On the issue of Russia's imperial status

53
For years, 20 has been hotly debated in our society over whether we need an empire, what is the imperial status of a power and what means it can be achieved. Let us try to understand why, when the word “empire” is concerned, some of our fellow citizens immediately have associations related to bloodshed, genocide, conquests and oppression of peoples, while others associate this word with progress, prosperity and harmonious coexistence of peoples.

As you know, the Soviet historical science and political discourse operated on the concepts of “imperialism”, “imperialist”, “imperialist war” (World War I), “imperialist aggression”, etc. All these concepts had a negative content, which was firmly entrenched in the minds of our citizens and even in the Russian language. The imperialists are the enemies of the Soviet state, they are the capitalist countries of the West, primarily the USA, the antipodes of the USSR. Soviet historical and political science did not associate the USSR with empires, which he, nevertheless, was fully.

The collapse of the USSR and the ensuing so-called “liberal revolution” and “democratization” of Russia made an equally significant contribution to creating a negative attitude towards imperial ideas and aspirations. Now the concept of empire began to become attached not to the Western powers, but to the collapsed Soviet Union, more often to those episodes of its history and the peculiarities of public life that are associated with political repression and other minuses. In addition, the myth of the aggressive nature of the expansion of the Russian Empire and the USSR was spread in the post-Soviet space.



A significant contribution to the fact that part of modern society does not take the talk about the restoration of the Russian Empire seriously, made, oddly enough, mixed political associations, the names of which include the words "imperial", "monarchical", "sovereign", etc. We will not list them separately. Let's say one thing: the goal of creating the absolute majority of them was far from promoting the patriotic views and ideas of restoring the Russian Empire, but to the exact opposite: to discredit them. Support for such movements is often considered not only bad form or eccentricity, but sometimes even threatens criminal prosecution.

So, there are plenty of reasons to not support or simply fear imperial ideas from the Russians. However, we note one thing. The vehement challenge to Russia's historic vocation as an empire, as well as rabid overt nationalism, is the lot of people who are not very educated. Any extreme is dangerous and stupid. People who do not recognize the imperial essence of Russia and its imperial future simply do not fully understand what is being said. They zealously argue that they are "for democracy", "against conquest", "for world peace." Meanwhile, imperial thinking not only does not contradict these positions, but also fully supports them.

It is necessary to understand and recognize that Russia has never built its empire from aggressive positions. Russia is a creative empire. The nations that have ever entered into it simply made their natural civilizational choice, always on a voluntary basis. The call of Russia-Empire is a call for good and creation, based on the idea of ​​opposing the forces of world evil. Being in the imperial status, Russia has always coped and, God willing, will cope with this mission.

In order to verify the correctness of these words, it is sufficient to compare the constructive model of the behavior of the Russian Empire with the model of behavior of the present true empire of evil - the United States. “The Empire of Evil” is not the USSR, that’s what the whole world calls the United States now. The last country to have a worldwide image of the center of evil was fascist Germany. In the 21 century, this role was firmly established behind the States.

Behind the screen of democracy and US economic prosperity are hidden seas of shed blood. For example, according to independent experts, the number of victims among Iraqis for the entire period of American aggression is estimated at figures from 600 thousand to 1 million people! These figures are quite comparable with the number of victims of fascist aggression in Europe. This is not the only parallel that can be drawn between the United States and Nazi Germany. The Americans waged war quite fascist methods. According to some reports, during the first Iraqi campaign, the American aviation after the armistice, a powerful airstrike was launched against Iraqi columns leaving Kuwait. The use of depleted uranium shells, vacuum and cluster bombs is the black mark of the USA left by them in Vietnam, the Balkans and the Arab East.

Just imagine that Russia will ever allow itself to act in this way. This is simply impossible to imagine. The fate of the same Georgia and its people in this case would be very sad.

Germany lay at the feet of Russia, so that there Germany, half of Europe, and this happened more than once. However, the imperial will of Russia was favorable both to the French after the Napoleonic invasion, and to the Turks after the liberation of the Balkans, and to the Germans after the victory in the Great Patriotic War. The Russian soldier did not stain himself with the murder of women, children and the elderly.

