Sergey Mikheev: “There will be no Russia without Russians”
Reflections of a famous publicist on the eve of National Unity Day
- Sergey Aleksandrovich, it probably makes sense to recall how we transformed in our newest stories "November" holidays. In 1996, by decree of Boris Yeltsin, the former name - “Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution” - was changed to the Day of Reconciliation and Reconciliation, and on the same day, November 7, “in order to mitigate opposition and reconciliation of various layers of Russian society”. And only in 2004, a law was passed to celebrate National Unity Day. But already 4 November. A personal question: what is your day associated with?
- With the Day of National Unity, everything is clear and understandable. To abandon the previous holiday followed for two reasons. The new government has set itself the goal of ousting the citizens of the communist holiday from consciousness - this is the first. There is a second: if you recall the ninety-first and ninety-third years, then it is abundantly clear that at that time the society was sharply divided. Including - and on the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their assessments of the new course of the country. Accordingly, the authorities tried to reconcile everyone in some way. But, first of all, I repeat, they wanted to supplant "the seventh of November - the red day of the calendar," if someone remembers this rhyme.
As for my attitude towards the Day of National Unity, then I suppose this holiday is still more artificial ... Yes, I feel myself part of a single nation, although I can’t say that November 4 is a grand celebration for me. Its historical background related to the expulsion of the Poles impresses me a lot more than associations with 1991 and 1993 for years. Roughly speaking, the motives of Boris Yeltsin and his team, according to which they began to rename, I care a little. But referring to the historical roots was done correctly.
Well, and whether we are a single nation or not - the question is different. I think yes. Although, of course, internal contradictions and tensions in society are quite strong. Contradictions - from social to ethnic - exist, and aggravated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are still struggling with the consequences of the collapse of a single state.
However, we are one nation. Even just by the existence of a single state. Among other things, a common cultural-historical and ideological platform remains in spite of many nuances and differences.
Of course, the liberalization processes that were launched in the nineties lead to the atomization of society. People are told that the main thing in their lives is personal well-being. Therefore, someone is no longer interested in such issues as the unity of the nation or its absence. They do not care about the problem of historical, and indeed the sovereignty of Russia in general, they are fixated on personal narrow interests, so that in such a system of coordinates the unity theme worries them less and less.
- It turns out that the political task of creating a single nation comes into conflict with economic realities? With "life", as they say?
- Let's clarify: the political task of strengthening the unity of the nation comes into conflict with the liberal paradigm of Russia's development. At least, with the liberal paradigm that we have professed since the beginning of the nineties. Whether the authorities understand this or not, here we are dealing with a conflict - modern Russian liberalism is opposed to the task of preserving the unity of the nation. Moreover, he considers the unity of the nation, as such, to be more of a relic than a necessity. However, the same relic as sovereignty, patriotism, territorial integrity, respect for their own history and much more.
- Suppose - just suppose ... - that agreement in society was reached, it was possible to rename the holiday. And here, in the presence of a certain political agreement, did the so-called national question “climb out”? ..
- The national question is one of the problems that was exacerbated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I would venture to say that it existed in those times. Because not in the nineties and, as they say, it was not yesterday that the problem came to light, it was the creation of the USSR that “fired up” it: the collapse of the Russian Empire was, including, with the support of the Bolsheviks, ethnic minorities, national regions. No wonder the Soviet Union became a federation of ethnic state formations. Never before in its history has the “big Russia” been divided along ethnic lines. And since 1917, this section has been installed. And, by the way, in the first years of the Soviet government there were many problems with this, which were then simply suppressed by the super-rigid administrative-military system. But when this system weakened and began to falter, the bomb that was laid during the creation of the USSR worked in the nineties, and splashed out all the contradictions that were not visible under the rigid state system. For example, in the USSR, this issue was seriously restrained by means of the institute of registration: everyone was tightly tied to the territory of their residence, rather weakly crossed in life. So in this situation it was possible to create the illusion of “friendship of nations” and to say that everyone lives with the same thoughts. This was partly true, partly - propaganda, since interethnic conflicts existed in the Soviet Union. Just spreading information about them was blocked.
- That is, the famous film "Pig and Shepherd" - an idealization of the situation?
- Sure. Of course, the authorities sought this, but did not achieve the goal they had set. Although, of course, the overall situation was much calmer than the current one. There have been some successes in this area, but you see, we did not invent nationality and ethnicity, it’s not for us to cancel them. Trying to make people forget about it is quite difficult. And in the nineties, the problem escalated: the Soviet Union collapsed precisely along the borders of national formations, this process was inevitably accompanied by an explosive growth of self-awareness, as they used to say, of national suburbs, and in Russia itself.
