The Institute of Russian Civilization, which I represent, starting from the All-Slavic Congress in Prague in 1998, has been working on the issues of Slavic civilization and Slavic unity. In this direction, we have prepared a number of monographs and publications, in particular, published works of the great Slavic scientists V.I. Lamansky, A.S. Budilovich, A.F.Rittikh, O.F. Miller, and also, of course, the works of Slavophiles .
The works of Slavic thinkers Y. Krizhanich, I. Dobrovsky, J. Kollar, P. Shafarik, L. Shtur are preparing for publication.
Studying and preparing for publication the works of these great Russian thinkers, we should note that the main ideas in them are the ideas of Slavic unity and the creation of the Slavic Union in the form of a union around Russia. Russia, in their opinion, is essentially a Eurasian Union, which includes, in addition to the Slavic peoples, the peoples of other ethnic groups. Already in the XIX century, Slavic thinkers warned us about the danger of erosion of the Slavic core of Russia as a result of the excessive expansion of the Eurasian Union. Slavic scholars who supported the Eurasian Union believed that, firstly, it should be based on the civilizational foundations of the Slavic-Russian civilization, and secondly, the Slavic dominant demographic should be the determinant (Slavs are not less than the 3 / 4 of the union population).
The scientists I named believed that all Slavic peoples were united by belonging to the ancient Slavic civilization, that all Slavs were a single Slavic people. Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, the Slavic tribes were part of a single ethnic whole, the emerging Slavic civilization. Subsequently, as a result historical cataclysms, our unity was destroyed, a single people fell apart and each part went its own way. Nevertheless, the spiritual roots of the Slavic peoples stem from this ancient Slavic unity, creating a deep genetic and mystical connection between them, which cannot be broken by any of our enemies. From the roots of the ancient Slavic civilization, a tree grew, each branch of which stretched in its direction.
The development of Slavic civilization was carried out in the ongoing struggle with the civilization of the Germanic-Romance (western)
In the Slavic civilization, the communal beginnings prevailed over the personal, the spiritual over the material.
In the west, individualism and rationalism reigned, material prevailed over spiritual.
In relation to other nations, conquest prevailed in the West. Whereas the world-leading role of the Slavic tribe was not a conquest, but the economic and cultural upsurge of the country and the peoples inhabiting it.
The peoples of the Slavic civilization had a difficult historical task - to be a bastion on the path of the forces of world evil. But the greatest burden in solving this historical task lay on Russia - the greatest Eurasian union, the basis of which was made up by the Slavs.
God defined a special service for the Slavic peoples, which makes up the meaning of Slavic civilization in all its manifestations. The history of the Slavic peoples is the history of their calling to this ministry, the history of the struggle of the Slavs against the forces of world evil, Slavophobia and racism. The Slavic peoples have a special way. Their worldwide task is to free humanity from the one-sided and false development that history has received under the influence of the West.
Slavic peoples played a major universal role in the struggle against all manifestations of genocide and aggression. It was the Slavs who made a number of grand victories that changed the situation in the world in favor of good, taking a decisive part in the destruction of criminal state associations - the Khazar Kaganate, the Teutonic Order, the Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire and the Napoleonic Empire, Hitler's 3rd Reich. And still the Slavic peoples are a deterrent to all modern world aggressors and, above all, the United States.
Both the Slavic and Germanic-Romanesque worlds each developed on the basis of their own civilizational values. Both the Slavic and Germanic-Romanesque worlds relied on their own principles of uniting nations into state and interstate unions.
The German-Romance Western civilization created its alliances, relying on violence, conquest and brutal exploitation of the annexed territories. During the last millennium, the Germans made several attempts to destroy the Slavic population of the "eastern territories". The Germans were almost completely exterminated Polabian and Pomeranian Slavs, as well as a tribe of Prussians. The genocide was carried out in the spirit of the Spanish conquistadors with the total murders of all, including women and children, burning alive whole families.