Speaking about the empire, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the concepts of good and evil, and, of course, remember the role of Russia in the destinies of the world, which is extremely simple: it lies in opposing the world's evil. This is proved by our whole story.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ESCANDER
    +15
    4 November 2011 07: 59
    An empire is needed so as not to dishonor the ancestors and not feel incomplete, having such a story.
    1. Aleksey42
      +7
      4 November 2011 19: 32
      True, I would also add to protect our Brothers, who suddenly turned out to be foreigners, so that pendosy wouldn’t poke their snout!
      1. +3
        5 November 2011 14: 37
        And still - that the order was! So that the development is. To confront all ... other empires that have imagined too much about themselves. And then after all gobble us up.
    2. Antagonist
      -3
      5 November 2011 15: 20
      Quote: ESCANDER
      Empire is needed

      - What empire, this concept implies something more desire ...
      And empires, like all artificial ones, disintegrate, disintegrate, and disintegrate.
  2. gAMauzer
    0
    4 November 2011 09: 06
    It seems that the infection "Alexander Samsonov" is transmitted visually-mentally.
    Not a single empire was built peacefully - only, as Bismarck said, "with iron and blood." Both the Russian Empire and the Union are no exceptions.

    And the idea of ​​"restoring the empire" is not taken seriously because its restoration is virtually impossible. There are no resources - neither human, nor material, nor cultural. Stagflation against the background of the permanent establishment of the dictatorship of "Prince Vladimir".
    1. ESCANDER
      +4
      4 November 2011 18: 03
      gAMauzer
      There is no possible. Everything is possible.
      They say that when you really want to, thoughts will materialize (if I want to nourish myself with deeds, and not like we do now). It is checked on itself.
      1. gAMauzer
        0
        4 November 2011 18: 19
        And then someone really wants to "restore the EMPIRE"?

        I think that for the majority it would be enough for the country to live full and safe. Well, to some renegades - also culturally.

        And the empire - it is, I repeat, built only on the bones, the skeletons of tanks and burnt machines - hardly anyone really wants it so passionately. True, we don’t have enough strength even for a normal self-sufficient country, not that there really is anything there.
        1. ESCANDER
          +2
          4 November 2011 18: 33
          gAMauzer
          I want, but isn't that enough?
          --- "True, we do not have enough strength even for a normal, self-sufficient country, not that there really is anything there."
          Who told you that? Edros or a neighbor in the kitchen?
          I created my little empire from scratch and successfully cncuritate with such monsters, against whom, it would seem, only “hands to the top”.
          I do not accept the psychology of defeatists.
          As they say - set the bar higher.
          1. gAMauzer
            -1
            4 November 2011 19: 14
            "I want, but is that not enough?" -Well, if you are not Caesar, Charlemagne or Napoleon, then little, very little.