Remember Yeltsin's "Take sovereignty as much as you swallow." He, in much the same way as the Bolsheviks in the seventeenth year, made those national outskirts his support in the struggle against the Allied center. No wonder he was supported there, including, at some time, and Johar Dudayev in Chechnya. The leader of the Chechen separatists before the first assault on Grozny warmly endorsed the actions of Boris Yeltsin, this is a fact. He supported him for the reason that, acting in the liberal-revolutionary paradigm, he released a genie of "unlimited" separation and self-determination from a bottle. It was also not by chance that Yeltsin in Chechnya, up to a certain time, relied specifically on Dudayev, since he did not trust the last party leader of this region, Zavgayev, and was afraid that he would support the union center. It was with the connivance of Yeltsin and his entourage into the hands of the separatists in Chechnya a huge amount weaponswhich was then used against the federal forces. Similarly, in the other Union republics and ethnic regions of Russia itself, Yeltsin and his team in the struggle for power initially relied on such people, thereby stimulating the growth of ethnic nationalism and separatism of the borderlands.
Against the background of all these events, the national question has become quite acute. The self-determination of the former Soviet republics was carried out with hard pressure primarily on the Russians, and in the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia on the Slavic population as a whole. Today, nobody probably remembers this - and then liberal human rights activists did not want to pay attention to it, and today they don’t intend to return to history - because in most of the republics the process of statehood formation was accompanied by the expulsion of Russians. And sometimes this pressure was aggravated by internal contradictions even up to civil war, and therefore it took on even more acute forms. All this led to a mass exodus of Russians from national republics, and this happened in a boorish and repressive manner: many were killed, many were deprived of their property ...
Here, in Russia, the Chechen war and the growth of nationalism in the republics also led to the ousting of Russians from many national regions. In a number of regions of the North Caucasus, their number is still declining. It sharply decreased during the Chechen war, continues today. The Russians left, they leave, they are ousted, expelled. There is no incitement to hatred on my part - it’s just statistics that you can't argue with.
These processes inevitably generated a reciprocal wave: the growth of Russian nationalism, radicalism and everything connected with them. In the conditions of liberal transformations, all this often took the form of neo-Nazism, fashionable in the West in general and in Europe in particular, especially among young people. The growth of neo-Nazism in the West has become a noticeable trend against the background of migration processes long before the collapse of the Union. And since in the “new” Russia in the nineties, it was strenuously hammered into their heads that everything Western is very good, it is not surprising that this trend has become fashionable in our country too. Well, this is a well-known paradox - liberal democracy often leads the way to various kinds of anti-liberal radicalism, for example, fascism. Liberals resemble a bacillus that kills an organism in which it lives, not realizing that the death of an organism will mean its own death.
To summarize: the problem was the result of the collapse of a large country, and the result, I believe, of the time bomb that, as a principle, was laid during the formation of the Soviet Union. Whether the authorities understood then what they were doing, or did not realize it, I don’t know.
Recent events in the Moscow area of Biryulyovo showed that one match is enough for a large fire. People are not going to understand the details - who did what he did and why ... This is a big and serious problem.
However, I think that in any other country, even a crime on a purely domestic basis between people of different nationality, faith or culture is perceived more acutely than similar crimes between members of the same ethnic group. Just the way the world works. Change is almost impossible, but we must always keep in mind and take into account.
- As a presidential candidate in the last election, Vladimir Putin 23 January last year published a programmatic article on the national question in our country. Where he said that he considers the Russian people to be state-forming according to the fact of the existence of Russia, and the great mission of the Russians is to unite and fasten our civilization. Do Russians feel this status, use it to really fasten our country?
- There are several aspects here. It is good that Vladimir Putin said this. After all, fifteen years ago, any person who even began to stutter about this was immediately recorded in the fascists and put this stigma on his forehead. I am talking about this, including from my own experience. Even the most timid attempts to write on these topics encountered in the conditionally intellectual environment absurd accusations and resistance. It is joyful that there are advances in this matter. Now, at least, it has become possible to calmly and seriously analyze these issues.
Russian really are state-forming people. One may argue with this as much as you want, but this is the same thing as trying to deny the law of the world. The Russians were at the origins of our state, the Russians created it in the form in which we know it. And the Russians remain the backbone of the population. Without the Russian Russia will not. Honestly, I don’t believe that many ethnic minorities in the event of the disappearance of Russians will be able to save Russia as a geopolitical phenomenon. Not to mention the civilization aspect. By the way, that is why various “well-wishers” from the outside have always encouraged and encouraged various kinds of ethnic separatism and other similar ideas. They know exactly what they are doing.
Now - as for the Russians themselves. Unfortunately, the Russians themselves do not fully feel the state-forming people today. First of all, this is a consequence of the policy of the authorities in the nineties, which focused on "unlimited swallowing of sovereignty." All sorts of liberal pseudo-thinkers have rushed to the newspapers, microphones and television, who told all of us that Russians are a worthless, meaningless and unsuccessful people. That, in fact, both the Soviet Union and Russia are a prison of nations, by the way, a Bolshevik term. That the Russians are to blame in front of the whole world for the fact that everyone was universally oppressed and occupied ...
There were two results of this propaganda campaign: it raised the importance of national suburbs and caused depression among the Russians themselves.
