soviet government - the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), and already on November 9 (22), Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Lenin sent a telegram to all regiments of the front armies: "Let the regiments standing in positions immediately elect authorized for a formal entry into negotiations on a truce with the enemy.
Today it is clear to historians that by concluding the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and withdrawing Russia from the war, the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin fulfilled their earlier obligations to Germany for financial support in seizing power in Russia.
According to the terms of the Treaty of Brest, Russia lost the Vistula provinces, Ukraine, provinces with a predominantly Belarusian population, Estland, Courland and Livonia provinces, the Grand Duchy of Finland. In the Caucasus, we lost the Kars and Batum regions. The army and navy were demobilized. The Baltic Fleet was withdrawn from its bases in Finland and the Baltic. The Black Sea Fleet with all the infrastructure was transferred to the Central Powers. In addition, Russia owed 6 billion marks in reparations plus the losses incurred by Germany during the Russian revolution - 500 million gold rubles.
In fact, a territory of 780,000 sq. km. with a population of 56 million, which was then a third of the population Russian Empire).
Treacherous Brest Peace, concluded by Lenin, not only allowed the Central Powers, who were on the verge of defeat in 1917, to continue the war. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk served as a catalyst for the transition of the civil war from local conflicts to large-scale battles for power on Russian soil.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a betrayal of the national interests of Russia and almost immediately received the nickname "obscene peace". Eventually Civil War in Russia lasted until 1922, and hundreds of thousands of Russians became victims of this many years of senseless bloodshed.
In the Great Patriotic War, of course, the national component won. Russian wars went into battle with the slogan "For the Motherland!", implying protection native land and his people, and not ideology Soviet state. The results of the war today can hardly be called positive for the Russian nation: on the one hand, the Victory over fascism, on the other, the confrontation between East and West, which as a result led to half a century of stagnation in the life of Soviet society.
Of course, during the Soviet period, the Russian nation did not lose its spiritual and historical heritage. The victory in the Great Patriotic War, space exploration, the creation of a powerful nuclear shield and other achievements have preserved and confirmed the authority of the Russian nation on the world stage. However, the Soviet system had a negative impact on the Russian citizens themselves. The forcible rejection of the Russian national idea led to a misunderstanding by Soviet citizens of the ideology of their state.
By the end of the 1980s, a small “crack” in the ideology of the USSR was enough for a powerful stream of “expectation of change” to crush the seemingly indestructible dam of the Soviet system. This "crack" was Gorbachev's "perestroika", the most unpredictable phenomenon in the political history of the country in the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Editor of the website policy department, political scientist Alexander Mikhailov
The questions raised in the title of the article are in the air, excite the public consciousness and give rise to a variety of opinions after the meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, held on October 31 in Astrakhan. At it, Vladimir Putin supported the proposal to develop a law on the Russian nation. The latter does not mean the direct approval of the President of the main idea of the law - to introduce the concept of "civil political nation" into the sphere of interethnic relations and legitimize the concept of "Russian nation". Support for this initiative indicates that the President thereby initiated a public discussion on the advisability of replacing the concept of "Russian people" with the concept of "Russian nation" and approving this change at the legislative level.
The discussion that unfolded gave rise to a multitude of very diverse, sometimes directly opposite in meaning, opinions on this issue. Without entering into controversy, I would like to immediately designate a starting point in the discussions on this very hot topic by asking simple questions: “What is the nature of the concepts “people” and “nation”?, “What is this kind of law for?” And “In whose interests are changes of this kind conceived?”.
The answers to the questions posed are connected, first of all, with the concept of "civilization" and its relationship with the concepts of "people", "nation" and "population".
The definition of civilization was introduced into the scientific dictionary by the French educator Honore Gabriel Ricchetti de Mirabeau (leader of the Great French Revolution, son of the famous French economist and philosopher Victor de Mirabeau) in 1756. This definition meant a society based on the principles of reason and justice. Arnold Joseph Toynbee defines civilization as a closed society characterized by a set of defining features. Civilization today is commonly understood as a human community, which for a certain time (the process of origin, development, death or transformation of civilization) has stable special features in the socio-political organization, economy and culture (science, technology, art, etc.), common spiritual values and ideals, mentality.
Historically, there were three civilizations - Russian (Eurasian), Western (Atlantic) and Eastern.
Russian civilization is historically the first civilization, which is an integral set of spiritual, moral and material forms of existence of the Russian people, which determined its fate and shaped its consciousness. Based on the values of their civilization, the Russian people managed to create the greatest state in world history, uniting many other peoples in a harmonious relationship, develop great culture, art, literature, which became the spiritual wealth of all mankind.
