Military Review

Is federal parade of sovereignties threatening federal Russia? Poll

149

Does federalism need to be developed in Russia, while preserving national state formations?

Yes, you definitely need to - 492 (17.97%)
17.97%
No, in any case, do not save, I'm for unitarism - 981 (35.83%)
35.83%
It is necessary to reduce the rights of the republics as much as possible, but at the same time preserve the federal structure of the country - 1142 (41.71%)
41.71%
I do not know, never thought about it - 94 (3.43%)
3.43%
Other, in the comments - 29 (1.06%)
1.06%
Globalization is not a consolidation process. This is the master of the world summarizing the features under the new world order. The idealist Fukuyama announced in 1992 that “the end of stories”, And the Americans piously believed that with the collapse of the USSR, the cold war was over, and the host hegemon on the planet was left alone.

And the European Union, you say? Firstly, it is not far from the split, and secondly, if anyone keeps it, it is Germany. And in return, donating a part of her budget, she extorts political privileges from herself, do not even hesitate. It may well be that the EU will have a German president. But this is so, by the way about the hegemon.

All over the world there is a “parade of sovereignties” now. If Boris Nikolayevich were alive, he would have laughed and said: in the West, the West took me and the comrades of Kravchuk and Shushkevich.

In China riot Uighurs. More precisely, terrorists from the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and the East-Turkestan Association for Education and Solidarity (ETESA) advocate “independence” there. Chinese Uigur Islamist performances cruelly suppressed.

In Quebec, the September 4 election was won by separatists from Parti Quebecoisadvocating secession of a province from Canada. In the past, the party held a referendum on separation issues twice: in 1980 and 1995. On the first plebiscite, 59,6% voted against the secession of Quebec, and on the second - 50,6%. However, today the victory of the separatists does not mean that the population of Quebec is actively and fully supported the separation of the province from Canada. According to the recent public opinion pollOnly 28% of Quebec men supports the idea of ​​province independence. Nevertheless, the victory of the separatist party says a lot.

In 2014 year a referendum will be held on the independence of Scotland. Only one question will be put to the vote: “Do you want complete independence?” Moreover, British Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond signed an agreement allowing all Scottish people older than 16 to vote. But adolescent Scots are considered the main supporters of sovereignty.

Even Texas, and that rages. Other radicals there count them.that a civil war for the separation of this privileged state is inevitable. For example, Tom Head, a judge and chief district administrator from Lubbock County, publicly, through the press, warned Obama about a possible civil war - if he was re-elected. Now this judge is convincing the deputies that a civil war is inevitable, and it will immediately follow Obama's re-election. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare for the “worst”, that is, “civil unrest, civil disobedience” and even, probably, “war”. Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich believe that a riot of disgruntled Obama Texans will be suppressed by the UN peacekeeper. But this Mr. is not going to let the military into his home state and Lubbock County: "... So, I will stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say:" Boy, you have nothing to do here. "

All this, of course, is connected with the pre-election situation. However, Texas is not the only state special according to its political status, but also populated by very hot people. They love not only shootbut also to look at the death penalty subject to even weak-minded. By the way, both Bush are from Texas.

In addition to the United States, Canada, Britain and China, the “parade of sovereignties” can also affect smaller states - for example, Spain. They have long dreamed of finding independence for Catalonia and the Basque Country. In the recent elections, the nationalists again won the last election. Most votes received Basque Nationalist Party.

In Belgium, the Flemish nationalists, after winning local elections in Flanders, issued an ultimatum to the government. They demanded turning the country into a confederation. On October 14, Bart de Wever, the leader of the New Flemish Alliance Party, stated this directly. He received the 38% of votes in Antwerp and actually took control of the country's second largest economic center. He said that the party "became the largest party in Flanders after the Second World War," which "received a vote of confidence from the Flemish to overcome the economic and political crisis." The Flemish politician stressed that with French-speaking Wallonia as part of Belgium, he was not on the path: "We have two cultures and two democracies ... Our nationalism is not a goal, but a means of moving towards our own democracy in Flanders."

Does it make sense to remind of Yugoslavia - or rather, about what it has turned into and continues to turn into, despite the fact that Wahhabi Islamism is becoming stronger in the Balkans? Less remember the "velvet divorce" of Czechoslovakiadivided by 1 January 1993 for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Probably because this divorce is peaceful, although the majority of Czechs and Slovaks spoke against him. (The latter means nothing; in the USSR, the people in the corresponding referendum also spoke in favor of the Union).

But there is still two Sudan, Livia with her Cyrenaica, finally, the probability of the appearance on the world map of Kurdistan... There is no peace and smell. The split of Syria into religious enclaves of Kurds, Druze, Shiites and Sunnis is one of the immediate tasks of the USA.

And more and more often in the world there are voices of separatists who consider the “parade of sovereignties” a panacea for the financial crisis. Separatists increasingly come to power if the democratic election system allows them. One thing is authoritarian China, brutally cracking down on the Uighurs and limiting their religious departure, another thing - Europe or the United States.

Before we get to Russia, let's say a few words about federalism and its opponents. The federal structure implies equal rights of subjects in the state. There are almost more opponents of a federal structure that guarantees the subjects a certain legal and political independence than supporters. A federation does not necessarily mean a strong state.

Extremely indicative An example of Indonesia, a country with a population of 190 million people, whose length - almost 5 thousands of kilometers. The complexity of management here is that its territory is divided into 13.500 islands, and the culture is extremely heterogeneous. Freed from the Netherlands, the Indonesian rulers decided to introduce a federal structure here - and so what? The strongest internal conflicts, culminating in a massacre by the Kalimantan Dayak, almost ruined the country. As a result, it became clear to the state leaders: endowing Kalimantan with autonomy would lead to its subsequent separation from Indonesia. True opponents of federalism triumphed.

As arguments, opponents of federalization lead The following arguments. First, federalization is dangerous if the country breaks up into specific principalities. Secondly, these very principalities can easily slip into neo-feudalism. Third, federalization will make it worse for the poor regions of the country, and the rich will be better. Fourth, the number of local officials will increase and, accordingly, the cost of maintaining them.

All this can be both true and wrong.

Unitary states can also break up. The growth of expenditures on the bureaucratic apparatus is unrealistic to predict, since the "vertical of power" is not at all an example of the principle of federalism, as is often believed. Federalism is just a “horizontal” where the central government and republican governments solve various tasks that should not be duplicated.

The problem of poor regions can quite successfully be solved precisely under federalism. However, from the excesses and distortions here no one is immune. For example, the financing of Chechnya’s expenses from the federal budget of Russia comes to 90%. It is not surprising that many are indignant at such subsidies.

As for the specific princes, separatism and neo-feudalism, these evils can really manifest themselves with a new, powerful force - one has only to talk about “independence”, “renewal”, “rebirth” - in general, about what he started in his time to repeat on television Comrade Gorbachev, a famous peacemaker, in which the nationalists in the USSR cheered up. For the "rebirth" usually immediately follows the party thesis of "independence." A good example of the troubled time of reorganization is the Lithuanian SSR. The local Sajudis movement initially called for perestroika and glasnost, and then, in the elections of 1990, advocated the secession of Lithuania from the Soviet Union.



But the USSR is long gone; geographically, the problem has become "smaller". Now they are arguing about how bad federalism is in Russia: after all, Wahhabis do not cease to wage an underground war in the Caucasus, incidents with Islamists began to occur in Tatarstan. According to open statistics, which can be obtained on the Internet, from the regions where Islamist militants and Muslims in general are radical, the Russian population is leaving (it should also be noted that the second reason for the decline of Russians in problem regions is the low birth rate). If in the 2002 year of the Russians in Chechnya there were 3,7% of the population, then in 2010 only 1,9% remained. In Kabardino-Balkaria, in 1989, the Russians were 31,9%, in 2002 - 25,1%, in 2010 - 22,5%. In Ingushetia, only 2010% remained for the 0,8 year of the Russians: most of them fled from there because of the Chechen conflict, migrants from Chechnya and North Ossetia settled there instead. In Dagestan, Russians made 1979% in 11,64, 1989% in 9,21, only 2002% in 4,69, and 2010% in 3,60.

In other regions - you can take, for example, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Udmurtia or other republics - whether it is a national problem or not, or it is not as acute as in the Caucasus conflict, fueled, by the way, from abroad. In Udmurtia, Russians did arrive: in 1989, Russians constituted 58,87% of the total population, in 2002 - 60,12%, in 2010 - 62,20%.