Now - about the economy. In fact, it played a very large role in the growth of inter-ethnic tensions. This is said little, but it is. The fact is that both in the Soviet Union and in Russia, Russians constituted the elite of society. For the reason that the government implemented a course for industrial and scientific-industrial development of the country. Russians, and all Slavs, also Belarusians and Ukrainians, in fact, belonged to the elite. They were the most qualified engineers, workers, officers, teachers, doctors - everyone can easily continue the list. There was no racism in this, just the way things were. Therefore, they felt like a nation responsible for the country. The collapse of the economy, the worst crisis of the nineties led to the fact that those groups that were engaged in trade and resale and those related to the criminal business rose to the top. On the other hand, the economy itself, in which the Russians occupied commanding heights, collapsed, it simply did not become.
As a result, we got this: people became the elite of society - I will say this, I am sure, they will understand - with gold fixes. Overnight, they became the most respected and, moreover, the most influential members of society. And those who worked in factories and mills, those who were called technical intelligentsia, the country's elite, were out of work, and no one needed them. Many of them just became beggars. Here it is, another result of the liberal-market transformation of the country.
And the last. The Russians themselves, like a sponge, began to absorb, in my opinion, the suicidal ideological porridge that it is indecent to be Russian, that we do not have any history that we could be proud of, that we should learn from others. Roughly speaking, we succumbed to the depression generated by external factors. The Russians turned out to be not very persistent - that’s the historical problem.
I see the reasons for its occurrence in the collapse of a large state, which was the expression of Russians in history. Well, Russia, I will say not very diplomatic, began to beat herself on the head and complain about her worthlessness. Exactly this self-flagellation gave rise to a massive depression. First of all - among the Russians.
I do not think that we should cherish some thoughtless chauvinism and swell like peacocks for any reason. But I am sure that this self-flagellation in the late 80 and in the 90 of the last century passed all reasonable limits and became self-destructive. It had nothing to do with an objective analysis of the past. Therefore, conclusions for the future from such a pseudo-analysis were obtained inadequate. But what to say - look at the leaders of public opinion from the nineties, and now they are still sounding the same mantra about Russia, like an evil empire, from which all the troubles in the world are.
“Even in the status of a candidate for the post of the head of state, talking to political scientists, Vladimir Putin, when he was offered to make a corresponding change regarding the introduction of the status of Russians to the Constitution, answered with the question:“ But does this proposal benefit the Russian people? ”. That is, we are dealing with de facto, but do not strive to recognize it de jure. Do not recognize now or never?
“Vladimir Putin’s motives are understandable; he believes that this could undermine a certain ethnic balance and create discontent.” Personally, I do not see anything criminal and dangerous in the legislative consolidation of such a status of Russians. One could also make an appropriate amendment to the Basic Law - despite the fact that I understand the sources of the extremely cautious attitude of the authorities to this issue. I think nothing terrible would have happened, I quite often have to go on business trips to our national subjects of the federation, and I see that there are radicals there. But after all, I also meet with those who frankly yearn to strengthen the role of the Russians in our country. Why? Because the Russians used to play the role of arbitrator, the controlling center, and now in many republics the situation is almost the absolute power of the local clans. They themselves local, who previously could complain to Moscow or call the Russian regional committee secretary, moan. Nowhere to turn, chaos, that's all. The weakness of the Russian people is in fact a problem for the national suburbs. Those who are smarter on the ground understand this.
I think there would be no harm in the appearance of such a status of Russians in the Constitution. On the other hand, it must be admitted: yes, and of particular benefit too. Well, the Constitution, well, written in it - what's next?
- That is, all the bills on this topic, which were developed at the time by the deputies, I’m not even talking about the countless initiatives of various public organizations and political forces, as an idea, are not bad, but they should not be implemented?
- The idea is good, but I think it makes no sense to break spears about bringing all this into the Constitution. It is better to do real things: to restore the economy, where Russians will make sensible decisions, strengthen the army, where Russians will inevitably play a dominant role, limit the arrogance of ethnic organized criminal groups, destroy their corrupt ties with the local authorities. In general, real business is more important than declarations. Although, perhaps, by fixing this status in the Basic Law, it would be possible to cool the fervor of some very radical nationalists. And then I doubt it.
- According to the criteria of the United Nations, a state is considered mono-national, provided that more than two thirds of its population belong to the same ethnic group. Despite the decline in the share of Russians in the total population of Russia to 77,8 percent in 2010, all the same - so far more than two-thirds. But we call ourselves a multinational state. In December 2010 of the year, at a meeting of the State Council, then President Dmitry Medvedev declared that "the idea of the Russian nation is absolutely productive, and it should not be shy." I do not know what people say with whom you communicate, but for many of my friends the word “Russian” causes a categorical rejection. In relatively recent times, we were Soviet citizens - and we were not ashamed of our nationality indicated in the passport. Why today not everyone wants to respond to the "dear Russian"? Maybe they remember that this phrase was introduced into circulation by the head of state, in which the country had already begun to fall apart?