The defeat of the Teutonic Order of St.. Alexander Nevsky on 700 years stopped the German onslaught on the Slavic lands until the Second World War, when the Germans tried to make another attempt to destroy the Slavic peoples. The massacres of Russians (including Belarusians and Little Russians), Poles, Serbs, Czechs showed everyone that, like in the times of the Teutonic Order, in the twentieth century, it is important for the German world to free the “living space” from the Slavs. In the war with the German invaders killed about 40 million Slavs. This was the main tragic outcome of the Second World War, the worst tragedy of world history.
The great Eurasian Union, Russia, was built on a completely different basis. For more than a thousand-year history of Russia, over 100 of large and small nations, different in language, culture, and peculiarities of life, were included in its structure. No other country in the world knew such intensive national construction.
To understand the main principle of national construction of Russia, to realize why it grew into a great power, managed to unite and rally around itself a multitude of peoples and tribes, one should first of all refer to the words of St.. blgv Prince Alexander Nevsky: "God is not in power, but in truth." These words, which have become popular proverbs, spiritually permeate the entire Russian history, giving a positive tone to national and state-building.
“Russia,” wrote the great Russian thinker I.A. Il'in, “is not an accidental heap of territories and tribes and not an artificial harmonious“ mechanism ”of“ regions ”, but a living, historically grown and culturally justified organism that cannot be arbitrarily divided. This organism is a geographical unity, parts of which are connected by economic understanding; this organism is a spiritual, linguistic and cultural unity, which historically connected the Russian people with their national younger brothers by spiritual mutual food; he is a state and strategic unity, which has shown the world its will and its ability to self-defense; it is a real stronghold of the Euro-Asian, and therefore universal, peace and balance. ”
Russia's greatness was that it never relied on violence (this, of course, did not mean a complete rejection of its use). All peoples belonging to the Russian state were given equal rights with the Russian people, and at the same time many of their ancient rights were preserved. The Russian state did not destroy the ruling hierarchy of small nations, but, as a rule, included it into its ruling class. Moreover, the Russian state exempted representatives of some peoples from the duties of paying taxes and recruiting duties.
The Russian state was not built on violence, but on the spiritual principles of the Russian people, whose greatness was consciously and unconsciously understood by many small nations. The great Russian culture spiritually subordinated to itself, forcing to serve not for fear, but for conscience.
“Russian people have always enjoyed the natural freedom of their space, the freedom of stateless life and settlement, and the non-degree of their inner individualization; he was always “surprised” by other nations, he kindly got along with them and hated only invading enslavers; he valued freedom of the spirit above formal legal freedom - and if other nations and aliens did not disturb him, did not interfere with his life, then he would not have taken up weapon and would not seek power over them ”(I.A. Ilyin).
The fundamental difference between the Russian state and all previously existing empires: the Roman, Byzantine, British, Germanic - was that it did not exploit the non-Russian peoples that were part of it, and, moreover, provided them with significant help and support, creating equal for all economic conditions of existence. If with regard to all the above empires it can be said that in them the center and the imperial people lived by plundering and exploiting suburbs and colonies, constantly rich at their expense, in Russia many suburbs lived at the expense of the center and generosity of the Russian people, having equal access to all the riches of the Russian state and practically free of charge receiving military protection from an external enemy.
It is unlikely that such countries as Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova would exist on a geographical map if Russia had not once saved them from being defeated by the Ottoman Empire, or such geographical territories acting today in the role of states like Estonia and Latvia if the Russian nation had not stopped the German movement, which had subjugated everything and physically destroyed the indigenous peoples, as was done with the inhabitants of the same Baltic states - the Prussians.
Possessing a high sense of national dignity, the Russians never considered themselves superior to other peoples, tolerated and understood about the manifestation of the national feelings of other peoples.