However, it is believed that with time separatism - in all the republics of Russia - will prove to be the force that will destroy the state. The reason for the possible collapse of Russia will be just the federal principle. The “parade of sovereignties” is what is possible with a certain independence of equal subjects. Do not be a federation, firmly subordinate all regions to the center, get rid of the republics and completely totalize all protests (probably, just like the Chinese central government weapons pacifies the Uygur), there would be no national or religious problem. Any “rebirth” would be extinguished in its very germ.

Opponents of federalism offer tough options for a political solution: for Russia to continue to move along the path to greatness, it needs to cut the rights of the republics as much as possible, or to completely abolish national-state formations erroneously nurtured since the times of the USSR. Otherwise, the country is awaited by what has already been said above: the rule of princelings in the republics, neo-feudalism (yes, there “neo” is the most ordinary, medieval, with heavy slave labor, as practiced in Chechnya) and the aspirations of the republics either for independence or to the "correct" redistribution of the federal budget.

We will not summarize, let alone impose our own opinion, but will offer to answer questions from readers. Please participate in the survey and select one of the suggested answers. Thank.
Author:
149 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 6 November 2012 08: 53
    +54
    There can be no talk of any independence of individual republics, and if it is necessary to forcefully suppress the uprisings of all fanatics there it will be so.
    1. Maks111
      Maks111 6 November 2012 09: 19
      +21
      Federalism is a time bomb. As soon as the center weakens, we will get another 2-3 Chechnya somewhere in Tatarstan or Yakutia.
      1. Kaa
        Kaa 6 November 2012 10: 13
        +17
        Quote: Max111
        Federalism is a time bomb.

        Next stop - "Anarchy - mother of order" with wheelbarrows machine guns in jeeps, as in Libya. If, figuratively speaking, the majority of the site, as I noticed, generally perceives the West as a natural historical antagonist, then we need to do the exact opposite - if centrifugal tendencies are growing there - then centripetal should prevail here. The number of parasites is directly proportional to the number of subjects on which they can inhabit, 5th Law of the Jungle laughing .As applied to us - the more subjects of the state - the thicker the array of bureaucracy and the specific princes ... the Middle Ages ... early. Do we want to degrade?
        1. YARY
          YARY 6 November 2012 10: 31
          +16
          UNIFICATION
          Only a single whole and not otherwise.
          1. Su24
            Su24 6 November 2012 11: 59
            +4
            ha, do you want to assimilate all non-Russians?
          2. crazyrom
            crazyrom 6 November 2012 16: 30
            +8
            This article is some kind of mockery. An attempt to introduce the idea of ​​the destruction of the country into the brain. If at one time Lenin listened to Stalin and made the USSR unitary, he would still have lived, there would have been no way out. And so get it. Now the same question about Russia itself? Is it really necessary to ask about this and everything itself is not clear?
            1. SuperVodka777
              SuperVodka777 7 November 2012 00: 30
              +4
              Strange, but if Stalin was a supporter of a unitary state, why didn’t he realize this idea? He had both time and opportunity.
              1. DimYang
                DimYang 7 November 2012 16: 50
                0
                Quote: SuperVodka777
                Strange, but if Stalin was a supporter of a unitary state, why didn’t he realize this idea? He had both time and opportunity.


                Yes, that's just not there. Until 37, he smashed the "integral gopota", and then prepared for war. After the war, he rebuilt the country, not before reorganization. And such decisions on restructuring the country simply cannot be carried out, one must prepare for them and prepare the people. It is not a matter of one year. Just taking and changing the Constitution is not enough.
            2. Dikremnij
              Dikremnij 22 November 2012 13: 58
              +2
              In the USSR, in fact, there was no way out; the collapse of the USSR was the result of a weakening of the political and economic system. And as for the secession from the USSR, remember the attempts of secession of Hungary and Czechoslovakia from the Warsaw Treaty Organization and you will understand that secession from the USSR was a fantasy that existed only on paper. To this we can add the protests of the workers in Novocherkassk and how it strangled, and here the republic left the structure ... I think all this is vivid proof that the USSR was a well-fed country with the unshakable authority of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.
          3. Nachkar237
            Nachkar237 6 November 2012 16: 33
            +6
            and I already wrote about this ... The Russian Empire was unitary, and it all started just then ... the German agent - Lenin proclaimed the right to self-determination and rushed ... it still buzzes !!! There is only one way out and only one: the unification of the entire Russian organism! the liquidation of republics, territories, autonomies, the introduction of equal provinces with the names of the capitals of the provinces as it was before !!! it is imperative to remove the term "federation" from the name of the country and the constitution
            1. Phantom crowner
              Phantom crowner April 24 2015 23: 52
              0
              No need to level the 300 year old Empire and the Bolsheviks who came to power as well as the current dill as a result of the coup. In RI there was a symbol in the face of the monarch, and he was overthrown by a frostbitten.
        2. avreli
          avreli 7 November 2012 00: 56
          +1
          As always an interesting post, Kaa.
          Perplexed. And what are the previous 4th laws.
          I recalled, perhaps, three:
          -- the strongest survives
          -- every man for himself
          - kill - or kill
      2. Su24
        Su24 6 November 2012 11: 59
        -3
        you do not understand what federalism is.
      3. Hemul
        Hemul 6 November 2012 20: 33
        +6
        It is unlikely that in Tatarstan / Yakutia / Udmurtia there will be social tension due to the weakening of the center. Firstly, the people here are quiet, peaceful. I myself am from Udmurtia, and I see that on the contrary, national self-consciousness is dying. Secondly, we have not been conquered for centuries. They just came and said that now the Udmurts and the Russians are one family. And we were not opposed. I don’t know about the Caucasus, I don’t have to judge. But still I think that the dressing skin is not worth it. The Caucasus is not worth the effort and money spent on it. The same Tatarstan and Mordovia with Udmurtia are one plus, no contradictions. And yet, I personally am for a unitary state.
        1. Shuhrat turani
          Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 15
          +1
          correctly. national regions should be expelled from the federation ... and what remains can be left in the form of a unitary Russian state - let it pump out resources from the rest of Russia and export it to foreign banks.
        2. Border k
          Border k 7 November 2012 11: 40
          0
          And here is http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1590072.html, what other people live? Judging by the above article, it’s just in Tatarstan that we are observing, if not completely complete, the hardships and the desire for independence.
          1. Dikremnij
            Dikremnij 22 November 2012 14: 03
            0
            If I'm not mistaken, then in the early 90s Tatarstan and Bashkiria also tried to join the "independent". Correct if I'm wrong, I can :)
    2. WW3
      WW3 6 November 2012 09: 28
      +14
      If there are more powers in the regions, no one can guarantee the recurrence of Chechen events .... Russia will scatter like a house of cards. I am for the 3rd option, the federation is still a federation, but the powers of the subjects need to be cut as much as possible ...
    3. Civil
      Civil 6 November 2012 10: 53
      -18
      gorkoxnumx,

      that is, instead of dialogue and solving problems, stupidly drown in blood and forever become an enemy of the conquered people?
      1. Denzel13
        Denzel13 6 November 2012 12: 28
        +14
        Was it really different in the whole history? Do you really hope that the republics in the Caucasus will ever be sincere friends? Russians have always been either enemies or "friends of necessity and circumstance." There is no need to entertain illusions.
      2. Nachkar237
        Nachkar237 6 November 2012 16: 24
        +1
        I wonder who conquered whom and when?
        1. homosum20
          homosum20 6 November 2012 19: 16
          +4
          Read the history of the Caucasian wars. These are real wars. Tactics, battle strategy, artillery, blood emulation, scorched earth tactics (from our side) - all this. The Caucasus is generally very abundantly watered with Russian blood. And he, for example, was directly and unequivocally submissive.
          In Turkmenistan, and throughout our entire South Asian part, the history of Russia is this history of military campaigns.
          1. Roman A
            Roman A 6 November 2012 20: 10
            +1
            homosum20,


            Read the history of the Caucasian wars. These are real wars. Tactics, battle strategy, artillery, blood emulation, scorched earth tactics (from our side) - all this. The Caucasus is generally very abundantly watered with Russian blood. And he, for example, was directly and unequivocally submissive.
            In Turkmenistan, and throughout our entire South Asian part, the history of Russia is this history of military campaigns.
            What difference does it matter who conquered us or Persia or Turkey at that time the borders should be expanded, but we lived normally (with a scoop) and then resentment against Russia and not Turkey, although we drank no less blood
            1. Dikremnij
              Dikremnij 22 November 2012 14: 17
              +1
              As far as I remember from history, the North Caucasus was subjugated for one simple reason: the Georgian Principality came to join the Russian Empire, which led along one road through the S. Caucasus, transport on which local tribes very often plundered.
              As for the dislike of the Russians, for some reason all these highlanders forget how they were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
        2. Dikremnij
          Dikremnij 22 November 2012 14: 09
          +1
          Remember the United States, there the indigenous people were driven out, and the rest were driven into the reservation, and now they have built a system in which it is not mentioned, and the mention of this is not worthy of an American citizen, otherwise how can one prove the absence of the institution of American history in America?
          And after such a terror in the literal sense of the word, the country became a worldwide model of political correctness and a famous fighter against world terrorism, and in terms of organization it is also a federation.
      3. Van
        Van 6 November 2012 16: 59
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        that is, instead of dialogue and solving problems, stupidly drown in blood and forever become an enemy of the conquered people?