- As for multinationality, this is, again, the Soviet legacy. One of the tenets of the Soviet model was: “We are a multinational state, a family of equal nations.” And Russia, as the successor of the USSR, has adopted all this rhetoric. Against the background of the Caucasian wars and inter-ethnic conflicts, everyone is afraid to say that this is not so.
As for the "Russian". Honestly, I don’t really understand the formula according to which we should forget about our nationality and call ourselves all Russians “Russians.” In reality, it does not work, there is citizenship and nationality. We are being instructed: “Why do you say that you are Russian? Why do you say you are a Chechen? We are Russians! ”
Sure. Only here the Russian is a citizen of Russia. This is a political nation, but this does not negate ethnicity. Try to convince the Chechen that he refused to call himself a Chechen! Or representative of any other nation. It is impossible to cancel a nationality, it exists de facto, its roots go back into deep history. And no matter how much dancing with the attempts of all to bring to a common denominator in the form of “dear Russian”, ethnic and cultural historical self-consciousness will always remain with a person. Well, say, for example, the Tatars, that they are no longer Tatars ...
- With horror, I imagine a response ...
- It will cause a lot of problems. I believe that the concepts of “Russian” and “Russian” do not oppose and do not contradict each other. I am Russian because I am a citizen of Russia. But at the same time, I am Russian, and for me it is extremely important. I do not intend to refuse it, and I see no reasonable reason to do this.
All of us are Russians at the same time, but at the same time we have our own nationality, history and traditions. I see no point in setting the task of making Russians out of Russians who have neither a clan nor a tribe. Occupation is extremely counterproductive, leading to the creation of ethnic tension. In part, these problems rest on the abolition of the “Nationality” column in the passport.
After the column "Nationality" was removed, and began a whistle dance on the theme "We are all citizens of the world." In the best case - the Russians, but in general, let's not say that either ...
The tendency to forgetting one’s own roots is destructive and self-destructive. I do not see any extremism in what you say to me: “I am Russian!”. It would be quite possible for the count to be returned to the passport, but to fill it out at the request of the Russian, on a voluntary basis. I want to write to me: "Russian".
- I also want to.
- No, it is not necessary to force anyone. There is no desire - so let it not write. This is a human right, maybe he wants to consider himself a Martian, I don’t care. Yes, let him leave this box empty at all - but I have a desire to make such an entry in my personal passport. At the same time, of course, this record should not legally provide any advantages or, on the contrary, in any way infringe upon, as in the Soviet Union, nevertheless, such a problem was present for some. Let's not lie to each other either.
- I will cite the opinion of the American political scientist Paul Goble: “Now in Russia there is a visible weakening of the positions of ethnic Russians against the background of strengthening the positions of non-Russians. This is an objective process, due to many factors, including low birth rate among Russians and high birth rates among non-Russians, migration from the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in the complex leading to a sharp drop in the percentage of ethnic Russians in the total population of Russia. ” West, this process pleases?
- Sure. For many centuries in the West, Russians saw an alternative way of life and an alternative center of influence. By the way, Westerners are well aware that the Russians are the state-forming nation of Russia, and this was the key to historical successes and achievements of our country in the past.
I am glad of their reduction in the Russian population, because this process complicates the inter-ethnic situation in the country. Intensity in this area weakens any state, so the weaker Russia becomes, the more enthusiasm will be in the West and not only two opinions cannot be.
The bitter truth is that the birth rate among Russians is lower than that of Russian citizens of other nationalities. Personally, with all my ethnic patriotism, I am opposed to presenting the case in this way: “We are poor Russians, because there are only enemies around us, we are doing everything to survive, and they are strangling us.” Unfortunately, this is not true. Russians are getting weaker, first of all - spiritually, which is also manifested in their way of life. If Russian families choose childlessness or give birth to one child, we simply will not be - from the point of view of mathematics. There will be no need to destroy ideology, the CIA can rest, no one will pursue a policy of genocide against Russia. Russians will live solely for their own pleasure - they will disappear after a while.
At the same time, inter-ethnic unity, of course, is necessary for Russia. I do not believe in the "friendship of nations", but I believe in their equal coexistence within the borders of our country. And also in the fact that we really can have common goals that unite us both within the country and in the outside world. This is possible, and the realization of the simplest principle of the equality of all before the law would be one of the guarantees of the unity of our state.
If so, we will greatly reduce the level of inter-ethnic tensions. Indeed, in reality in the nineties, on the basis of ethnic organized criminal groups, quite aggressive diasporas were created. They entered into a collusion with the authorities - most often, by the way, Russians - and formed their own way of life, where the laws do not work and the laws are unwritten. Repeatedly, they avoided responsibility, created an unhealthy environment in their places of residence - because they imposed corrupt rules, among which the main thing is: “If you have money, you are allowed to do anything.”
This is what stirs up ethnic tensions much more than the absence of some article of the Constitution. People will understand that before the law we, regardless of nationality and money, are all equal - we will be able to reduce ethnic tensions and unite the nation.