“Orthodox tolerance, like Russian tolerance, is happening, perhaps, simply because of great optimism: the truth will take its own — and why rush it with unrighteousness? The future still belongs to friendship and love - why rush them with malice and hatred? We are still stronger than others - why cultivate the feeling of envy? After all, our strength is the strength of the father, creating and preserving, and not the power of the robber, robbing and raping. The whole meaning of the life of the Russian people, the whole “Light of Silent” Orthodoxy would have died if we, at least once, once in our history, followed the path of Germany and said to ourselves and the world: we are the highest race ... "Completely otherwise, other peoples are representatives of Western civilization. “The European, brought up by Rome, despises to himself other nations and wants to rule over them” (I.А. Ilyin).
The Russian state saved many nations from annihilation by giving them equal rights and opportunities for development with Russian people, which, up to 1917, were realized without any significant restrictions. The Russian center pursued a policy of harmonizing relations between individual nations, completely denying the typically imperial policy of “divide and rule”, which was meaningless in relation to peoples who had rights equal to those of the Russians.
By virtue of all the above, the name “empire” does not apply to the Russian state. The one who uses it sees only some formal signs (association of peoples at one center), but does not understand the essence of the matter (lack of exploitation by the center of the peoples of the periphery). All the catastrophic existence outside the Russian state for the nations that have fallen away from it is still to be experienced, to which today's events in Transcaucasia and Central Asia are an example.
The difference in the approach to the state-building of Russia and the states of the future Western civilization (which was then in an embryonic state) can be seen on the example of the relations of Slavs and Germans.
In the XI century. Slavs lived in the very center of Europe: from Kiel to Magdeburg and Halle, beyond the Elbe, in the “Bohemian Forest”, in Carinthia, Croatia and in the Balkans. As I.Ilyin notes, “the Germans systematically conquered them, cut out their upper classes and, by“ decapitating ”them in this way, subjected them to denationalization.” This solution of the national question through the denationalization and extermination of the Germans applied to other nations.
The accession to Russia of new lands took place, as a rule, peacefully and bloodlessly. The main argument here was not weapons and terror, but the awareness by the peoples of the newly annexed lands of the advantages of being a part of Russia as a powerful factor of state order, assistance and protection against external encroachments. Karelia and part of the Baltic states became part of the Russian land in the 9th-10th centuries, and from the 15th century onwards. there is a massive settlement of these lands by Russian peasants. Komi lands entered the Russian state in the XI-XV centuries.
The death of the robber state of the Kazan Khanate predetermined the transfer of the lands of the Bashkirs, Mari, Tatars, Udmurts, Chuvashes to Russia.
The annexation of Siberia began after the victorious campaigns of Yermak and was completed by the end of the 17th century. “Russia,” wrote Lord J. Curzon, “undoubtedly has a wonderful gift to seek loyalty and even friendship to those whom she subjugated. Russian fraternize in the full sense of the word. He is completely free from that deliberate kind of superiority and gloomy arrogance, which to a greater extent ignites malice than cruelty itself. ”
In its imperial power, Russia united in the past. It must be tolerant and not exclusive in the future - proceeding precisely from its entire spiritual past. True Russia is a country of mercy, not hatred (B.K. Zaitsev).
The Tale of Bygone Years provides a fairly clear picture of the distribution of Slavs throughout Europe and the emergence of individual Slavic peoples . The most significant part of the Slavs settled on the territory of the future Russian empire and initially became the unifying center of the Slavic world.
From Vladimir Monomakh to Nicholas II, the Russian authorities sought to include Slavic peoples related to their language, culture and faith in the sphere of their state interests.