        Of course not, this is not acceptable, most likely we are talking about a single economic hand, and the reduction of the princely apparatus of spinogryz. I personally understand this. what
        1. Civil
          Civil 6 November 2012 19: 44
          0
          Van,

          I mean other republics - Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia ... and here the Caucasus ... where there are people for the Russians!
      4. sprut
        sprut 6 November 2012 17: 49
        0
        What else in f .. pu dialogue ??? With whom??? What planet have you flown from ???
      5. 11Goor11
        11Goor11 6 November 2012 23: 04
        +8
        gorko83,
        that is, instead of dialogue and solving problems, stupidly drown in blood and forever become an enemy of the conquered people?

        Separations are desired by people either paid by the West or not understanding that they are being separated into true slavery by the newly-born princes.
        And why does the west need this branch? To exacerbate hostility, provocations, they will specially arrange situations in which rivers of blood will be shed.
        Unclear? Watch Libya.
        Tribal warfare. The fewer local people left, the greater the orgasm Hillary Clinton will experience when watching a video of the killings.
        What would happen in China now if their leaders had chickened out and dispersed the crowd from Tiananmen Square?
        There are many people in any country who, using anarchy, would like to settle scores "with each other"
        In the absence of strong power, much more blood is shed.
        1. Van
          Van 7 November 2012 20: 26
          +1
          11Goor11
          Separations are desired by people either paid by the West or not understanding that they are being separated into true slavery by the newly-born princes.
          And why does the west need this branch? To exacerbate hostility, provocations, they will specially arrange situations in which rivers of blood will be shed.
          Unclear? Watch Libya.
          Tribal warfare. The fewer local people left, the greater the orgasm Hillary Clinton will experience when watching a video of the killings.
          What would happen in China now if their leaders had chickened out and dispersed the crowd from Tiananmen Square?
          There are many people in any country who, using anarchy, would like to settle scores "with each other"
          In the absence of strong power, much more blood is shed.

          I agree with you one hundred percent "+"
    4. Hon
      Hon 6 November 2012 12: 08
      +3
      That's right, otherwise Chechnya is not enough for us ...
    5. sprut
      sprut 6 November 2012 17: 51
      +2
      Absolutely correct!
  2. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 6 November 2012 08: 55
    +16
    Congratulations to you, Oleg! Great article and excellent centrifugal trend analysis. I am very glad that the start of expressing sound opinions about separatism (it was once illegal).
    1. Mart
      6 November 2012 08: 58
      +11
      Quote: AK-74-1
      Congratulations, Oleg! Great article and excellent analysis of centrifugal trends.

      Thanks, buddy!
    2. alexng
      alexng 7 November 2012 06: 37
      0
      If you do not give free rein to actions such as white-swamp, then Russia will never disintegrate, but on the contrary will become the center of the association of already breakaway units. I think almost all of the former republics ate independence from themselves and now there is only one desire among the prodigals, and the children will return home.
  3. Deniska999
    Deniska999 6 November 2012 09: 00
    +20
    I am more inclined towards a unitary state. I do not like all these states in the state. Each republic has its own president, he has a bunch of ministers, this is what kind of state. the device is bloated. There must be one head, one government, one system. Here is how Stalin wrote about federalism:
    Is it not clear that federalism in Russia does not and cannot solve the national question, that it only confuses and complicates its quixotic efforts to turn back the wheel of history?
    . Source: Stalin I.V. Compositions. - T. 3. - M .: OGIZ; State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1946. S. 23–31.
    1. DIMS
      DIMS 6 November 2012 09: 10
      +1
      Quote: Deniska999
      I do not like all these states in the state. Each republic has its own president, he has a bunch of ministers, this is what kind of state. the device is bloated.

      Dear, our bureaucracy is able to breed, like cockroaches, in any conditions. Even when insecticides are used on them in the form of an administrative reform carried out with the aim of reducing the state. apparatus
    2. v53993
      v53993 6 November 2012 09: 53
      +6
      Stalin knew what he was saying and doing. Great man, not like today.
    3. WW3
      WW3 6 November 2012 10: 27
      +6
      As part of the USSR was RSFSR Russian Soviet Federated The Socialist Republic and there were no parades of sovereignty, because the central government was strong!
    4. Vasiliev Nikolay
      Vasiliev Nikolay 15 November 2012 02: 57
      0
      I read your post, dear Deniska999 and immediately remembered, such as a joke. Why can not you defeat Russia? Yes, because in the United States there is one president, and in Russia there is more to nowhere. Each of himself thinks the president, well, at worst - the gene. Director of the company: Horns and hooves ...)))
  4. smel
    smel 6 November 2012 09: 08
    +5
    The example of the specific princes who ruined the country in 91 in order to transfer from the prince’s chair to the royal throne is very contagious .. So you can slide down to a separate court. But I still feel sorry for us Russians. There are too many problems to solve. And their decision is expensive
  5. Oleg the Great
    Oleg the Great 6 November 2012 09: 09
    +3
    The biggest mistake is national entities. They, a priori, have greater preferences in comparison with other territories. And in something, Prokhorov’s proposals on administrative-territorial division have a rational basis. But I am far from thinking that this will be discussed. Everything will remain as it is.
    1. d.gksueyjd
      d.gksueyjd 6 November 2012 09: 42
      +1
      You are absolutely right, Kosovo is a good example. If you pay attention to modest messages from Tatarstan, then you begin to understand, and there a bonfire flares up.
      1. Border k
        Border k 7 November 2012 11: 50
        0
        Aha, I especially liked:
        ,,, the Tatar elite still has a strong desire for maximum independence within the Russian Federation, the creation of the so-called "asymmetric federation". In this regard, a rather rude, but quite frank statement, noticed at one of the nationalist forums, is quite typical: "We need to get the most out of Russia for now, it will soon collapse by itself."
        . Well, neither take away nor add.
  6. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 6 November 2012 09: 15
    +4
    A very delicate question in which you can break big firewood!
    Most importantly, at the moment no one has any program - not even hints! It’s just that everyone pretends that nothing is happening, that everything is good - the worst and most dangerous thing for the country that can be chosen ...
  7. snek
    snek 6 November 2012 09: 31
    +1
    in the short term - not threatened. And one must think so over the development of the Far East (there the population continues to decline there), the North Caucasus and Kaliningrad should not be forgotten.
  8. DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 6 November 2012 09: 31
    +5
    I am generally for the Monarchy, but they say it is archaism ...
    1. snek
      snek 6 November 2012 10: 37
      -1
      Who will we put as a monarch? Putin?
      1. Witch
        Witch 6 November 2012 11: 13
        -2
        In fact, there is a precedent for choosing a monarch in Russia, as many as two. Putin is not the best candidate - he has no legitimate son: how to transfer power ?! But at worst, and he will.
        But in our situation, it’s easier to invite the prince from the ruling European houses. Again, ties with Europe deepen ... fellow
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 6 November 2012 11: 41
          0
          http://www.google.ru/imgres?q=%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D
          0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F&num=10&hl=ru&newwindow=1&b
          iw=1280&bih=894&tbm=isch&tbnid=9RoDwUANGE2vmM:&imgrefurl=http://topwar.ru/18726-
          rossiya-snova-imperiya-no-inaya-stratfor-ssha.html & docid = ebHabU_ZB0PqRM & imgurl = h
          ttp://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-09/1347417101_g_image.jpeg&w=307&h=300&ei=7L6
          YUKG_IpLU4QSy4YG4BQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=211&sig=114281672839854924016&page=1&tbnh
          =137&tbnw=140&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:20,i:154&tx=109&ty=37
        2. antiaircrafter
          antiaircrafter 6 November 2012 12: 34
          +6
          Quote: Witch
          Again, ties with Europe deepen ...

          one has already been deepened and expanded ....
          1. Witch
            Witch 6 November 2012 17: 01
            -1
            Quote: antiaircrafter
            one has already been deepened and expanded ....