- Sergey Aleksandrovich, it probably makes sense to recall how we transformed in our newest stories "November" holidays. In 1996, by decree of Boris Yeltsin, the former name - “Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution” - was changed to the Day of Reconciliation and Reconciliation, and on the same day, November 7, “in order to mitigate opposition and reconciliation of various layers of Russian society”. And only in 2004, a law was passed to celebrate National Unity Day. But already 4 November. A personal question: what is your day associated with?- With the Day of National Unity, everything is clear and understandable. To abandon the previous holiday followed for two reasons. The new government has set itself the goal of ousting the citizens of the communist holiday from consciousness - this is the first. There is a second: if you recall the ninety-first and ninety-third years, then it is abundantly clear that at that time the society was sharply divided. Including - and on the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their assessments of the new course of the country. Accordingly, the authorities tried to reconcile everyone in some way. But, first of all, I repeat, they wanted to supplant "the seventh of November - the red day of the calendar," if someone remembers this rhyme.
As for my attitude towards the Day of National Unity, then I suppose this holiday is still more artificial ... Yes, I feel myself part of a single nation, although I can’t say that November 4 is a grand celebration for me. Its historical background related to the expulsion of the Poles impresses me a lot more than associations with 1991 and 1993 for years. Roughly speaking, the motives of Boris Yeltsin and his team, according to which they began to rename, I care a little. But referring to the historical roots was done correctly.
Well, and whether we are a single nation or not - the question is different. I think yes. Although, of course, internal contradictions and tensions in society are quite strong. Contradictions - from social to ethnic - exist, and aggravated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are still struggling with the consequences of the collapse of a single state.
However, we are one nation. Even just by the existence of a single state. Among other things, a common cultural-historical and ideological platform remains in spite of many nuances and differences.
Of course, the liberalization processes that were launched in the nineties lead to the atomization of society. People are told that the main thing in their lives is personal well-being. Therefore, someone is no longer interested in such issues as the unity of the nation or its absence. They do not care about the problem of historical, and indeed the sovereignty of Russia in general, they are fixated on personal narrow interests, so that in such a system of coordinates the unity theme worries them less and less.
- It turns out that the political task of creating a single nation comes into conflict with economic realities? With "life", as they say?
- Let's clarify: the political task of strengthening the unity of the nation comes into conflict with the liberal paradigm of Russia's development. At least, with the liberal paradigm that we have professed since the beginning of the nineties. Whether the authorities understand this or not, here we are dealing with a conflict - modern Russian liberalism is opposed to the task of preserving the unity of the nation. Moreover, he considers the unity of the nation, as such, to be more of a relic than a necessity. However, the same relic as sovereignty, patriotism, territorial integrity, respect for their own history and much more.
- Suppose - just suppose ... - that agreement in society was reached, it was possible to rename the holiday. And here, in the presence of a certain political agreement, did the so-called national question “climb out”? ..
- The national question is one of the problems that was exacerbated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I would venture to say that it existed in those times. Because not in the nineties and, as they say, it was not yesterday that the problem came to light, it was the creation of the USSR that “fired up” it: the collapse of the Russian Empire was, including, with the support of the Bolsheviks, ethnic minorities, national regions. No wonder the Soviet Union became a federation of ethnic state formations. Never before in its history has the “big Russia” been divided along ethnic lines. And since 1917, this section has been installed. And, by the way, in the first years of the Soviet government there were many problems with this, which were then simply suppressed by the super-rigid administrative-military system. But when this system weakened and began to falter, the bomb that was laid during the creation of the USSR worked in the nineties, and splashed out all the contradictions that were not visible under the rigid state system. For example, in the USSR, this issue was seriously restrained by means of the institute of registration: everyone was tightly tied to the territory of their residence, rather weakly crossed in life. So in this situation it was possible to create the illusion of “friendship of nations” and to say that everyone lives with the same thoughts. This was partly true, partly - propaganda, since interethnic conflicts existed in the Soviet Union. Just spreading information about them was blocked.
- That is, the famous film "Pig and Shepherd" - an idealization of the situation?
- Sure. Of course, the authorities sought this, but did not achieve the goal they had set. Although, of course, the overall situation was much calmer than the current one. There have been some successes in this area, but you see, we did not invent nationality and ethnicity, it’s not for us to cancel them. Trying to make people forget about it is quite difficult. And in the nineties, the problem escalated: the Soviet Union collapsed precisely along the borders of national formations, this process was inevitably accompanied by an explosive growth of self-awareness, as they used to say, of national suburbs, and in Russia itself.