The idea of the “Romean kingdom” - Moscow - The Third Rome has permeated Slavic-Russian power since the 15th century. The ideologue of the Russian kingdom Filofei does not at all identify the “Romean kingdom” with the real states - Byzantium (Second Rome) or Ancient Rome (First Rome). In his view, this kingdom of the Lord God is an ideal kingdom, which is called the "Romean" only because it was in Rome that the first connection of the Christian religion to the government occurred. In contrast to real states, the "romean kingdom" is indestructible. Real states are subject to death. Ancient Rome and Byzantium were only carriers of the image of the ideal kingdom. After they collapsed, the image of the “Romean kingdom” passed over to the Moscow kingdom. Thus, the Russian Slavic state appears in the work of Philotheus not as the heir to the actually existing and perished states of Byzantium and Ancient Rome, but also as a new bearer of the ideal of the Orthodox Christian state. In other words, Filofey saw the purpose of the Russian Slavic state to be not the Empire, but Holy Russia, the focus not of the material, but of the spiritual — the embodiment of not the coarse material force, but the spiritual force .
The statement that the two Romes fell, the third stands, and the fourth does not happen, Filofey expressed not his confidence in the invincibility of the Russian state, but the idea that if it fell, as ancient Rome and Byzantium fell, another carrier the image of the "romey kingdom" will not appear on earth. Russia is the last earthly carrier of the ideal of an Orthodox Christian state. If Russia perishes, the "romaian kingdom" will not die with it - the ideals are immortal. Therefore, the ideal of an Orthodox state will continue to live, but there will be no one else to strive for it on earth .
As V. I. Lamansky noted, “the idea of transferring the Christian kingdom from the Greeks to the Russians, the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome was by no means an empty, proud fiction of our so-called Moscow arrogance and exclusivity. It was a gigantic cultural and political task, a world-historic feat mentally entrusted by millions of co-religionists and contemporaries to the great Russian people and its sovereign leaders. The fact that Moscow was able to understand the greatness of this idea speaks best against its inertia and national exclusiveness. Only great, world-historic peoples are able to respond to world tasks, perceive universal ideas and surrender to their implementation. This great idea was bequeathed to Moscow and the new period of Russian history. She was fully accepted by Peter the Great. Both at the beginning, and in the middle, and at the end of his reign, Peter energetically supported and spread the ties of Russia with all the same faith and West Slavic peoples and lands. From the time of Emperor Manuil Comnenus, there was no more energetic and courageous king in the East in this respect, as in the national movements of the Slavs after the Hussites, no one but Peter spoke so openly in the sense of the most decisive pan-Slavism. The active mind of Peter often turned to the idea of Constantinople in Russian hands. His common transformative plans were connected with this thought. ”
Subsequently, these ideas were continued in the Konstantinovsky project of Catherine II and, in one way or another, were implied in the Russian-Turkish wars of the XIX century.
Russian panslavism was a natural foreign policy attitude of the Russian tsars, a setup that also naturally relied on Slavic reciprocity — the desire of all Slavic peoples to come closer to Russia.
In the late 16th century Croatian Mavro Orbini (Sc. 1614) prepared the book “The Slavic Kingdom” (1601), in which he carried out the idea of the unity of the Slavic peoples, the natural center of which could be Russia. He explored the location of the Slavs throughout Eurasia. Orbini noted that the lands of the Baltic Slavs, encouraged, Lutichi German sources called Slavia.
Another Croatian, Yuri Krizhanich (1618-1683), called for all Slavic peoples to unity, wrote in the middle. XVII century: “To all the unanimous peoples, the head is the Russian people, and the Russian name is because all Slavs came out of the Russian land, moved into the power of the Roman Empire, founded three states and were called: Bulgarians, Serbs and Croats; others from the same Russian land moved to the west and founded the Lyash and Moravian or Czech states. Those who fought with the Greeks or the Romans called Slovinians, and therefore this name became more famous among the Greeks than the Russian name, and from the Greeks and our chroniclers imagined that our people started from the Slovinians, as if they were Russians, Lyakhs, and Czechs. descended from them. This is not true, from time immemorial the Russian people live in their homeland, and the rest, who left Russia, appeared as guests in countries where they still live. Therefore, when we want to call ourselves by the common name, we should not call ourselves the new Slavonic, but the age-old and root Russian name. Not the Russian branch is the fruit of the Slovenian, but the Slovenian, Czech, Lyash branch is the offspring of the Russian language. Most likely, the language with which we write books cannot truly be called Slovenian, but should be called Russian or ancient book language. This book language is more similar to the current common Russian language than any other Slavonic language. ”
Russia's victories in the Russian-Turkish wars of the XVII-XIX centuries. served as a powerful factor in the awakening of the Slavic peoples and their desire for Slavic unity. Slavic peoples headed by Russia destroyed the former power of the Ottoman Empire and thus created the conditions for the unification of the Slavs.