            This is Petrush, which is the first? Yes, it was unfortunate. I meant something else. If we have an overseas prince, Europe will perceive us in a different way: not as trained bears.
            1. 11Goor11
              11Goor11 7 November 2012 00: 41
              +1
              If we have an overseas prince, Europe will perceive us in a different way: not as trained bears.

              No, this is a cool joke!
              Exactly how trained and they will perceive bears, now they are absolutely wild bears, but thanks to your prince, we will become trained second-class people for them.
              But as I understand it, are you just joking?
        3. Volozhanin
          Volozhanin 6 November 2012 17: 23
          -1
          Putin inspires me with incomprehensible fears, I don’t know why. I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT FREE in his decisions, just like him, he’s like JFK ....... and we don’t have Europeans !! you would have called Zhorik Romanov, laughter and only but why the Romanovs? that the light came together like a wedge? can the Ruriks look for it?
    2. Witch
      Witch 6 November 2012 17: 03
      -2
      Quote: DAGESTANETS333
      I am generally for the Monarchy, but they say it is archaism ...


      That is in the countries of Western and Northern Europe, where there is a monarch, the best standard of living, and life expectancy is also higher ....
    3. Volozhanin
      Volozhanin 6 November 2012 17: 17
      +1
      why archaism? I'm generally for absolutism, but where can we get a suitable candidate, all that kind of kind? Yes, I think they will come to this anyway in the medium term, in front of the Islamic threat
  9. Shkodnik65
    Shkodnik65 6 November 2012 09: 37
    +23
    In other regions - you can take, for example, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Udmurtia or other republics - there is no national problem

    A rather frivolous statement for a generally relevant article. Dear author, I want to note to you that if they do not talk about national problems in national republics on TV, this does not mean that they are not there. Repeatedly in the comments, I drew attention to the lightweight approach of the leadership of our country to the national question, which consists in hushing up, to the last, local problems. And now when nothing can be done, the hostilities begin, people die, and those who profiled the situation safely leave for London.
    I must upset you! In Tatarstan and Bashkiria, the situation is VERY difficult. As I already wrote, we are talking about the creation of the Volga Caliphate (Tataria, Bashkiria, Orenburg region, partly Samara, Chelyabinsk) with access to the state border. And we, Russians, in particular in Bashkiria, are openly called DESCENDANTS OF COLONIZERS. Tataria (Kazan) positions itself in general as an equal-sized center of the state, along with Moscow and St. Petersburg. While in the press. In order to fully understand the essence of what is happening, it is necessary to communicate with the local population, "bump into" among people. I am sure that you will learn a LOT of new things for yourself, which you do not even suspect now.
    State, IMHO should be unitary. The national question (along with the religious problem) is easier to spin. In the national republic, this is easier to do.
    You need to protect your country. Our grandfathers collected it through sweat and blood. To save it for our children and grandchildren is our task
    1. Civil
      Civil 6 November 2012 10: 57
      -6
      Shkodnik65,

      you are a provocateur and agent of the CIA, and do not know anything about national relations in Tatarstan and Bashkiria.

      your post kindling ethnic hatred, you are against Russia!
      1. Shkodnik65
        Shkodnik65 6 November 2012 11: 21
        +6
        Just do not need labels and epithets. My parents are from Tatarstan. I was born and raised in Ufa. Almost all of my relatives still live there. To say that I do not know anything about the situation in these republics is at least nonsense.
        I will say more, among my friends and acquaintances there are a lot of Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Mari, etc. I myself am married to a muzzle, brother to a Tatar. I have great respect for all NORMAL people of ANY nationality and religion.
        If you have something to say specifically, say, and to sprinkle anger is the lot of people ... frivolous, so to speak. To paraphrase the Behemoth Cat from The Master and Margarita: ... I congratulate you, Mr. SOBOLTNUVSHI .. "
        1. Civil
          Civil 6 November 2012 12: 41
          -4
          Quote: Shkodnik65
          Shkodnik65


          where are the tales about the colonialists? You’ve been away from these republics for a long time, that’s why you are not competent, and when you tell tales about the fierce nationalism of the locals you are lying ...

          Lying even for good, God will judge you ... he will forgive
          1. Shkodnik65
            Shkodnik65 6 November 2012 13: 13
            +7
            Dear, you are some kind of strange. Feels the nerves of the problem. Or spouse refused to have sex? Where did you get this nonsense? You definitely read what I wrote? Maybe I just wanted to chat? I repeat: If you have something to say specifically - say it, but sprinkle with evil the lot of people ... well, you understand. Yes, by the way, there is no need to remember the Name of the Lord in the bustle.
            1. in reserve
              in reserve 6 November 2012 20: 49
              +1
              Shkodnik65

              I’m sorry the post below is not for you,
              а
              Civil RU
              I’m passing you by myself through Tatarstan and this Nazism is felt in the air
        2. in reserve
          in reserve 6 November 2012 19: 55
          0

          Shkodnik65
          Just do not need labels and epithets. My parents are from Tatarstan. I was born and raised in Ufa. Almost all of my relatives still live there. To say that I do not know anything about the situation in these republics is at least nonsense.
          I will say more, among my friends and acquaintances there are a lot of Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Mari, etc. I myself am married to a muzzle, brother to a Tatar. I have great respect for all NORMAL people of ANY nationality and religion.
          If you have something to say specifically, say, and to sprinkle anger is the lot of people ... frivolous, so to speak. To paraphrase the Behemoth Cat from The Master and Margarita: ... I congratulate you, Mr. SOBOLTNUVSHI .. "


          Specifically, he wants to say that there are also nationalists there.
          But nationalists, as you know, adhere to the superiority of their nation over others.
          1. Shuhrat turani
            Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 24
            0
            Quote: in stock
            But nationalists, as you know, adhere to the superiority of their nation over others.



            It is only Russian nationalists who talk about superiority over others. All others talk about independence. THEY SAY: ENOUGH FEEDING MOSCOW "
      2. in reserve
        in reserve 6 November 2012 20: 57
        0
        Civil

        You are a provocateur and an agent of the CIA, and do not know anything about national relations in Tatarstan and Bashkiria.

        your post- inciting ethnic hatred, you are against Russia!


        Campaign carries you. The answer is why there cannot be nationalism?
      3. wirbeln
        wirbeln 6 November 2012 22: 02
        +3
        What about Bulgaria? What about the leading NTV who called the Russian invaders on the air? And she’s nothing ... They beat the Russian bytovuha, beat the nat.men
        (my grandmother from the time of Stalin so called national minorities - a very political literacy) - inciting ethnic hatred, you are against Russia!
        1. Shuhrat turani
          Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 27
          0
          Quote: wirbeln
          What about Bulgaria? What about the leading NTV who called the Russian invaders on the air?


          Is this an answer to your "manezhka" or can you only act as a Russian Natsik? And the fact that Kazan was captured and robbed (i.e. occupied is a historical fact)
          1. Border k
            Border k 7 November 2012 12: 02
            0
            Yes, but if you take the ethnicity of the "Russian" troops who took Kazan, you will be very surprised. There were more Tatars in the army of Ivan IV (you meant this period) than there were Russians.
            1. Shuhrat turani
              Shuhrat turani 9 November 2012 07: 48
              0
              These sources appeared already in "modern times", and after the fact you can write anything you want. This is not important ... What is important is that having given power to Moscow, the Tatars themselves were left with nothing (in the political sense). For a long time they remained second-class people, tk. Russia's Black Hundred policy was not intended to preserve the memory of the Tatars as respectable citizens ... The distant Serbs (who had betrayed Russia more than once, by the way) were closer and nicer and had greater influence on the country's politics than the indigenous peoples of the Russian Empire. And now the national question has not been resolved. As Muslims, Tatars are perceived as a foreign body in the Russian body.
    2. 755962
      755962 6 November 2012 11: 16
      +3
      Quote: Shkodnik65
      You need to protect your country. Our grandfathers collected it through sweat and blood. To save it for our children and grandchildren is our task

      And there is nothing to add ... Only a close-knit country is strong. I remember an example from history when Jeanne d, Ark broke one arrow at a time, showing the disunity of those who resisted ... But taking a bunch of arrows, break them already ... For examples, go far and go don't ... The notorious "Arab Spring". The topic of separatism looks like this image ..
    3. vardex
      vardex 6 November 2012 11: 39
      +3
      No, not only did they trickle the situation, but even after some time they were awarded by the current rulers of Russia with the highest award, the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, which is ridiculous at all.
    4. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 6 November 2012 16: 47
      +4
      My friend a Tatar from Ufa told the following story. Walked along the street in Ufa and saw a skinhead shaved and in their outfit. Who are you? Skinhead or what? He answers, yes! What's your name? Answers-RAMIL !!! What !!! I was lying !!! Everything is complicated with us. Not so easy. We are different from all Europe!
  10. survivor
    survivor 6 November 2012 09: 53
    +8
    once already gained sovereignty. a huge and strong state has collapsed. we wouldn’t learn from mistakes, we’ll climb into this loop anyway (((. What is sovereignty? from whom is it? independence can be gained from the enemy with blood and sweat. but how can independence be gained or demanded from the same, how is it? a fanatic-state makes a revolution by government officials. the smaller the state, the more officials of different ranks. as they don’t understand, a small state cannot survive in a world where each other is a wolf? Well, let's ruin Russia, like the USSR used to be. And THAT THIS WAS NOT IN RUSSIA'S HISTORY And? And what led? In truth, there are no political giants left, at the helm of the pygmies !!!
  11. Evil Tatar
    Evil Tatar 6 November 2012 10: 04
    +1
    Quote: DAGESTANETS333
    I am generally for the Monarchy, but they say it is archaism ...