            "Who told you that? Edros or a neighbor in the kitchen?" - Everyone reminds me of this by the average three bags of empty containers of alcoholic beverages per day, which, by the nature of my work, have to be thrown out of three street bins of one shopping and office complex. Not the biggest one.
            1. ESCANDER
              +3
              4 November 2011 21: 28
              gAMauzer
              No, of course, all the more so since Sarkozy has already taken Napoleon's vacancy.
              And by three bags of empty containers you should not judge everyone without exception, I have 2 alcoholics living in my porch and this is enough to spoil the whole territory and as a janitor you might think that the whole house is drinking.
          2. snek
            +7
            4 November 2011 19: 24
            Want to restore the EMPIRE? Easy! I can even suggest a recipe. It’s just that the entire population should stop drinking, smoking, consuming drugs, taking / giving bribes (and generally violate the laws), start working 12 hours a day for at least 6 days a week. And so that in all families there were 5-6 children. Well, there is also the restoration of science, education, etc. And somewhere in 15-20 years we will have the most powerful state. As you can see - everything is very simple)
            1. Aleksey42
              +4
              4 November 2011 19: 34
              I agree, but how difficult it is to do such simple things!
            2. 0
              4 November 2011 23: 12
              yeah, and they wouldn’t send the last, or the only children who serve in the army to hot spots, for example, we have an elderly couple living in our neighboring house, they had two sons, one of them was taken to Afghanistan, the second was killed, they didn’t want to let go of the army, they were assured that the latter will not be sent to Afghanistan will serve in the region, persuaded and deceived, after half a year and he was killed in Afghanistan, the result of a clipping and a blow to the gene pool of the country, a couple who grew and put their children on their feet for 20 years, is forced to go to them for the rest of their lives graves, and how many of these in Russia, I would understand if China attacked us, or the United States and its allies really have victory or death. And the recipe is that the army should be professional, and physically healthy people who really want to serve should serve in it. and at the end you want to obtain Russian citizenship, serve in the armies a certain number of years (as in ancient Rome) in the event of the death of a soldier, the family automatically receives Ross. citizen and at the expense of drinking smoking my friends and I went to Germany and the United States so the Germans and Americans drink better than our brother.
            3. Mesniy
              0
              5 November 2011 13: 45
              remembered the anecdote of soviet times:
              A hard worker enters the party, (then for statistics they pulled into the party for a percentage):
              they ask him: and if the party demands, can you work honestly, not steal, not filon? - I can, says
              and if the party requires, you can not drink, don’t play cards, don’t fuck women ,? - I can, says
              And if the party requires you can go to war as a volunteer, or work north for free? - I can say
              Well, if the party demands life to give for the cause of Lenin, can you? "Yes, easy! why the hell needs such a life!"
            4. 0
              6 November 2011 17: 51
              It’s easy to say, snek, but in order to create the conditions for such processes to begin in the country, you need a leader of the scale Petra1, Joseph Stalin, or, if you want, Kuzma Minin.
              1. -1
                6 November 2011 18: 02
                I don’t really want a new pet, more myths than truths about him, and he did more than create
              2. snek
                +1
                7 November 2011 05: 35
                Nick, you say "you need a leader", but this very leader is not some magic figure. When a new Stalin or Peter I will come (although I personally have some doubts about the genius of both) and what next? Will the official Pyotr Vasilyevich look at the new leader, listen to his wise speeches and decide that he will no longer take bribes? Will the alcoholic Vasya decide to immediately quit drinking, return to his abandoned wife and children, and start working hard for them and the country? And the girl Yulia will contemptuously walk past the shelves with "yaga" in the store, heading for the dairy department, and firmly decide that she will leave the idler Max and accept the offer of the modest hard worker Peter, to whom she will give birth to a bunch of children? There are no miracles. And they hope for the arrival of some kind of leader who, with his unbending will and genius of mind, will raise Russia, is silly.
                You just have to work well, yourself do not give in to bad habits, and also teach children ... in short, a lot of things are needed.
                1. +1
                  7 November 2011 22: 55
                  Dear snek, The Leader must CREATE THE CONDITIONS in the country such that the official ceases to extort bribes, Uncle Vasya stops drinking and begins to work hard for the benefit of the family and the country. The key idea here is a leader who can create such conditions in the country. It just won't work.
                  Example: the "maternity capital" was introduced, the birth rate in the country began to rise, not many times, of course, but the trend is being traced.
                  Why does Uncle Vasya drink? Maybe he lost his job? It is necessary to invest budget money in the construction of modern production facilities, and not stabilization funds, then Uncle Vasya will have a job and if a NORMAL salary is paid for it, then the majority of "Uncle Vasya" will get stuck and start to work hard for the good of the Motherland and their family, of course. And those who thump due to illness, those who are forcedly (otherwise it will not work with an alcoholic) to be sent to medical and labor dispensaries (LTP), only not of the prison type, as under Soviet rule, namely, medical and labor. And so on, something like that.
                  I recently read somewhere that in the second half of the 40's, Germany (after defeat and devastation) became the most drinking country in the world. In general, the Aryan nations always had problems with the alkagol (take, for example, Finns or Slavs, the same Russians, Ukrainians), but as soon as the economy began to rise, people got jobs and normal wages, alcohol consumption declined sharply, of course, drunk on work is not allowed.
                  Now, regarding Stalin and Peter, I did not say that they are both geniuses, but the scale of the personality of both makes us think so. Peter created from a third-rate country that paid tribute to the Crimean Khan the Great Russian Empire, significantly expanding its borders. He created the conditions for the emergence of a new, powerful economy in the country, and built modern factories for those times. Created a powerful navy and army. And mind you, not for personal gain. He did not spend a lot of money on personal consumption and lived very modestly.
                  The same can be said of Stalin. After death, it turned out that Stalin had nothing but personal belongings. No palaces, no luxury cars, no jewelry, etc. Only a pair of boots, a worn overcoat and a pair of military uniforms, which he wore constantly. Well, the fact that he created in 12 years a great industrial power from a country of artisan industries does not even deny the enemies. The growth rate of the Soviet economy in the 30 years is not even a dream for modern China. According to various estimates, the growth of prom. production ranged from 18 to 22% per year. 9000 factories were built during this period.
                  All this, thanks to the will and organizational talent of the country's leaders.
        2. +2
          4 November 2011 20: 38
          gobble up, sleep, shit ... and you don’t need anything else?
  3. snek
    +1
    4 November 2011 09: 42
    While reading the article, the image presented itself: Putin is walking in white robes and here Obama comes out of the shadows and says: Some to the dark side!
    But in general: "the empire of good", "the hype of evil", "opposition to the world's evil" ... Buratino and the scarlet flower are missing. There is no good or evil in politics, especially in international politics. There is power, as well as the ability and desire to use it.
    And the empire (in the article, by these words is understood as something like a superpower, as I understand it) we no longer be. Here the question is not whether we want it or not, there is a purely demographic calculation - the population is too small. If you really, really try to defeat corruption more or less, reduce the number of alcoholics and drug addicts, etc., then maybe Elsi is very lucky, Russia will remain a fairly strong country - this is a maximum task.
    1. Russian Man
      -11
      4 November 2011 12: 51
      subscribe.
      1. ESCANDER
        +7
        4 November 2011 18: 04
        I do not subscribe.
        1. Ivan35
          +11
          4 November 2011 18: 22
          I, too, will not subscribe to such a task. The maximum is a great empire -
          minimum Eurasian Union - already half completed - two years and will be
          1. zczczc
            +5
            5 November 2011 06: 20
            Ivan35, and what is the difference? The Eurasian Union is not limited to 3-4 countries, you can at least Mongolia, even include Poland (if they go).
            1. Ivan35
              +4
              6 November 2011 15: 26
              Hi zczczc! Sorry for the late reply - did not see the comment