In parallel with the Russian civilization, an Eastern civilization was formed, the main characteristics of which are:
Installation on the unity of man with the environment;
The penetration of the personal principle into the process of cognition and its results, associated with the need for a Teacher;
Emphasis on the knowledge of the value and meaning of phenomena;
The desire for personal self-improvement with strict observance of the traditions of this social group.
Under the influence of the first two civilizations, a western civilization, which is characterized by extreme individualism, tolerance, respect for private property, preference for democracy and liberalism in the political and economic life of society.
The core of civilization is society, which is a collection of people united by the way of production. wealth at a certain level historical development certain industrial relations. Society manifests itself in the unity of three components:
People (cultural component);
Nation (political component);
Population (economic component).
In the generally accepted understanding, the people means a group of people related by blood relationship and having a common language, culture, territory, religion and historical past. The people represent cultural phenomenon. The people are also commonly understood as a combination of large and small social groups of a given society, its main productive, vital force. This concept is historically the first designation of human community.
The people are carriers cultural code society and civilization. That is why any society identifies itself, first of all, as a people. Culture (as a combination of consciousness, knowledge and thinking) in relation to the people performs the following tasks:
Integration, consolidation and organization of people different nationalities, religion and occupation;
Regulation of the practice of their joint life with the help of norms and values;
ensuring knowledge of the surrounding world and storage of information significant for the development of people;
Implementation of communication between people, for which it develops special languages and ways of exchanging information;
Development of mechanisms for the reproduction of society as a social integrity.
The people performs the role of the fundamental basis within the framework of civilization. At the same time, the essence of the people as a carrier of culture is revealed in certain principles:
Equality of rights and freedoms;
Guaranteed legal protection of rights and freedoms based on laws;
Economic independence of individuals, based on the right of everyone to own property or receive a fair remuneration for honest work;
The legally guaranteed opportunity for people to unite in public associations independent of the state and parties on the basis of interests and professional grounds, as well as freedom to form parties and civil movements;
Creation of the necessary material and other conditions for the development of science, culture, education and upbringing of people, shaping them as free, cultured, self-sufficient, morally pure and socially active members of society responsible before the law;
Freedom to create and operate mass media outside the framework of state censorship, limited only by law;
The existence of a mechanism that stabilizes relations between the state and society (consensus mechanism), and ensuring the safety of the functioning of the latter on the part of state bodies. This mechanism, formal or informal, includes legislative acts, democratic elections of people's representatives to various government bodies, institutions of self-government, etc.
It is generally accepted that society, from a political point of view, manifests itself as a unity of nations. According to this, a nation is a historically formed part of humanity, united by a stable community of language, territory, social (economic, political, organizational) life and culture. By virtue of the indicated characteristics, the nation carries within itself organizational start, while implementing a number of significant functions:
Association of members of the society;
Overcoming the economic and social differentiation that arises in the process of development of society;
Preservation of cultural and ideological integrity and identity;
Achieving continuity in historical evolution.
The economic component of society - the population is a collection of people living in the same territory. The population is at the same time a very significant resource of the economy (labor resources) and the ultimate goal of the functioning of the economy. In this latter capacity, it is the consumer of all the goods produced, and on the other hand, the object of social policy.
Thus, within the framework of civilization and its core of society, the people acts as the most significant component. After all, it is not the degree of people's participation in the political and economic life of society, but the level of consciousness and thinking, the quality and completeness of knowledge used by people in the process of development, that gives an exhaustive idea of the society that has developed in a particular territory. And in this sense, the nation and the population are secondary due to the distinguished characteristics and their place in the structure of civilization and the corresponding role they play in this.
At the same time, there is every reason to believe that the nation is an artificially created community of people in order to achieve specific political goals to divide a single people. For this reason, the concept of "nation" cannot be used as a structural element of the concept of "civilization".
It seems that the concept of "nationality" is more consistent with the role and place that the nation occupies in the structure of civilization. A nationality is characterized by a territorial community, an association of economic and cultural activities, as well as a single language (while maintaining their own dialect or language). Nationality is harmoniously connected with the concept of "people". The people in this case acts as the highest form of development of the nationality, which is consistent with the logic of the structure of civilization.