In 30-to-40-s of the XIX century. in Croatia and Slavonia there is a political and cultural movement to unite the southern Slavs "Great Illyria". The Illyrians considered themselves descendants of a single Slavic people and became the pioneers of the Pan-Slavist movement in this part of Slavism.
The most powerful pan-Slavist movement is developing in the center of Eastern Europe - the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I. Dobrovsky, P. Shafarik, J. Kollar, L. Shtur and many other great Slavic figures speak about the special civilization path of the Slavs, calling on the Slavs to unite with Russia, oppose the Germanization of the Slavic peoples. Jan Kollar introduced a new concept of "Slavic reciprocity" and the term "Panslavism", covering and relating to all Slavs.
In the book “The Slavs and the World of the Future,” Lyudevit Shtur (1851) concludes that for the Slavs, the only possible and most natural way to conquer a place in world history corresponding to their strengths and abilities is to join Russia. “In order for Russia to increase by joining the Slavs to it, for the Slavs to finally acquire life and reality, it must be arranged inside as required by the spirit of the Slavs, true modern education and its world position.” The future all-Slavic state, considered Shtur, should be an autocratic monarchy, ruled by one Supreme Leader, but brought into accord with popular law institutions peculiar to the Slavic character: broad autonomy of individual regions and popular representation of elected people of the district. “It’s high time, it’s high time for Russia to realize its vocation and take on the Slavic idea: for a long delay can ... have bad consequences ... Only Russia, Russia alone, can be the center of Slavic reciprocity and an instrument of identity and integrity of all Slavs from foreigners, but Russia is enlightened, free from national prejudices; Russia - conscious of the legality of tribal diversity in unity, firmly confident in its high vocation and without fear, with equal love, provides the right to free development to all features of the Slavic world; Russia, which prefers the life spirit of the unity of nations to the dead letter of their forcible temporary clutch. "
The same South Slavic figures, Serb V. Karadzic and Montenegrin P. Negosh, expressed the same thoughts about the vital need for the Slavs to join Russia.
The idea of the unification of all Slavs around Russia as part of a common Slavic alliance has long existed among Serbs. The Russians, they said, make up three-quarters of all Slavs. It is around them that all Slavic peoples should be consolidated. The ideal is the creation of the Pan-Slavic monarchy, under which every Slavic people is autonomous. For a long time, the Serbs said - “us with Russians 300 millions”.
One of the main ideologues of Slavic unity and pan-Slavism at the end of the 19th century was A.F. Rittikh. And to his book “The Slavic World,” published in Warsaw in 1885, he wrote: “The great Slavic tribe should unite, but unite not at the federal level (because the federation does not correspond to the character of the Slavs), but in the form of joining Russia.” The mass of Slavs, according to Rittih, “has long been looking east, from where the sun rises its best hopes for the future. Here, under the unity of the autocracy (God's power, God holds, the anointed one), the controversy disappeared, and the ancient Slavic disputes became Russian; here the dominant faith is Orthodoxy, so close to all Slavs according to their primary teachers of St.. Cyril and Methodius; here the language developed into a full and powerful speech; here, in the vast space of morals, customs, weight, measure, reckoning of time and everything the greatest state lives in, everything became one, everything merged into one powerful chord, to the sounds of which Europe listens with bewilderment and fear. ” "Yes, only Russia, both in its history and in its current political position, can unite the torn world of the Slavs in its bosom."