    Hello Friend!
    The Rurik clan on the male line was interrupted a long time ago, and it will be troublesome to choose from any descendants of boyars - they all eat up outside Russia, and perhaps even belong to "sects" and are present at meetings at the headquarters of enemies who are friends against Russia.
    1. DAGESTAN333
      DAGESTAN333 6 November 2012 10: 34
      +3
      Greetings buddy! You know, you can choose the most worthy family in Russia, I’m sure there are a lot of them. There are those who love Russia more than their ambitions. I would choose from the hereditary military.
      1. Pripyatchanin
        Pripyatchanin 6 November 2012 23: 46
        0
        Quote: DAGESTANETS333
        I would choose from the hereditary military.


        Monarchy is a complex issue. You can't just take and say "You are the KING !!"
        Not only that, the blood is not monarchical, so maybe a person can’t control the country ....

        But anything happens
  12. Serg_Y
    Serg_Y 6 November 2012 10: 19
    +4
    Did the Russians atrophy so much that they don’t understand what a person’s nationality is. This is culture, history, ancestors. Do not think that there is an ideal system, there are jambs in any system, which is what probable opponents use. Remember the monarchy, they inundated Peter with the proletariat to fulfill the needs of the First World War and there is no monarchy. The USSR, our current friends arranged an arms race, the consumer market collapsed, there is no USSR. And Russia will find a hook, the question is whether we will swallow the bait.
  13. Beck
    Beck 6 November 2012 10: 22
    +11
    In the article, as with most forum users, the refrain is the idea that we need a double-polar world. That unipolar is definitely bad.

    But this is how history develops. There were periods of the unipolar world - the Roman Empire. And there were periods of bipolar and more worlds. Hittites - Egypt. France - England - Spain in the Middle Ages. USA - USSR. Now there is a brief period of a unipolar world. And he will change. The USA and the USSR were bipolar only in military confrontation and not in the economic one.

    The gloom of the patriots by the current unipolar world rests on only one thing, in that they see automatically that only the second pole is Russia. But in the history of specificity is not programmed. The world will not turn over if in ten years the second pole will be China or India. Or the world will become a tri-polar USA - China - India. To Russia become the fourth pole, groans do not help, it is necessary to develop the economy and fight the embezzlement. And there is an old woman Europe, which becomes a single state.

    Federalism. National identity is inherent in any people, at all times. This self-awareness also allowed Russia to leave the Federation of the Golden Horde. The peoples of Russia did not come from somewhere yesterday. They lived on their land from time immemorial. And only by historical development do they now live in one state. Not to take into account their identity, to mean doom Russia to an unstable existence. Hurray patriots who call for a unitary state, without analyzing deeply and far, endanger the very existence of Russia. Try to cancel all republics of the Russian Federation tomorrow - the Caucasus will seem like a flower. RF may continue, but what kind of victims ??? Or Russia will continue to exist as a unitary state, but without many republics. And which option is better? Yes, no. The existing historical status quo must be maintained.
    1. Blat
      Blat 6 November 2012 10: 56
      0
      this is the look of a sane person. +
    2. Trofimov174
      Trofimov174 6 November 2012 13: 14
      +2
      "USA - USSR were bipolar only in military confrontation and not in economic"
      Of course, you gave this away, Comrade Ulyanov now scares the tourists in the mausoleum with his rotation so much that they will remain stuttering for life.
    3. zelenchenkov.petr1
      zelenchenkov.petr1 8 November 2012 00: 28
      0
      Quote: Beck
      National identity is inherent in any people, at all times. This self-awareness also allowed Russia to leave the Federation of the Golden Horde. The peoples of Russia did not come from somewhere yesterday. They lived on their land from time immemorial. And only by historical development do they now live in one state. Not to take into account their identity, to mean doom Russia to an unstable existence. Hurray patriots who call for a unitary state, without analyzing deeply and far, endanger the very existence of Russia. Try to cancel all republics of the Russian Federation tomorrow - the Caucasus will seem like a flower. RF may continue, but what kind of victims ??? Or Russia will continue to exist as a unitary state, but without many republics. And which option is better? Yes, no. The existing historical status quo must be maintained.

      Perfectly! A sober look without blinkers!
      I want to add ... To develop and develop Siberia, to strengthen the economic power and prosperity of the people of the native Russian lands, and the rest .... will follow !!!
      1. Beck
        Beck 8 November 2012 19: 40
        +2
        Blat. Zelenkov.

        So I do not understand this. Well, the cons to me as the author of the comment. And for what? Just for agreeing. Yes, give cheers patriots to the country of coal, even small, but to hell.
  14. arhipelag
    arhipelag 6 November 2012 10: 27
    0
    I am also for the monarchy, the most important quality of it, in my opinion, is the responsibility of the ruler for everything that happens in the country. And the lack of the ability to blame the ruler for a hill under adverse conditions inside ...
    1. Evil Tatar
      Evil Tatar 6 November 2012 10: 36
      0
      Quote: arhipelag
      I am also for the monarchy, the most important quality of it, in my opinion, is the responsibility of the ruler for everything that happens in the country. And the lack of the ability to blame the ruler for a hill under adverse conditions inside ...

      How do you imagine that?
      Surround the residence of the super-PRO, and sew a sensor under the skin of the ruler?
      Or is it better to immediately self-liquidator, if the distance from the residence becomes more than 100 km., And up / down?
      1. arhipelag
        arhipelag 6 November 2012 11: 12
        +1
        hahaha lol joked?
        1. Evil Tatar
          Evil Tatar 6 November 2012 11: 17
          0
          Quote: arhipelag
          hahaha joked?

          Well, how else?
          There is absolutely no life without humor and life ...