IN contemporary literature goes lively discussion about the characteristics and correlation of nationality and nation. The concept of "nation" entered the lexicon with the formation of states in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. The emergence of nations is associated with the self-determination of the territories that were under the rule of Rus'. Each territory was headed by its own governor, who was subordinate to the central government. During the period known in history as the period of the Reformation, a revolt of military governors begins in Western Europe, who do not want to obey the central government of Rus'. They want to become independent rulers. The banner of religious isolation of the European territories of separation from Rus' was chosen as the ideological basis of the uprising. The Protestant rebels used Lutheranism, which had arisen in the West, as an excuse for political secession.
The Reformation in Western Europe and the attempt to get out of the power of the Center was perceived in Rus' as a rebellion in the subject areas. They decided to suppress him by force. Preparations began for a major punitive campaign in Western Europe (the third conquest). But the unrest, which grew into terror and oprichnina, prevented the implementation of the plans.
In the era of oprichnina and unrest, Western Europe is gradually gaining independence. As a result, Rus' breaks up into Russia, Turkey, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, Egypt, England, the Middle East, Persia, China, Japan, India, America and some other states of Europe and Asia.
As one of the methods for the formation of new societies in Western Europe, they used the creation of a “new” community - a nation and its non-existent history. Western European chronologists tried, if possible, to erase from the historical memory all unpleasant for Western Europe and still fresh memories associated with subordination to the central government of Rus'. These events were sent into the distant past, where they were no longer perceived as painful. In the end, as historians would say, you never know what was there in the past. But since then, no one has ever conquered Europe so barbarously. And if tribute was paid, then, basically, by very ancient Romans to some very ancient Goths and even more ancient Huns who disappeared long ago.
And in order for all these historical truths to be assimilated by public opinion, which is far from difficult historical research, historical events have been invented for many years in a modified form that is beneficial for the authors.
It should be noted that the large-scale falsification of history was not a spontaneous phenomenon. It was skillfully staged and sponsored by interested parties - a stratum of wealthy people who began to claim political and economic power in their territories after the governors who organized the Reformation movement were swept away by the revolutionary impulse that swept the local population.
Newly minted politicians at the local level did not have noble birth, and according to the custom of that time, only a person with a rich and ancient pedigree could take the place of an official. Therefore, contenders for power hired monks in order to write a non-existent history of their kind and people who inhabited one or another country of Western Europe now. In order to ensure social consolidation, a nation was invented, which since then has been directly associated with statehood, and all the necessary attributes ( own language, history, culture, its own currency). Thus, individual representatives of the nobility were able to create conditions for their economic, primarily financial, and political dominance within the framework of the nation artificially created by them. It is possible to change a people, to turn it into a nation, only by changing its language and culture. It will be another people, which is artificially transformed into a "nation". And the further the new language and culture will be defended from the former, the stronger new people will differ from the former, the more people will manifest themselves as a separate nation.
Thus, the collapse of Rus', carried out by the hands of military governors, who, in turn, were liquidated by the population, not without the participation of the local rich nobility, into separate states led to an era of revolutions in Western Europe. driving force these revolutions were all the same money. In Rus', the principle of antiquity and nobility of the clan reigned. Nobility was certainly respected and gave the right to power. Including the highest. After the rebellion of the medieval Reformation, wealth, money, came to the fore. Nobility went into the shadows, and in some places was declared a bad sign. As a result, the superiority of money over nobility, over the antiquity of the family, was openly proclaimed. Thus, the formation of Western European states is directly related to the emergence of the concept of "nation", the flourishing of the power of money in Western society and the division of the once unified Christian religion into Western (Catholicism), Eastern (Orthodoxy) and Asian (Muslim) components.
This raises a very natural question: “Is it worth introducing the concept of “Russian nation” into the legislation of the Russian Federation?” The answer is quite obvious - no. The Russian nation is an artificially created concept that clearly contradicts the nature of Russian society and leads to division and extremism on national grounds. The sacred meaning of the concept of "nation", the very existence of the nation is closely connected with nationalism. extreme manifestation nationalism is Nazism, which has always been supported in Europe in one way or another in a veiled way. This happened despite all the catastrophic consequences of the Second World War unleashed by the criminal Nazi regime in Germany. Today, Nazism again raised its head in Ukraine with the direct support of European countries. Nationalism, in whatever form it exists, will always lead to contradictions on national grounds, the emergence of crazy ideas of the superiority of one nation over another.