The position of Poland was a discord in the Slavic world. This is a Slavic state in the XV - XVII centuries. was one of the leading powers in Europe. The historian N. I. Bukharin believes that then her share was the task of uniting the Slavic world and creating a counterbalance to the Ottoman Empire. According to the author, Lithuania, in contrast to Poland, before joining 1569 in the Lublin Union, had a chance to unite the Orthodox Slavic world and fulfill the mission that the Russian Empire partially fulfilled later.
It was the gentry political elite as the bearer of the Sarmatian idea of being chosen and the “Catholic” dogmatically repressive, totalitarian intolerance not only tore off this unifying project, but also later predetermined the collapse of its statehood .
The Polish ruling class is the nobility, believing that the nobility have special ethnic roots - Sarmatian, not Slavic, like the “claps” and “cattle” (as they called Little Russians and Belarusians). The Polish gentry declared themselves "keepers of the mythical Sarmatian virtues." Polish messianism has reached incredible proportions. Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth was presented as a kind of ideal space - state (“golden freedom”, confessional (Catholicism), national (chosen people). This is a fortress, called upon to defend against pagans, that is, Tatars and Turks, from schismatics, that is, Muscovites and Ukrainian and Zaporozhye Cossacks . The position of the Polish elite greatly harmed Slavic unity.
Nevertheless, the pan-Slavist sentiments were strong among the Slavic peoples up to the 1917 year. Before the First World War, the Slavs were very worried about the growing threat of Pan-Germanism. In Russia, the Slavic peoples saw the only force capable of withstanding the German threat. A lot was said about this in the speeches of deputies at the Slavic Congress 1908 of the year in Prague.
The collapse of the Russian Empire for decades pushed the solution of issues of Slavic unity. At the same time, a new current of thought arose on the destructive impulses of the Bolshevik revolution, which tried to lay down the ideological basis for the catastrophic deformations committed by the Bolsheviks, and to find in them a certain supreme law for the unification of peoples. Thus, the “Eurasians” movement arose, the founders of which were P.N.Savitsky, N.S.Trubetskoy, P.P.Suvchinsky, G.V. Vernadsky, and others.
For Eurasians, Russia is a continent, a territorial concept, a union according to a formal geopolitical basis. The spiritual meaning of the Russian civilization, Holy Russia, its values are completely emasculated, being replaced by arguments about the mutual benefit of the union of peoples, about some mystical regularities of the continents of Europe and Asia, about combining Asian and European principles. This doctrine mixes the incompatible elements of different closed civilizations, trying to create from them some kind of average civilization, which should suit everyone.
The supporters of Eurasianism actually dissolved Russian spiritual culture in a kind of “united Eurasian space”. Eurasians equated the high potential of Orthodox spirituality with the religious beliefs of other peoples inhabiting Russia. In Orthodoxy, Islam and Buddhism, common in Eurasia, they mistakenly saw a number of common features, especially moral and ethical. Orthodoxy in their philosophy in general acts as a "symphonic" form of religiosity, characterized by "the desire for unity and the synthesis of everything spiritually healthy." However, in practice this view led to the diminishing of the value of Orthodoxy in the face of other religions, to the emergence of rapprochement unacceptable for the Russian faith with other religions.
The spiritual core of Russia - the Russian people and its culture - were considered by Eurasians on a par with the local cultures of other nations. As in the case of Orthodoxy, such an approach diminished the significance of Russian culture in the face of other cultures and thereby stimulated the destruction of the spiritual core of Russia and its final destruction.