Remember Yeltsin's "Take sovereignty as much as you swallow." He, in much the same way as the Bolsheviks in the seventeenth year, made those national outskirts his support in the struggle against the Allied center. No wonder he was supported there, including, at some time, and Johar Dudayev in Chechnya. The leader of the Chechen separatists before the first assault on Grozny warmly endorsed the actions of Boris Yeltsin, this is a fact. He supported him for the reason that, acting in the liberal-revolutionary paradigm, he released a genie of "unlimited" separation and self-determination from a bottle. It was also not by chance that Yeltsin in Chechnya, up to a certain time, relied specifically on Dudayev, since he did not trust the last party leader of this region, Zavgayev, and was afraid that he would support the union center. It was with the connivance of Yeltsin and his entourage into the hands of the separatists in Chechnya a huge amount weaponswhich was then used against the federal forces. Similarly, in the other Union republics and ethnic regions of Russia itself, Yeltsin and his team in the struggle for power initially relied on such people, thereby stimulating the growth of ethnic nationalism and separatism of the borderlands.
Against the background of all these events, the national question has become quite acute. The self-determination of the former Soviet republics was carried out with hard pressure primarily on the Russians, and in the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia on the Slavic population as a whole. Today, nobody probably remembers this - and then liberal human rights activists did not want to pay attention to it, and today they don’t intend to return to history - because in most of the republics the process of statehood formation was accompanied by the expulsion of Russians. And sometimes this pressure was aggravated by internal contradictions even up to civil war, and therefore it took on even more acute forms. All this led to a mass exodus of Russians from national republics, and this happened in a boorish and repressive manner: many were killed, many were deprived of their property ...
Here, in Russia, the Chechen war and the growth of nationalism in the republics also led to the ousting of Russians from many national regions. In a number of regions of the North Caucasus, their number is still declining. It sharply decreased during the Chechen war, continues today. The Russians left, they leave, they are ousted, expelled. There is no incitement to hatred on my part - it’s just statistics that you can't argue with.
These processes inevitably generated a reciprocal wave: the growth of Russian nationalism, radicalism and everything connected with them. In the conditions of liberal transformations, all this often took the form of neo-Nazism, fashionable in the West in general and in Europe in particular, especially among young people. The growth of neo-Nazism in the West has become a noticeable trend against the background of migration processes long before the collapse of the Union. And since in the “new” Russia in the nineties, it was strenuously hammered into their heads that everything Western is very good, it is not surprising that this trend has become fashionable in our country too. Well, this is a well-known paradox - liberal democracy often leads the way to various kinds of anti-liberal radicalism, for example, fascism. Liberals resemble a bacillus that kills an organism in which it lives, not realizing that the death of an organism will mean its own death.
To summarize: the problem was the result of the collapse of a large country, and the result, I believe, of the time bomb that, as a principle, was laid during the formation of the Soviet Union. Whether the authorities understood then what they were doing, or did not realize it, I don’t know.
Recent events in the Moscow area of Biryulyovo showed that one match is enough for a large fire. People are not going to understand the details - who did what he did and why ... This is a big and serious problem.
However, I think that in any other country, even a crime on a purely domestic basis between people of different nationality, faith or culture is perceived more acutely than similar crimes between members of the same ethnic group. Just the way the world works. Change is almost impossible, but we must always keep in mind and take into account.
- As a presidential candidate in the last election, Vladimir Putin 23 January last year published a programmatic article on the national question in our country. Where he said that he considers the Russian people to be state-forming according to the fact of the existence of Russia, and the great mission of the Russians is to unite and fasten our civilization. Do Russians feel this status, use it to really fasten our country?
- There are several aspects here. It is good that Vladimir Putin said this. After all, fifteen years ago, any person who even began to stutter about this was immediately recorded in the fascists and put this stigma on his forehead. I am talking about this, including from my own experience. Even the most timid attempts to write on these topics encountered in the conditionally intellectual environment absurd accusations and resistance. It is joyful that there are advances in this matter. Now, at least, it has become possible to calmly and seriously analyze these issues.
Russian really are state-forming people. One may argue with this as much as you want, but this is the same thing as trying to deny the law of the world. The Russians were at the origins of our state, the Russians created it in the form in which we know it. And the Russians remain the backbone of the population. Without the Russian Russia will not. Honestly, I don’t believe that many ethnic minorities in the event of the disappearance of Russians will be able to save Russia as a geopolitical phenomenon. Not to mention the civilization aspect. By the way, that is why various “well-wishers” from the outside have always encouraged and encouraged various kinds of ethnic separatism and other similar ideas. They know exactly what they are doing.
Now - as for the Russians themselves. Unfortunately, the Russians themselves do not fully feel the state-forming people today. First of all, this is a consequence of the policy of the authorities in the nineties, which focused on "unlimited swallowing of sovereignty." All sorts of liberal pseudo-thinkers have rushed to the newspapers, microphones and television, who told all of us that Russians are a worthless, meaningless and unsuccessful people. That, in fact, both the Soviet Union and Russia are a prison of nations, by the way, a Bolshevik term. That the Russians are to blame in front of the whole world for the fact that everyone was universally oppressed and occupied ...
There were two results of this propaganda campaign: it raised the importance of national suburbs and caused depression among the Russians themselves.