Only the Russian people have every reason to be an identifier of that community of people in all the diversity of nationalities living on the territory of the Russian Federation. After all, it is precisely in the concept of “Russian people” that the fullness of the character of any person living on the territory of Russia is reflected, regardless of his nationality. Anyone who accepts Russian culture can become a Russian person. It is for this reason that Russia has no borders, as the President of the Russian Federation very aptly noted recently.
The words with which the text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation begins fully reflect the essence of the Russian people and affirm this concept as one of the main terms used in the main Law of the country: “We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united common destiny on their land, asserting human rights and freedoms, civilian world and harmony, preserving the historically established state unity, based on the generally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, honoring the memory of the ancestors who passed on to us love and respect for the Fatherland, faith in goodness and justice, reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the inviolability of its democratic foundation, striving to ensure well-being and prosperity of Russia, proceeding from the responsibility for our Motherland to the present and future generations, recognizing ourselves as part of the world community, we adopt the CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION".
Therefore, the concept of "Russian nation" should be excluded from the lexicon. And the terminology used in economics at the suggestion of Western economists (“national economy”, “national income”, etc.), not to mention the phrases used in common parlance (“national leader”, “national sovereignty”, etc.) e.) it is advisable to bring it into line with the mental and worldview attitudes of the Russian people, which have developed over the centuries. It makes no sense to use Western turns of speech that carry a negative semantic connotation.
It is necessary to end the search for the so-called national idea of Russia, which simply does not exist (which is why it has not yet been found).
Efforts should be made towards the creation and implementation of Russia's own official ideology based on universal ideals, norms and values, and not be influenced by Western liberal-democratic ideology, which turns society into biomass and drives people to a mental breakdown.
The Russian people have long been established as a community with a high level of culture. The idea of the cultural superiority of Western Europe over Russia, introduced from the 17th-18th centuries to the present time, is a myth created to ensure ideological dominance over the consciousness of Russian society and the struggle of the West against Russia. After such a long treatment of people all over the world with a distorted history, an image of an “aggressive Russia” has developed, which, thanks to its supposedly innate genetic malice, is constantly striving to expand its zone of influence throughout the world.
Russian civilization was originally formed as a starting point for the development of all mankind. And our task is to continue and multiply those glorious cultural traditions of Russian civilization, which is the core of world civilization and the spiritual support of all peoples inhabiting our Earth.
The developers of the law, which is conditionally called the law "On the Russian Nation", from the very beginning faced a serious obstacle - the absence of the very concept of "Russian nation", which would suit everyone. Now the problem is close to being resolved: scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences have developed a dictionary of basic concepts in the field of national politics and interethnic relations. As Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valery Tishkov told Izvestiya, the created glossary establishes the priority of understanding the Russian nation as a political rather than an ethnic community. It also says that the Russian Federation is a nation state with a diverse ethnic and religious composition of the population and regional specifics.
The Scientific Council on Complex Problems of Ethnicity and Interethnic Relations appeared in the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was created in accordance with the instructions of the President to discuss the most important problems in the field of interethnic (interethnic) relations and the implementation of the State National Policy Strategy.
As academician Valery Tishkov, scientific director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Izvestiya on April 25, the first meeting will discuss the basic categories and concepts in this area. That is, they decided to start from the basics: what is a nation, ethnic community, international relations.
Recent decades any public mention of such concepts becomes an occasion for fierce discussions that lead nowhere.
After the October meeting of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations in Astrakhan, when the head of state was proposed to adopt the law “On the Russian Nation”, the media and social networks argued for a long time what it is and how it should be understood. Discussions continued on March 2 at a meeting of the working group to create the concept of the law. Many were confused by the word “nation” in the name, which has been causing negative associations in part of society since Soviet times. According to Valery Tishkov, members of the working group have not yet come to a final decision on what the bill should be called. Among the options - "On the Russian nation" and "On the foundations of the state national policy." It is possible that both names will be reflected in the final version.
Valery Tishkov noted that it is necessary to proceed from the President's instruction, which reads as follows: "To the Presidium of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Interethnic Relations, submit proposals on the preparation of a draft regulatory legal act regulating relations in the field of strengthening the unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation)."
The main thing now is to find the meaning, content, what to put in this law: responsibility and delineation of powers of state authorities; what mission should be carried out by civil society institutions; issues related to the assertion of Russian identity and patriotism; overcoming tensions and conflicts that may pose risks to the unity of the Russian people. The task is to find these things legal form- said Valery Tishkov.