          As without struggle, there is no Victory.
  15. baltika-18
    baltika-18 6 November 2012 10: 35
    +3
    To disperse the State Duma and the Federation Council, all regional and district deputy formations. A rigid vertical: president, government, local leaders. Form an ideological platform attractive for all members of society, follow it, all decrees and laws should correspond to the stated goals and objectives. form elective councils acting on a voluntary basis to control local authorities over the implementation of decrees and laws. Suspend a moratorium on the death penalty and introduce confiscation of property in the Criminal Code a, introduce an article for sabotage, apply it to non-executors of laws and decrees. At the president’s level, form a body that works with local councils so that the voice of the people is heard very quickly and without distortion by the authorities. The authorities must make decisions quickly, work efficiently, respond quickly to a changing environment.
  16. Tamerlan225
    Tamerlan225 6 November 2012 10: 37
    +8
    I AM DAGESTANIAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PICTURES THIS IS POSSIBLE AND THE TRUTH BUT THESE MONEY DOES NOT REACH THE PEOPLE; THERE ARE REMAINING IN OTHERS 'POCKETS YOU WILL BE KNOWN ABOUT CORRUPTION IN DAGESTAN wink
  17. Yeraz
    Yeraz 6 November 2012 10: 44
    -4
    If the state is strong and with a strong ideology, then the parade of sovereignty does not threaten (with the exception of Chechnya, Russia and Russians are not transferred there at the genetic level, and the last 2 wars will certainly not be quickly forgotten)
    1. sprut
      sprut 6 November 2012 17: 54
      +1
      "If only, if only, mushrooms grew in the forest." Today the state is strong, and tomorrow it is weak, and vice versa. Therefore, the territorial problem should be solved in twins, so that it does not depend on any ideology ...
  18. M. Peter
    M. Peter 6 November 2012 10: 49
    +1
    I am from such a republic.
    Recently, the republic celebrated the 350th anniversary of joining the Russian state. Everything was great.
    I think that cutting the rights of such regions as mine is not worth it, we will only give an opportunity for local nationalists to process people. And so the republic was the most loyal in the parade of sovereignties. Although in the same 91 the local "elite" gathered and thought, maybe it might come out, but no.
  19. Oleg S.
    Oleg S. 6 November 2012 10: 51
    +4
    Lord !!!!!! Stupid question in the subject !!! We open history --- we look from 89-91 years of the history of the USSR ... And .... And then I will not continue to continue !!! The brick for the collapse of Rus the Great was laid back in '91 .... They will definitely try to split us up, and I think so: 17 with a tail of MILLIONS of km square land !!! Rich in almost all kinds of resources ... ENVIRONMENT breeds. As long as there is Envy on earth, we do not know peace !!! there are 2 options, either to share (I personally categorically against), or to die for every centimeter (For we Rusichi).
    The national question is solved simply! Console camps (the last option) or returning to one’s real homeland !! (the northern Caucasus was 70% Russians as far back as 1900!) Those who live there are people who fled from the Turks (asman).
    For the Pushcha persuasiveness, I propose to unite with Malorosia - the progenitor of Great Russia. Why? One faith, traditions, ancestors. At the genetic level, 99% are equal --- data from the Research Institute at ROSSTAT. By the way, if this option is realistic, I quite see all the possibilities for the territorial separation of Chechnya and Dagestan and all the members of the community there, because there will be more land, and the reception in Minsk and Kiev with bread and salt will be and not with the cry "Allah Akbar" + I suggest cutting it in half the Caucasian exclusion zone of the Muslims, well, what would be equally, their mountains and sheep are returned to them, a valley under the grapes for our Cossacks ... as it was handy 100 years ago.
    everything.
    1. Evil Tatar
      Evil Tatar 6 November 2012 11: 30
      0
      Quote: Oleg S.
      + I propose to cut in half the Caucasian zone of alienation of muslims, well, that would be evenly distributed, their mountains of sheep and rams will be returned to them, our Cossacks valley under the grapes ... like 100 years ago it was by the way.

      Radically, of course, today, but reasonably ...
      Although, you must admit, everything needs political and God's will.

      I agree on one thing: Russia cannot be divided into either blat huts or apartments / rooms ... Because of this, a proud but small nation cannot dictate how to live the wise and equally proud, but just Russian people .. .
      Or live as a person, as a brotherly people ...
      Or fuck the beach ...

      Although in connection with the bloody history of the last two decades, it will always be fraternal with an eye for a long time, but actually there is nowhere to go from the beach ...
      The brothel and tavern are almost closed, but not everyone is called on guests and not always ...
      Yes, it turns out that the knot on the shoulder and in the mountains, recall the grandfather subtleties of quick breeding flocks.
      And in nature, in high mountain night frosty air, thoughts should become cleaner, and thoughts for actions more humane - after all, God is very close and sees better (even at night) ...
      1. Shuhrat turani
        Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 35
        -1
        Quote: Angry Tatar
        By virtue of this, a proud but small nation cannot dictate how to live the wise and just as proud, but just Russian people ...



        I hasten to disappoint you, based on the events of the last 3 decades, the Russian people have long lost their wisdom, they changed it for "Turbo" gum, and for vouchers ... THIS IS A FACT.
        1. Evil Tatar
          Evil Tatar 8 November 2012 07: 23
          0
          Quote: Shuhrat Turani
          I hasten to disappoint you, based on the events of the last 3 decades, the Russian people have long lost their wisdom, they changed it for "Turbo" gum, and for vouchers ... THIS IS A FACT.

          Well, where there ...
          Do not be so categorical for the whole Russian people!
          It is you who have read all sorts of different disseminators of personal opinion in the media and are trying to convince us Russians of what is not and never was ...
          More precisely, anything happened, but in a time of severe trials, the Russian people threw various "gingerbread", got up from the stove and "adversaries flew to the ground under the pressure of the sword, fire and steel armor ...
          So here it is not necessary to dump doubtful small-sized FACTS on the Russian people - wait and see ...
          For all sorts of FACTS there, we will find our full-fledged Russian FACT !!!!!!! )))))))))))
          1. Shuhrat turani
            Shuhrat turani 8 November 2012 17: 01
            -1
            I would like to believe ...
            But ... what is the wisdom if, instead of ruining a country, it’s undermining ... And who is undermining? ... you won’t believe it, the Russian people themselves, represented by the young, who understand little in homeland engineering but know a recipe: to kill all non-Nordic, hate Muslims fiercely. The full implementation of this program will quickly turn Russia into Poland.
            And here questions arise ... who pays? and for what purpose are they dancing? The answers are obvious ... but there is no wisdom in them.
  20. Serg_Y
    Serg_Y 6 November 2012 10: 58
    -2
    The monarchy, in my opinion, has a serious problem, this is the priority of a certain religion, I am categorically against this. I deeply respect all religions in Russia and consider their presence a big plus. I cannot imagine a family as a representative of all four religions (I do not consider Freemasonry to be a religion, in my opinion this is a psychological school).
  21. Klibanophoros
    Klibanophoros 6 November 2012 10: 58
    +5
    Here is a sample of good satire: "ENOUGH TO FEED KANSAS !!!"

    But seriously, we feed the Western economies with our stabilization fund better than Kansas.
  22. Denzel13
    Denzel13 6 November 2012 11: 07
    +2
    What "rights" of the republics can be, if they are subsidized to a greater or lesser extent. And "who pays the girl and dances."
    1. DIMS
      DIMS 6 November 2012 11: 20
      +1
      Not all. See, for example, Tatarstan - they are donors.
      1. Denzel13
        Denzel13 6 November 2012 12: 23
        +1
        Tatarstan, before becoming a donor, who owes development?
        1. Civil
          Civil 6 November 2012 12: 45
          +2
          Denzel13,

          that is, the Tatars themselves are not capable of development?)))))
          1. Klibanophoros
            Klibanophoros 6 November 2012 15: 22
            0
            Tataria and Bashkiria are multiethnic; there, anyway, the majority of the population there are Russians. This is especially true of Bashkiria, where the titular nation in general is in second place in terms of numbers, slightly surpassing the Tatars.
          2. Denzel13
            Denzel13 6 November 2012 17: 22
            +1
            Why, of course, they are capable, in general, was there any talk about this - capable or not? talked about the beginning of development and where it came from. However, it is good to develop when you have been given a "kick start", and if there is no "magic pendal", then what?
            1. Civil
              Civil 6 November 2012 20: 38
              0
              Denzel13,

              that is, before that, she lived in caves and did not know the fire?
  23. Boris55
    Boris55 6 November 2012 11: 12
    +6
    Russian is not a nationality, it is an adjective that defines membership in Russian civilization. Just as a European belongs to European civilization with many nationalities. More than 194 nationalities live on the territory of Russian civilization.
    Stalin considered himself Russian of Georgian nationality. We must strive not for separation according to national principles, but for impoverishment and the introduction of all to Russian civilization. More details - http://klin.ucoz.net/forum/21-293-1
    1. DIMS
      DIMS 6 November 2012 11: 19
      +4
      Honestly, the idea is new to me, but, perhaps, I agree.

      Then the Russians are superethnos, so it turns out?
    2. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 6 November 2012 15: 30
      +4
      Practice has shown that this very "friendship of peoples" was spun at one place by the nationalists. In many ways, this friendship was carried out by the Russians and nothing more. In the perestroika psychosis, the Russians got tired of being friends and friendship disappeared. So now they don't owe anything. We are not obliged to impose our friendship on them. They show us their "friendship" in our own cities every day.
      And even interethnic marriages in 90% of cases were built according to the scheme "Russian wife, national husband". Is it unpleasant to see the Russian "Natasha" kissing passionately with a black man or walking arm in arm with a Caucasian? That's the same!
    3. NKVD
      NKVD 6 November 2012 17: 01
      +1
      Quote: Boris55
      Russian is not a nationality, it is an adjective that defines membership in Russian civilization.

      Let me clarify ??? I considered myself all my life and not without reason, Russian and the state agreed with this, and therefore in the passport in the column "nationality" was-Russian. If Stalin is "Russian" of Georgian nationality, then I am Russian of what nationality ?? ??? Please clarify !!!
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 6 November 2012 17: 47
        -1
        ... then I am Russian of what nationality ????? ....

        This is what you learn from your grandmother from what kind of tribe you are - Vyatichi, Polyana, Drevlyane ...
        follow the link ( http://klin.ucoz.net/forum/21-293-1 ), there in more detail. Everything will not fit here ...