Now - about the economy. In fact, it played a very large role in the growth of inter-ethnic tensions. This is said little, but it is. The fact is that both in the Soviet Union and in Russia, Russians constituted the elite of society. For the reason that the government implemented a course for industrial and scientific-industrial development of the country. Russians, and all Slavs, also Belarusians and Ukrainians, in fact, belonged to the elite. They were the most qualified engineers, workers, officers, teachers, doctors - everyone can easily continue the list. There was no racism in this, just the way things were. Therefore, they felt like a nation responsible for the country. The collapse of the economy, the worst crisis of the nineties led to the fact that those groups that were engaged in trade and resale and those related to the criminal business rose to the top. On the other hand, the economy itself, in which the Russians occupied commanding heights, collapsed, it simply did not become.
As a result, we got this: people became the elite of society - I will say this, I am sure, they will understand - with gold fixes. Overnight, they became the most respected and, moreover, the most influential members of society. And those who worked in factories and mills, those who were called technical intelligentsia, the country's elite, were out of work, and no one needed them. Many of them just became beggars. Here it is, another result of the liberal-market transformation of the country.
And the last. The Russians themselves, like a sponge, began to absorb, in my opinion, the suicidal ideological porridge that it is indecent to be Russian, that we do not have any history that we could be proud of, that we should learn from others. Roughly speaking, we succumbed to the depression generated by external factors. The Russians turned out to be not very persistent - that’s the historical problem.
I see the reasons for its occurrence in the collapse of a large state, which was the expression of Russians in history. Well, Russia, I will say not very diplomatic, began to beat herself on the head and complain about her worthlessness. Exactly this self-flagellation gave rise to a massive depression. First of all - among the Russians.
I do not think that we should cherish some thoughtless chauvinism and swell like peacocks for any reason. But I am sure that this self-flagellation in the late 80 and in the 90 of the last century passed all reasonable limits and became self-destructive. It had nothing to do with an objective analysis of the past. Therefore, conclusions for the future from such a pseudo-analysis were obtained inadequate. But what to say - look at the leaders of public opinion from the nineties, and now they are still sounding the same mantra about Russia, like an evil empire, from which all the troubles in the world are.
“Even in the status of a candidate for the post of the head of state, talking to political scientists, Vladimir Putin, when he was offered to make a corresponding change regarding the introduction of the status of Russians to the Constitution, answered with the question:“ But does this proposal benefit the Russian people? ”. That is, we are dealing with de facto, but do not strive to recognize it de jure. Do not recognize now or never?
“Vladimir Putin’s motives are understandable; he believes that this could undermine a certain ethnic balance and create discontent.” Personally, I do not see anything criminal and dangerous in the legislative consolidation of such a status of Russians. One could also make an appropriate amendment to the Basic Law - despite the fact that I understand the sources of the extremely cautious attitude of the authorities to this issue. I think nothing terrible would have happened, I quite often have to go on business trips to our national subjects of the federation, and I see that there are radicals there. But after all, I also meet with those who frankly yearn to strengthen the role of the Russians in our country. Why? Because the Russians used to play the role of arbitrator, the controlling center, and now in many republics the situation is almost the absolute power of the local clans. They themselves local, who previously could complain to Moscow or call the Russian regional committee secretary, moan. Nowhere to turn, chaos, that's all. The weakness of the Russian people is in fact a problem for the national suburbs. Those who are smarter on the ground understand this.
I think there would be no harm in the appearance of such a status of Russians in the Constitution. On the other hand, it must be admitted: yes, and of particular benefit too. Well, the Constitution, well, written in it - what's next?
- That is, all the bills on this topic, which were developed at the time by the deputies, I’m not even talking about the countless initiatives of various public organizations and political forces, as an idea, are not bad, but they should not be implemented?
- The idea is good, but I think it makes no sense to break spears about bringing all this into the Constitution. It is better to do real things: to restore the economy, where Russians will make sensible decisions, strengthen the army, where Russians will inevitably play a dominant role, limit the arrogance of ethnic organized criminal groups, destroy their corrupt ties with the local authorities. In general, real business is more important than declarations. Although, perhaps, by fixing this status in the Basic Law, it would be possible to cool the fervor of some very radical nationalists. And then I doubt it.
- According to the criteria of the United Nations, a state is considered mono-national, provided that more than two thirds of its population belong to the same ethnic group. Despite the decline in the share of Russians in the total population of Russia to 77,8 percent in 2010, all the same - so far more than two-thirds. But we call ourselves a multinational state. In December 2010 of the year, at a meeting of the State Council, then President Dmitry Medvedev declared that "the idea of the Russian nation is absolutely productive, and it should not be shy." I do not know what people say with whom you communicate, but for many of my friends the word “Russian” causes a categorical rejection. In relatively recent times, we were Soviet citizens - and we were not ashamed of our nationality indicated in the passport. Why today not everyone wants to respond to the "dear Russian"? Maybe they remember that this phrase was introduced into circulation by the head of state, in which the country had already begun to fall apart?