So that the work on laws does not get bogged down in the same disputes about words, scientists have created a conceptual apparatus. A small terminological dictionary of state national policy has already been prepared for the first meeting of the council. It reveals the following definitions: autonomy, including ethnoterritorial and national-cultural; assimilation; genocide; group rights; indigenous (aboriginal) peoples; xenophobia; interethnic (interethnic) consent; minorities; nationalism; nation state; national consciousness (identity); nation; racism; self-determination; separatism; ethnic community (ethnic group, ethnos).
For example, a nation-state is defined in the glossary as a state with a common, controlled central authority economic and economic basis, with a common territory, common historical and cultural values of the inhabitants of the country. At the same time, it is stipulated that the concept of "national state" should be distinguished from the concepts of "mono-ethnic state" and "multi-ethnic state".
"The Russian Federation is a nation state with a diverse ethnic and religious composition of the population and is distinguished by great regional specificity," the document says.
The article "Nation" notes that in modern science and law, this refers to two types of human communities: a set of citizens of one state (political, or civil, nation) and an ethnic community (ethnonation).
“Members of political nations are distinguished by common civic self-awareness, or national identity, expressed in the correlation of a citizen with his country, which is reflected primarily in the name of its inhabitants (for example, Americans, Indians, Spaniards, Chinese, Mexicans, Russians, French)”, - says in dictionary.
At the same time, scientists pay attention to the fact that in Russia the ethnic understanding of the nation retains its influence, which is reflected in the political and scientific vocabulary and mass consciousness.
“Some experts, politicians and social activists deny the understanding of the Russian people as a socio-political and historical-cultural integrity in the form of a civil nation. However, authoritative surveys of the country's population show that Russian identity ("we are Russians") is in first place among all other forms of collective identity," the authors of the dictionary conclude.
A multicultural country is always in search of a strategy of consent different cultures and their dialogue, - Alexander Asmolov, head of the Department of Personality Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University, explained to Izvestia. - Making government decisions without scientific analysis, an expert position on ethnocultural policy can always be risky. It is the reduction of risks that is one of the tasks of the council. So that there is no misunderstanding in society and no misinterpretation of national issues, such expert groups are working.
In addition to the terminological dictionary, the meeting will consider “ Short version concepts for a glossary of a legislative act” - these materials will be used in the development of legislation. The document, in particular, defines what the “multinational people of the Russian Federation” is. The Constitution of the Russian Federation begins with this wording, but heated discussions also arise around it from time to time.
The Glossary defines the multinational people of the Russian Federation as “a community of citizens of the Russian Federation of various nationalities, united by state unity, common interests and historical and cultural values and aware of their belonging to the community of the Russian nation.
The Russian nation, according to the glossary, is a civil-political community, consolidated on the basis of the historical Russian statehood, whose members have equal rights regardless of ethnic, racial and religious affiliation.
In addition, the glossary gives three meanings to the word “people”: it is co-citizenship (the Russian people, Russians), an ethnic community (nationality), “including the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation,” or any gathering of people in general.
A short version of the terms for the glossary of the legislative act
State national policy(state policy in the field of interethnic relations) - a system of targeted actions of state authorities, local self-government, civil society institutions to ensure the constitutional rights of peoples and citizens of the Russian Federation to ethnocultural development, ensuring the harmonization of interethnic relations and strengthening on this basis the unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation ( Russian nation)
Civic identity- identification with the citizens of the country, the state-territorial space, the idea of the state, society, country, the image of "we" and a sense of community, solidarity, responsibility for the affairs of the country.
Multinational people of the Russian Federation- a community of citizens of the Russian Federation of various nationalities, united by state unity, common interests and historical and cultural values and aware of their belonging to the community of the Russian nation.
Interethnic relations- a set of political, socio-economic, cultural, linguistic and other relations between people of different ethnicity in business, public and other areas of communication.
Russian nation- a civil-political community, consolidated on the basis of historical Russian statehood, whose members have equal rights regardless of ethnic, racial and religious affiliation, common historical and cultural values, a sense of belonging to united people, civic responsibility and solidarity.
Ethnic community (group)- based on common culture and language, a community of people compactly or dispersedly settled on the territory of the Russian Federation, whose members have a common self-consciousness.
National (ethnic) affiliation- assignment by an individual of himself to a certain ethnic community on the basis of free will.
People- 1. As fellow citizenship (Russian people, Russians), 2. As an ethnic community (nationality), including the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, 3. As any gathering of people.