        I am Russian (and according to my passport - Russian) ... I am proud of this, because I belong to a great civilization, but I also want to remember my roots.
      2. M. Peter
        M. Peter 7 November 2012 05: 13
        +2
        I personally am Russian, although in the USSR I was Ukrainian ...
        I am Russian in every sense.
        There is Russian by nationality, but there is Russian by belonging to the world, civilization, and mentality.
        For example, somewhere in Brazil, go ahead and explain how the same Ukrainian differs from Russian.
        And when, during the Cold War, Tatrin came to America, he was the same Russian.
        Since then, nothing has changed. Our country lived calmly and amicably for quite a long time, for centuries, until the West sniffed the concept of "healthy" nationalism ...
    4. M. Peter
      M. Peter 7 November 2012 05: 08
      +1
      Quote: Boris55
      Russian is not a nationality, it is an adjective that defines membership in Russian civilization. Just as a European belongs to European civilization with many nationalities. More than 194 nationalities live on the territory of Russian civilization. Stalin considered himself Russian of Georgian nationality. We must strive not for separation according to national principles, but for impoverishment and the introduction of all to Russian civilization. More details - http://klin.ucoz.net/forum/21-293-1

      I fully agree and support.

  24. Sinbad
    Sinbad 6 November 2012 11: 20
    +2
    Federalism will grow into feudalism, and since the process is contagious, like a plague, it cannot be avoided by anyone here, not across the ocean. The transformation of the world into a set of feudal principalities with modern weapons means the end of civilization. Only the revival of the Russian Empire can be opposed to this process, which will entail the strengthening of the West American bloc. It was such an order that provided relative stability in the world, and can provide in the future.
  25. olifus
    olifus 6 November 2012 11: 46
    +6
    Hooray comrades, Serdyukov was fired !!! fellow
    1. sprut
      sprut 6 November 2012 17: 56
      0
      Yes! Finally!
  26. Tektor
    Tektor 6 November 2012 11: 46
    +3
    The national-republican cutting of the territory of Russia is a time bomb laid under the unity of the state by the Bolsheviks. This mine has already partially worked in 1991. Further disintegration will lead to the disappearance of a powerful state. I would reduce the importance of national republics to symbolic, and the division - in seven districts with representatives of the president.
  27. mamba
    mamba 6 November 2012 11: 49
    +3
    A good example from the troubled perestroika time is the Lithuanian SSR. The Sayudis movement there initially advocated perestroika and glasnost, and then, in the 1990 elections, advocated the secession of Lithuania from the Soviet Union.
    I remember Vilnius in the summer of 1988 during the XNUMXth All-Union Conference of the CPSU, when "democratic emotions" were shouting from the party rostrum. Fraternization of Lithuanian and Russian democrats under the slogan "For your and our freedom". Rallies in the streets and squares of the city with the Lithuanian tricolor and posters written, of course, in Lithuanian. Numerous trays with oppositional democratic literature. The spirit of freedom and renewal is in the air and in hearts. And there are no signs of nationalism and separatism. God, how naive we were!
    If there were vague doubts about Lithuania, then about Latvia the Russians there convinced us that the republic had almost completely Russified, and almost half of the Russians were there, and there was nothing to be afraid of nationalism and separatism there. You, they say, just do not come to us on tanks from Moscow.
    How greedy our people are for all sorts of ideological and economic enticements! How easy it is to fool us! It is enough to hold behind the Iron Curtain for several decades until complete savagery and final formation in the form of a "scoop" or "sucker" and "do with it, what you want!"
  28. Serg_Y
    Serg_Y 6 November 2012 11: 54
    +3
    A Russian is belonging to a certain civilization, equating a Russian to a Russian, in my opinion, is a form of nationalism, because does not take into account the culture and history of other nationalities. Mordovians, Chuvashs, Maris, Bulgars, Bashkirs are all ethnic groups in Russia. What will we tell them, you are garbage in history, there are more Russians, and according to the laws of democracy, what we want is what we are doing. It is from this madhouse that national entities protect. Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, here are small, not assimilated ethnic groups and rebel. I am happy to study the history of the ancestors of my grandfather (Mordvin Erzya), and Nizhny Novgorod, the kibel of the popular movement of 1612, was built on the site of the Mordovian town. I believe that my ancestors, seeing the eternal showdown between the Russians and the Bulgars, saw something more in interethnic education, the hope of peaceful coexistence, and it was for this reason that they forgave the destruction of their cultural and commercial centers for both peoples. And tsarist Russia, too, did not put pressure on Mordovians, according to his grandfather, villages with pagan faith were the most eager.
  29. biglow
    biglow 6 November 2012 11: 57
    0
    Serdyukov kicked out. The new Minister of Defense is now Shoigu.
  30. Su24
    Su24 6 November 2012 12: 15
    -1
    I see that very few people understand the meaning of the words "utilitarianism" and "federalism", because the presence of ethnic territorial entities is not yet a prerequisite for federalism. A federal structure for our vast country is reasonable and necessary, it is unreasonable only to fill the subjects of the federation with their own ethnic content. In order to strengthen the state, it is enough to abandon ethno-territorial formations by offering ethnic groups another possibility of implementation, not related to the creation of their own quasi-states.
    1. Ares1
      Ares1 6 November 2012 23: 36
      -1
      In our case, what is the possibility of implementation for ethnic groups? If there is no realization for the state-forming ethnos ... Here is a budget scheme for that example - where is the smallest percentage of state support, there is implementation. And how many such regions? 2-3 ... But the federal center pays, just the same, an official tribute to Chechnya and Dagestan. For maintaining integrity? Cut and theft - this is today's tribute to the time. And on paper, the numbers look like a purchase of silence and loyalty (for now ...). And how to hold on? By force? It seems that it's too late ... So we (taxpayers) pay money to Chechnya and Dagestan. But when the finances don’t even end, but decrease - this is where the ALLE parade will go ...
  31. rennim
    rennim 6 November 2012 12: 45
    +2
    It's time to change the administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation. perhaps as in the Russian Empire. It's time to end with the presidency and ministries in the republics ...
  32. NKVD
    NKVD 6 November 2012 12: 59
    +2
    Only a strong centralized power can in "iron hands" hold the entire national shtetl mr-a-s ... Under the tsar there was no Tatar republic at all, but there was just Kazan province and everything was quiet until the Soviets first (who made it clear to the nationalities that there may be options for creating a "republic"), and then the post-soviet liberal s-in-lo-whose declared "take as much sovereignty as you can carry" ...
  33. Slevinst
    Slevinst 6 November 2012 13: 04
    +2
    I am for an empire in its best traditions
  34. Wedmak
    Wedmak 6 November 2012 13: 05
    -1
    We have not yet grown to a unitary state. At this stage, the maximum that can be done is to leave the federal division and significantly limit the rights of the republics. It is even possible that these will not be republics, but other entities, but within the federation!
    1. Sanches
      Sanches 6 November 2012 13: 57
      +1
      that is, in the XNUMXth century they have grown and right now you can’t grow ??
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 6 November 2012 15: 42
        0
        And what happened in the 19 century?
        1. Sanches
          Sanches 6 November 2012 18: 04
          +1
          what is now called republics and even independent states was then simply the regions and provinces of Russia, for example, the Armenian region, the Central Asian regions, the Kiev province, the Privislin province (modern Poland), the Moscow province, etc. etc., that is, a completely unitary state
          1. Shuhrat turani
            Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 42
            -1
            Quote: Sanches
            Central Asian Regions