- As for multinationality, this is, again, the Soviet legacy. One of the tenets of the Soviet model was: “We are a multinational state, a family of equal nations.” And Russia, as the successor of the USSR, has adopted all this rhetoric. Against the background of the Caucasian wars and inter-ethnic conflicts, everyone is afraid to say that this is not so.
As for the "Russian". Honestly, I don’t really understand the formula according to which we should forget about our nationality and call ourselves all Russians “Russians.” In reality, it does not work, there is citizenship and nationality. We are being instructed: “Why do you say that you are Russian? Why do you say you are a Chechen? We are Russians! ”
Sure. Only here the Russian is a citizen of Russia. This is a political nation, but this does not negate ethnicity. Try to convince the Chechen that he refused to call himself a Chechen! Or representative of any other nation. It is impossible to cancel a nationality, it exists de facto, its roots go back into deep history. And no matter how much dancing with the attempts of all to bring to a common denominator in the form of “dear Russian”, ethnic and cultural historical self-consciousness will always remain with a person. Well, say, for example, the Tatars, that they are no longer Tatars ...
- With horror, I imagine a response ...
- It will cause a lot of problems. I believe that the concepts of “Russian” and “Russian” do not oppose and do not contradict each other. I am Russian because I am a citizen of Russia. But at the same time, I am Russian, and for me it is extremely important. I do not intend to refuse it, and I see no reasonable reason to do this.
All of us are Russians at the same time, but at the same time we have our own nationality, history and traditions. I see no point in setting the task of making Russians out of Russians who have neither a clan nor a tribe. Occupation is extremely counterproductive, leading to the creation of ethnic tension. In part, these problems rest on the abolition of the “Nationality” column in the passport.
After the column "Nationality" was removed, and began a whistle dance on the theme "We are all citizens of the world." In the best case - the Russians, but in general, let's not say that either ...
The tendency to forgetting one’s own roots is destructive and self-destructive. I do not see any extremism in what you say to me: “I am Russian!”. It would be quite possible for the count to be returned to the passport, but to fill it out at the request of the Russian, on a voluntary basis. I want to write to me: "Russian".
- I also want to.
- No, it is not necessary to force anyone. There is no desire - so let it not write. This is a human right, maybe he wants to consider himself a Martian, I don’t care. Yes, let him leave this box empty at all - but I have a desire to make such an entry in my personal passport. At the same time, of course, this record should not legally provide any advantages or, on the contrary, in any way infringe upon, as in the Soviet Union, nevertheless, such a problem was present for some. Let's not lie to each other either.
- I will cite the opinion of the American political scientist Paul Goble: “Now in Russia there is a visible weakening of the positions of ethnic Russians against the background of strengthening the positions of non-Russians. This is an objective process, due to many factors, including low birth rate among Russians and high birth rates among non-Russians, migration from the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in the complex leading to a sharp drop in the percentage of ethnic Russians in the total population of Russia. ” West, this process pleases?
- Sure. For many centuries in the West, Russians saw an alternative way of life and an alternative center of influence. By the way, Westerners are well aware that the Russians are the state-forming nation of Russia, and this was the key to historical successes and achievements of our country in the past.
I am glad of their reduction in the Russian population, because this process complicates the inter-ethnic situation in the country. Intensity in this area weakens any state, so the weaker Russia becomes, the more enthusiasm will be in the West and not only two opinions cannot be.
The bitter truth is that the birth rate among Russians is lower than that of Russian citizens of other nationalities. Personally, with all my ethnic patriotism, I am opposed to presenting the case in this way: “We are poor Russians, because there are only enemies around us, we are doing everything to survive, and they are strangling us.” Unfortunately, this is not true. Russians are getting weaker, first of all - spiritually, which is also manifested in their way of life. If Russian families choose childlessness or give birth to one child, we simply will not be - from the point of view of mathematics. There will be no need to destroy ideology, the CIA can rest, no one will pursue a policy of genocide against Russia. Russians will live solely for their own pleasure - they will disappear after a while.
At the same time, inter-ethnic unity, of course, is necessary for Russia. I do not believe in the "friendship of nations", but I believe in their equal coexistence within the borders of our country. And also in the fact that we really can have common goals that unite us both within the country and in the outside world. This is possible, and the realization of the simplest principle of the equality of all before the law would be one of the guarantees of the unity of our state.
If so, we will greatly reduce the level of inter-ethnic tensions. Indeed, in reality in the nineties, on the basis of ethnic organized criminal groups, quite aggressive diasporas were created. They entered into a collusion with the authorities - most often, by the way, Russians - and formed their own way of life, where the laws do not work and the laws are unwritten. Repeatedly, they avoided responsibility, created an unhealthy environment in their places of residence - because they imposed corrupt rules, among which the main thing is: “If you have money, you are allowed to do anything.”
This is what stirs up ethnic tensions much more than the absence of some article of the Constitution. People will understand that before the law we, regardless of nationality and money, are all equal - we will be able to reduce ethnic tensions and unite the nation.
Information