Preamble
Before the Russians become a nation, they need to restore themselves as a people
IN Russian society there is no consensus on who the Russians are - a people or a nation? This is due to the influence Soviet period formation of Russia and with the fact that each of these concepts promises its pros and cons, can potentially influence the vector of further formation of Russian society and the set of principles for the formation of the Russian World. An impromptu watershed separating these two groups of people is the concept of "Soviet people" from the USSR, with the usual and inherent ideology of internationalism.
Figuratively speaking, people who miss Soviet Union, and the opinion "Russians are the people" is closer to people who consider the periods of the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire to be more significant in the history of the development of Russian statehood. Therefore, before starting to search for an answer to the question: Russians are a people or a nation, it is necessary to define these two terms, as well as briefly assess their essence.
About terms
People- the term of the science of ethnography (Greek ethnography) and it is understood as an ethnos, that is, a group of people common in origin (blood relationship), which, in addition, has several unifying features: language, culture, territory, religion and historical past.
That is, people are a sociocultural phenomenon.
Nation is a socio-economic, cultural, political and spiritual community of the industrial era. The nation is studied by the theory of political doctrines, and the main task of the nation is to reproduce the cultural and civic identity common to all citizens of the country.
That is, nation is a political phenomenon.
To summarize: the concept of "people" is based on interrelated ethnic processes that do not always depend on the will of people, and the concept of "nation" is closely related to the influence of the state apparatus. Shared historical memory, language and culture is the property of the people, and common area, political and economic life is closer to the concept of a nation. We note one more point: the concept of the people arose much earlier than the concept of the nation.
In relation to the development processes and the formation of the state, it can be argued that the people create the state, and then the state voluntarily shapes the nation: the basis of the nation is the principle of citizenship, not kinship. A people is something organic and living, a nation is an artificially built rational mechanism.
Unfortunately, in the pursuit of civil unity, the nation involuntarily nullifies everything original, ethnic and traditional. The people who created the state and are the core of the nation, gradually loses its ethnic identity and natural self-awareness. This is due to the fact that the living, natural processes of linguistic evolution, traditions and customs in the state acquire a strictly formalized form. Sometimes the price for the formation of a nation can be a split and confrontation within the people.
There are two conclusions from the above:
- The nation is an analogue of the people, which is artificially formed by the state.
- The people are the people, the nation is the principle, dominating over people, the ruling idea.
The people create the state, and the state voluntarily forms the nation
About Russian problems
An approach to the Russian question would not be complete without mentioning the enormous external and internal pressure on the Russian community over many centuries, which sometimes took kind of outright ethnic and cultural terror. In the history of Russia, there are three most significant and striking moments of attempts to break and reformat Russian identity:
- reforms of Peter I which manifested themselves in all spheres of Russian life, the stratification of Russian society, followed by the separation of the elite from the common people
- Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which actively fought against the Orthodox religion and culture, pursued a policy of Belarusianization of Russians, and used distortions of Russian identity
- color revolution 1991, was characterized by a particularly violent defamation of Russians in the global media space, where everything Russian was presented in an exceptionally derogatory light, also Western countries a policy of reducing the birth rate in relation to Russians was carried out and the replacement of Russian folk culture with symbols and concepts of Western media culture
It can be argued that for almost three centuries, the Russians were subjected to quite conscious pressure from their own state. The goals were different, the methods also corresponded to their time, but the result of the impact was always Russian weakening and their societies. Add to this numerous wars, epidemics and famine, multiply this by the extermination of the most prominent Russian representatives, and the picture will be even more depressing.
Russians are very "historically tired" and very much "worn out": ethnic identity is distorted, folk culture is not perceived to the right extent, mortality exceeds the birth rate of the formation of the Russian people, habits and worldview are confused and cosmopolitanized, the institution of the family and internal communications people. The Russian state actively and harshly used the Russians, doing practically nothing to maintain their national and.
Russians are very "historically tired"
And what?
If now the Russian state begins to form the Russian nation on the basis of the Russian people in its current state, then the result will be disastrous both for the state and for the Russian people, who, in spite of everything, are still aware of themselves as a people. Although, of course, depending on what nation the state wants to form ...
The example of the events in Ukraine clearly shows what attempts to form a nation on the basis of a people with distorted ethnic identity, formatted historical memory and state-imposed archetypes and landmarks.
without due and complete restoration of the Russian people in all its uniqueness: ethnic, cultural, religious, ideological, behavioral and geopolitical, it is impossible to create a reliable and integral Russian World, and ultimately the Russian nation. Russians need to be a little conservative about themselves for a while...