              By the Eurasian Union, I did not mean the possible future formation that is being discussed in the future with Mongolia and even possibly Iran - no, I mean the minimal revival of our country right here and now as part of Belarus of Russia and Kazakhstan

              Indeed, other countries are not going to go there yet - in reality, since 2012, from January 1, only 3 of our republics have been united in the CES. And so I think that in a year or two the proud name of the Eurasian Union will have more than a modest content - again, the confederation of all the same 3 republics with the hope of reunification with Ukraine
      2. Mesniy
        0
        5 November 2011 13: 48
        subscribe, but hard to believe
  4. lightforcer
    +3
    4 November 2011 10: 09
    They diligently prove that they are “for democracy”, “against conquest”, “for world peace”. Meanwhile, imperial thinking not only does not contradict these positions, but also fully supports them.

    Caution! Mutually exclusive paragraphs!
  5. ballian
    -8
    4 November 2011 11: 22
    Quote: lightforcer
    according to independent experts, the number of victims among Iraqis for the entire period of American aggression is estimated by numbers from 600 thousand to 1 million people

    Fuck - take some kind of freaks and declare them "independent experts" and now 1 million killed. True, those who like to expose here the numbers of those killed in Iraq are not aware of what is known in Iraq and the United States - the overwhelming number of civilian casualties in Iraq is the result of mutual killings between various religious, political and ethnic groups power)