The heroic struggle of the Russian people under the leadership of the Orthodox Church against the Tatar-Mongolian yoke was presented by the Eurasians in a perverted form, and the cruel Tatar yoke as a boon to Russia. The country, which for centuries held back aggressive attacks from both the West and the East, was considered by the Eurasians as part of the Tatar-Mongolian military mechanism in their fight with the West. Eurasians represented Moscow Rus as the western avant-garde of the Tatar-Mongolian empire, opposing the aggressive onslaught of the European army. Moreover, they explicitly stated that the Russians were “saved” from physical extermination and cultural assimilation of the West only because of their involvement in the Mongol ulus. Galician Russia, Volyn, Chernigov and other princedoms, which refused to union with the Horde, became victims of Catholic Europe, which declared a crusade against the Russians and Tatars. In line with this concept, the Eurasians made the false conclusion that the Russian Empire is the Mongolian political successor. In this connection, the fall of the Golden Horde was, in their opinion, only a change of dynasty in Eurasia and the transfer of its capital from Saray to Moscow. The Eurasians completely ignored the great merit of the Russian people who saved the West from the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The decisive role of the Orthodox Church, which rallied the Russian people against the interventionists, was completely excluded. According to Eurasians, Russia is obliged to develop its statehood by the Mongolian administration and the Khan Baskaks.
Proponents of the Eurasian doctrine considered the Bolshevik regime as an objective continuation of the trend towards “Eurasian unity”, forgetting that the Bolsheviks deliberately broke the Slavic core of Russia by establishing arbitrary boundaries between parts of a whole, which destroyed the single state in 1991 year .. Like the orthodox Bolsheviks, the Eurasians in Russia, first of all, they looked for a formal state principle, not realizing that it in itself is a consequence of deeper laws of national life. Eurasianism disorients Russian social movement, narrows its program to the requirements of building a formal state union of disparate parts, creating the illusion that it can be carried out outside of others, began Russian life, or even outside of these began to rely on Europeanism and Islam. Today, Eurasianism in its spiritual essence is a modern modification of liberal cosmopolitanism and Bolshevik internationalism, a new envelope of mondialist thinking .
The urgent need to unite the Slavs arose at the beginning of the Second World War. Like the First World War, this war, according to Stalin’s exact definition, took place on Slavic backs. In July, the anti-fascist Slavic rally was held in Pittsburgh 1941. In August, the 1941 Moscow established the Pan-Slavic Committee. In April, the American Slavic Congress, 1942 in the United States, united 15 million US citizens of Slavic origin.
The All-Slavic Committee established close contacts with foreign Slavic organizations - the American Slavic Congress, the Canadian All-Slavic Association in Montreal, the All-Slavic Committee in London, and after the liberation of the Slavic countries from the German invaders and their satellites - with the national Slavic committees established in them, the core of which became WSC members . Slavic congresses, rallies were held not only in Moscow, but also in Sofia, Belgrade, Warsaw, Prague, in places of deployment of Slavic military units formed in the USSR, in other countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. Since July 1941 and until the end of the Great Patriotic War, the Slavic theme did not descend from the newspaper pages and pages of the journals of the Soviet Union, was heard on the radio in many languages and I il. During the war years, more than 900 books, brochures, articles and other materials of Slavic subjects were published. The spread of knowledge about Slavic history and culture contributed to the growth of interest to the Slavic peoples in Western countries, the development of Slavic studies and the establishment of relations with foreign Slavonic centers .
In 1945, at the initiative of Stalin, the course was taken towards the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent Slavic States, supported by the governments of all Slavic countries. The Slavic Cathedral in Sofia in March 1945 of the year, especially the Belgrade Slavic Congress 1946 of the year, showed that the winners of fascism are ready to unite in the Slavic alliance .
However, unification into the Slavic Union did not take place both as a result of serious contradictions existing between the communist parties of the USSR and the Slavic states, and as a result of the subversive activities that Western countries conducted against Slavic unity. US National Security Council Directive No. 20 / 1 of August 18 of 1948 of the Year, known as the Dulles Plan, was aimed at creating contradictions between the Slavic countries and dismembering the USSR.