            THERE WAS NOT. It was the Turkestan Governor General, i.e. colonized occupation zone. Read more
            1. Sanches
              Sanches 7 November 2012 12: 15
              0
              The Central Asian regions were divided into Turkestan and Steppe Governor Generals, S.-A. areas are their generic name. And it doesn’t matter how these territories are obtained, the fact that these territories were part of unitary Russia
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 November 2012 12: 18
                -2
                Not unitary, but colonial imperial Russia. The difference is huge and should not be confused with one another.
                1. Sanches
                  Sanches 7 November 2012 12: 26
                  0
                  only the Russians ruled in the field, that’s the thing. his personal attitude to Russia is the second thing, the main thing is that Russia was then one country, and not a bunch of different countries under the general name Federation, as it is now
  35. Trofimov174
    Trofimov174 6 November 2012 13: 30
    +1
    Such a large country with several regions where the Russian population is a minority cannot be inclined towards centrism. This road is already familiar and we know perfectly well where it will lead. In the USSR, separatism emerged as a counterbalance to Moscow's complete control over all republics, and we are still trying to correct the consequences of this control. We have republics that are free enough not to be constrained and not free enough to make this very freedom turn your head. I don't see a problem here. The problem is only in the Caucasus, but this is an exception to the rule. I think that if the project of the Eurasian Union is successful, the comrades of Ingushetia, Chechnya and Dagestan will be able to say, "Who are you? Let's go bye!"
  36. Goldkonstantin
    Goldkonstantin 6 November 2012 14: 14
    +1
    The country can be split from the outside. Inside, it should be as strong as granite. This is what we must go to. And the fact that Europe is drowning in the separatists of Scotland, Spain and Belgium is predictable for a long time. And they will achieve their independence from everyone. Democracy is in the yard, which means that no one should suppress protests and cancel referenda. The same story in the USA. If Obama wins, he will have to take the whole country in the grip and engage in the economy - otherwise goodbye Texas, California, Alaska.
  37. Larus
    Larus 6 November 2012 15: 30
    +1
    I am for the region !!!!! Because there will always be those who are profitable and these will find those who are for sale.
  38. NKVD
    NKVD 6 November 2012 16: 07
    0
    There are no completely free countries, everyone depends on someone to one degree or another. Take, for example, Tatarstan or Bashkiria Do you guys want to secede from Russia? Please, we do not mind fighting with you, no one will, but first look at the geographical map of Russia. Tatarstan and Bashkiria have no access to the sea, and accordingly there is no access to neutral waters, there are also no common borders with foreign states. Should Russia close its land border , as well as air with these "FREE STATES" and all the kobzdets ... they are in the blockade. At the same time, Russia does not violate international law (the border is locked, I want to let it or not ..) And let them scream as much as they want in the West. and before that they will again be asked to join Russia, but we will still think about taking them or not.
    1. Serg_Y
      Serg_Y 6 November 2012 19: 08
      -2
      No need to take Tatarstan, in Tatarstan everything is fine, there is some clan system, but it has its own peculiarities.
  39. Region65
    Region65 6 November 2012 16: 20
    0
    to be honest, tired of the tantrums of individuals on this topic ..... fool
  40. paanvl
    paanvl 6 November 2012 16: 22
    0
    Fuck them and not independence ... they will order ..... crush !!! The main thing is that the order would be given on time ..... and not be sober!
  41. Igor
    Igor 6 November 2012 17: 10
    +1
    It is necessary to do, as in the United States, so that each region can change the legislation itself, but so that it does not contradict the constitution, elect governors (there are already), so that they are interested in the development of this region. And not like now, when every governor feels like a temporary and in order to change any law, you need to somehow move the whole bureaucratic apparatus of Moscow and it’s not a fact that they will like it. And the current system is worthless, if only the Fed. the center will give slack confusion and vacillation begins immediately and all posts of presidents, prime ministers, etc. in the republics, we should have one president, one prime minister for the whole country, not 10 ....
  42. NKVD
    NKVD 6 November 2012 17: 22
    0
    Quote: Igorek
    if fed. the center will give slack confusion and reeling immediately begins.

    "Slack" is civil war and intervention! World history proves it.
  43. sprut
    sprut 6 November 2012 17: 30
    +1
    In Russia, there should be no division according to nationality !!! All subjects are equated with each other, without the slightest right to exit.
  44. sprut
    sprut 6 November 2012 17: 46
    +1
    To cut as much as possible the rights of the republics or to completely abolish national-state formations mistakenly nurtured since the days of the USSR !!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. Shuhrat turani
      Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 46
      -2
      you're not right. I remember the Russians wanted their Russian republic as part of the Russian Federation. Here it also needs to be created ... The desires of the titular majority must be fulfilled, even this leads to the death of this majority ...
  45. Islam
    Islam 6 November 2012 18: 59
    +3
    If the article was written in 2000 then it’s understandable, but now that Russia began to stand on its feet, when it began to gather around itself the post-Soviet countries (so far only Kazakhstan and Belarus, but in my opinion it will soon collect everything) I don’t think that someone is eager to separate. I agree there are such, but there are so few of them to pay attention to this, thinking people in these countries will not allow separation from Russia, and there are not enough of them
  46. patriot2
    patriot2 6 November 2012 20: 18
    +2
    One and Indivisible Russia is needed!
    I don’t like someone in Russia - forgive me - I don’t take the ticket back to wherever you want to go and with the deprivation of citizenship forever, with snot! Well, to cut Russian land in a living way, that's enough already - they have been separated since 1991. The kings and the general secretaries gathered the country bit by bit, the soldiers put life for it, and then here you are "Kemsk volost - take away" - Right now!
  47. abasov.rm
    abasov.rm 6 November 2012 20: 29
    +2
    as I consider it, at first it is necessary to cut as much as possible the rights of the republics of autonomies, etc., etc., followed by unification. The country should be like a monolith as a single organism. It is necessary to uniformly develop all areas so that there is no imbalance. All who talk about the freedom and independence of certain areas should immediately be crushed to the bud.
  48. Stasi.
    Stasi. 6 November 2012 20: 54
    +2
    Separatism is the highest form of avarice. Once, during the period of the USSR, they said: "Why do we need the Baltics, Georgia, Ukraine and other republics? We feed them in vain. Let's secede, then we will live richly." Separated. Well, have they healed? And what about prosperity in these very republics? All these heads of the republics pursued a policy of separatism with one goal - to gain sole control over the wealth of their republics and not be accountable to anyone. The peoples of the former Soviet republics quickly became poorer, only the officials of the former Soviet nomenklatura and all sorts of clans and teips who occupied and divided the spheres of power and business became rich. Now the old arias are heard in a new way: "Why do we need the Caucasus, Chechnya, Tatarstan and other republics? We feed them to no avail, we are only wasting money. Let's separate from them and everything will be top-notch, we will live as it should." Only now the disintegration of the country is beneficial to our regional elite, to all these appanage princelings. With the collapse of the country, they will get rich, and people will have a donut hole, the example of the collapse of the USSR clearly showed this. The most striking example of what is happening with the region in which the separatists took power was shown by Chechnya. Having come to power, Dudayev and all the others proclaimed: "We will live like in Kuwait or Bahrain! Soon milk will flow from your taps instead of water!" How did it work out? One group took control of the arms trade, another - drugs, the third - kidnapping and slave trade, the fourth - oil, the fifth began to carry out fraudulent manipulations with fake advice notes and invoices, stealing millions of rubles that settled in the pockets of the separatists. In short, the common people got nothing from all this except grief. This is where the so-called nationalists and separatists are leading.
  49. essenger
    essenger 6 November 2012 22: 22
    -3
    Any empire will fall apart sooner or later. Russia is not the first and not the last ...
    1. Harleone
      Harleone 6 November 2012 22: 44
      -5
      Unfortunately, you can’t argue with that.
    2. Stasi.
      Stasi. 7 November 2012 18: 32
      +1
      First, Russia is not an empire, but a state, no worse than others in the world. Secondly, in the event of the collapse of Russia, the end will come for all the former republics of the USSR, since Russia will no longer maintain stability. But the West does not care about the former republics, and the former Central Asian republics will be divided between China and the Islamists. Ukraine and Belarus will have a bad time, Poland will absorb them. And in the Caucasus, the Turks will rule, the Black Sea will become the inland sea of ​​Turkey. Do you think this alignment guarantees peace and prosperity for the peoples of the former Soviet republics? The Baltic republics are also waiting for assimilation and disappearance from the political map of the world.
      1. essenger
        essenger 27 June 2013 02: 52
        +1
        I do not care about Ukraine, Belarus, and even more so the Caucasus.

        Tell me what is an Islamist?
      2. essenger
        essenger 27 June 2013 02: 55
        +2
        Is Russia a state? Naturally. Imperial state.
  50. Pripyatchanin
    Pripyatchanin 6 November 2012 23: 37
    0
    I propose to keep the federal structure. BUT:
    1) Divide the Russian Federation into provinces and 2 federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg)
    2) All administrative territorial units are the same in their rights
    3) Some provinces to enlarge.
    4) Governors are governed by the GOVERNOR (not the president)
    5) Each province has its own representative / whether in the Federation Council

    Best regards
    1. shurup
      shurup 7 November 2012 00: 28
      +1
      And I propose, following the example of the United States, to cut Russia into a line of states of approximately the same area. Governor, two congressmen and county councils with city mayors.
      And all those who dream of secession on a national basis are on a reservation, like Indians. Let sheep or deer graze freely.
      1. Shuhrat turani
        Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 10: 50
        +1
        so the ruling Jewry will send the Russians on the reservation ...
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 7 November 2012 08: 35
      0
      You know, my thoughts are strikingly convergent with yours. wink