    About the "voluntariness" of the entry of peoples into Russia, and even "always" - this is generally an anecdote., Not to mention that even formally voluntarily joined Russia, they did it on the condition of recognizing their internal autonomy, which as a result was always forcibly liquidated on a one-sided side of Moscow (like Ukraine, or Bashkiria .....)
    1. ESCANDER
      0
      4 November 2011 18: 12
      ballian
      And how do you understand "Autonomy in the Empire"?
      In Rome, who was autonomous?
      And who of the States?
      1. ballian
        -6
        4 November 2011 18: 55
        What is this about? What do you want to prove - that when agreeing on the entry of certain lands into one state, Russia was not an empire or something else?
        Or automatically complete lack of rights in the incoming land? For example, in the British Empire there were Dominions, which had the highest possible self-sufficiency which is possible.
        The United States is a real federation (rather than a fictitious one like Russia), where powers are differentiated between the centro and the states that have great rights.
        1. Aleksey42
          +4
          4 November 2011 19: 38
          You still say that Russia pursued a policy of genocide, and the lands were never colonized, but were included on equal terms.
          1. Mesniy
            -2
            5 November 2011 13: 49
            yes, something like this in the primer for the underdeveloped and it says
            1. 0
              5 November 2011 15: 34
              did you study in such a primer?
              1. Mesniy
                -3
                6 November 2011 12: 41
                and long ago it was, but I remember on the cover was with a beard, Lenin rattled
                1. +1
                  6 November 2011 15: 32
                  and how old are you?
            2. Aleksey42
              +2
              10 November 2011 08: 19
              They don’t write history books if you don’t know. I live in Kuzbass, relatively recently populated by the Russian population. Something is missing here from the mass graves of Shors and Teleuts (indigenous people), there are centers of their culture, when they enter universities, they have privileges. Even our governor Aman Tuleyev is not Russian by any means. So I ask for an argument on your part.
  6. +3
    4 November 2011 11: 30
    An empire involves possessing something or over someone. Centralization of power. The Union is a voluntary association (today we want, tomorrow we do not want). De facto, the Russian Federation (USSR) has always been an empire (evil or good - anyone like that).
    1. Ivan35
      +3
      4 November 2011 18: 23
      For the inhabitants of the USSR - good

      For pendosov (and all kinds of Saudis, Turks apontsov, etc.) - of course evil
    2. +9
      4 November 2011 20: 43
      In your opinion, the "evil empire" built industrial facilities, hospitals, schools, kindergartens ... What are you talking about? All republics had free education and medicine! Just imagine how you lived on the outskirts of the Russian Empire before the USSR !!! And the level of corruption was hundreds of times lower.
      1. Mesniy
        -2
        5 November 2011 13: 52
        Well, what actually follows from this? In the British Empire, corruption was many times lower, and schools and hospitals for the natives were also built?
    3. zczczc
      +2
      5 November 2011 06: 25
      Andrey77, an empire can be both an association of peer-to-peer (equal) lands under the control of the center, and in a colonial form. In both cases - an empire. Examples:
      - Russian Empire (peer-to-peer)
      - British Empire (colonial)
    4. Mesniy
      -7
      5 November 2011 13: 50
      for all - evil, because when she grunted - no one cried.
      1. +2
        5 November 2011 15: 35
        for yourself please
  7. Max
    Max
    -12
    4 November 2011 13: 48
    * It is necessary to understand and acknowledge that Russia has never built its empire from an aggressive position *

    -No aggression, banal blackmail-ultimatum with oil for Belarusians, and gas for Ukrainians.

    * The peoples that ever entered it simply made their regular civilizational choice, always on a voluntary basis *

    - How can one not make * a legitimate * and * civilized choice * when a neighbor simply strangles and suffocates using economic levers.
    ----------------------------------

    If everything were so fine, as the author writes, people from eastern Germany would not transport their children in luggage racks and boxes to the west. Yes, and Czechs with Balts schyas in convulsions fight at the very word of the USSR. What is it, half of Europe ... As for me, it was to the USA that the whole world stretched and stretches, and voluntarily. And for some reason they are not in a hurry to get down from them quickly as it was in Savdepia.
    The entire USSR was based on 4 words: STALIN, FEAR, RATING, AND SLAVERY without choice and freedom. (by the way in capital letters the USSR also leaves)
    There were undoubtedly good sides, but at what cost this positive was given, it simply depreciates. IMHO.
    1. ESCANDER
      0
      4 November 2011 18: 08
      And this is from corruption - closer to black, or closer to white.
      Nobody spoke about USSR-2.
    2. 0
      5 November 2011 08: 29
      Yeah, but for some reason the citizens of the "Evil Empire" wanted to get to Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, etc. Normal occupiers ...
      1. 0
        5 November 2011 14: 42
        Well, if you came to the United States on a voucher, would you also be an occupier? The key word is "by vouchers".
      2. 0
        6 November 2011 18: 04
        Normal desire. see the world, expand your horizons, buy souvenirs.
        And now, many Russians travel the world. Why so?
    3. Mesniy
      -2
      5 November 2011 13: 52
      that's right
    4. +5
      5 November 2011 15: 40
      Quote: max
      luggage racks and boxes to the west. Yes, and Czechs with Balts schyas in convulsions fight at the very word of the USSR. What is it, half of Europe ... As for me, it was to the USA that the whole world stretched and stretches, and voluntarily. And for some reason they are not in a hurry to get down from them quickly as it was in Savdepia.