The whole policy of the West after the Second World War was aimed at the destruction of friendly and partner relations between the Slavic countries. Billions of dollars were used by Western intelligence agencies to incite contradictions between the Slavic peoples, especially in the USSR and in the territory of Yugoslavia.
Since the end of the 1940-s, only the United States has spent on the cold war against the Slavic world, stirring up hostility and contradictions in it about 100-150 billion dollars. 
As a result of the events of the late twentieth century, the Slavic world became very weakened, fragmented into small states, most of which were not able to defend their independence. These states are becoming easy prey for world imperialistic predators - the United States, NATO, the World Bank, and transnational corporations.
Nevertheless, despite the considerable damage caused to the unity of the Slavic countries, the Slavic movement continued to develop. At the beginning of the 1990s, a Slavic Council was established, the Moscow Congress of Slavic Culture was founded in 1992, which contributed to the creation of the All-Slavic Council, which was the organizer of the All-Slavic Congress in Prague (1998). At this congress, the International Slavic Committee was created, which assumed the role of leader of the Slavic movement. However, deprived of state support, this Committee is not capable of solving the global tasks that it has entrusted to itself.
The Union State of Russia and Belarus, the core of Slavic integration, was created through the state line. Strengthening and developing this alliance is the main task of the Slavic movement. Its main goal is the creation of a community of independent Slavic states - the All-Slavic Union. At the same time, it should be understood that, taking into account the historical path of Russia, which united more than a hundred peoples into a single state, it will be not only a common Slavic unifying core, but also a center of gravity for peoples who previously belonged to the Russian Empire. Established in 2011, the Eurasian Union envisages the creation of a confederative union of states with a single political, economic, military, social and cultural space. However, such a Eurasian Union will be successful only if it is built on the civilizational foundations of the Slavic civilization and the Slavic dominant is strengthened in it. The union of states united by Russia on the basis of equality will become one of the foundations of a multipolar world and ensure a balance of power with the United States, China and Western Europe.
There is a great danger in an attempt to create a Eurasian Union according to the recipes of the “Eurasians” of 1920's and their modern epigones. The Eurasian Union, which was proposed by the “Eurasians”, is also unacceptable to Russia, as it pinches it in the grip of Western European and Turkic civilizations, destroys the Slavic core of the country.
 From the “Tale of Bygone Years”: “The Slavs sat down on the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian. And from these Slavs Slavs dispersed on the ground and were called by their names, where who sat, at what place. For example, some came and sat on the river named Morava and were called Morava, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: white Croats, and Serbs, and Khorutane. When the Volokhs attacked the Slavs on the Danube, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came, and sat down on the Vistula, and were called Lyakhs, and from those Lyakhs Poles went, others Lylyichi, others - Mazovshans, others - Pomors .
Similarly, these Slavs came and sat down along the Dnieper and called themselves glades, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat down in the forests, and others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and called themselves Dregovichi, others sat down along the Dvina and called themselves Polochans along the river, which flows into Dvina and is called Polota. Also, the Slavs, who sat near the lake Ilmen, called themselves Slavs, and built a city, and called it Novgorod. And the others sat down along the Desna, and along the Seven, and along Sula and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and by its name and the letter was called "Slavic".
 V. Tomsinov. History of Russian political and legal thought of the X-XVII centuries. M., 2003. C. 70.
 Ibid. S. 70-71.
 N. I. Bukharin. Russian-Polish Relations in the 19th - First Half of the 20th Centuries // 2007 history questions. No. 7. - S. 3.
 See: Panchenko A. M. Peter I and the Slavic Idea // Russian Literature. 1988. No. 3. - S. 148-152.
 Great Encyclopedia of the Russian people. Russian worldview / Ch. editor, compiler OA Platonov. M., Institute of Russian Civilization, 2003. C. 253-254.
 N. Kikeshev. Slavic ideology. M., 2013.
 Makarevich, E.F. Secret agents. Staff and non-staff dedicated. M., 2007. C. 242.