      you can give examples in history when they entered into the empire voluntarily, into the Roman Byzantine English, but the Old came to the Russian empire without any blackmail, looking for support and protection, and they were always given both
  8. Andrey2302
    +9
    4 November 2011 15: 15
    What does the USSR and the Russian Empire have to do with it? The USSR was 70 years old, the Empire existed for centuries from Peter 1 to 1917. And what is a banal blackmail-ultimatum with oil for Belarusians and gas for Ukrainians? When Bohdan Khmelnitsky asked for Russia, Ukraine definitely did not need oil and gas :) To live, or rather to survive. Because the "Poles" did not call the Ukrainians except "slaves" and "dogs". So it is with the Belarusians. Mass settlement of Catholicism, attitude to Ukrainians. Are they reaching for the USA? It seems to me that they are not drawn to them, but to their benefits. People who are drawn to the benefits do not care about the country that gives it. Now it is the United States, and tomorrow it will be Russia. Everyone will come back and spit on the USA. Such people are changeable and there is no need to get hung up on them. People who could not achieve something, where they were born, will not be able to in another place. The meaning of the article is that we have a Great History and we need to remember and honor it. And to be empire or not, time will tell.
    1. 0
      5 November 2011 15: 43
      Quote: Andrey2302
      When Bohdan Khmelnitsky asked for Russia, Ukraine definitely did not need oil and gas :) To live, or rather to survive. Because "Poles" did not call Ukrainians except "slaves" and "dogs". So it is with the Belarusians. Mass settlement of Catholicism, attitude to Ukrainians. Are they reaching for the USA?

      truth for the sake of Khmelnitsky was himself a lyah and also that political prostitute
      Well, besides them, there is still a mass of peoples that are not at all related to the Slavs, who voluntarily became part of Russia, before and Siberia they didn’t so much join in blood, wouldn’t they want indigenous horseradish who could join them, there komunyaks almost before the war itself could not establish power
  9. +8
    4 November 2011 17: 16
    Empire is a more or less acceptable term for defining the essence of the state, here many write we are no longer an empire, we will not rise, it would be good to stay strong and strange. Guys, understand the "imperial essence" it is not only in tanks, planes and aircraft carriers. This is primarily the attitude of the population of a certain territory. That is, we consider ourselves a great nation and that means we will tighten the state to this status. We cannot consider ourselves equal to any "banana states", we believe that we can bring a better world order, not only by military force, but also by our culture and moral principles. "Imperial principles" are what makes the people great and the state an empire
    1. snek
      0
      4 November 2011 17: 44
      Nicely said and I would even like to believe ... but it does not work. Everybody kills details. Here this week some representative of the "population of a certain territory", I apologize, gave a shit at the entrance. Yesterday I saw how a 3-4 year old girl tried to lift something from the ground and received a stream of speech from her mother in which the words "bl * db" and "bitch" were far from the harshest. And sometimes you see more than a dozen such moments every day. And after that, phrases like "bring a better world order" or "Imperial principles" sound like an evil irony.
      1. gAMauzer
        +2
        4 November 2011 18: 15
        I do not think that the population of the Austro-Hungarian, former Holy Roman Empire (though!) Felt themselves to be a "great nation". Rather, hated (each other) peoples. But there was an empire.

        This is the question of tanks and aircraft carriers.
        About culture - here snek expressed himself quite definitely.
        1. +2
          4 November 2011 19: 03
          This is not a question of culture, but a question of education. Details may show negative, but the basis remains. By the way, this basis is now being strenuously destroyed by our "sworn friends", I form these mothers. But if they purposefully destroy we can purposefully shape.
        2. +2
          4 November 2011 20: 46
          Do not compare Russia and any other empire. Russia has always brought all the best to peoples who have joined it or have been conquered and pacified.
      2. 0
        4 November 2011 20: 44
        and that’s all the consequences of the collapse and the so-called freedom of speech ...
  10. Ivan35
    +10
    4 November 2011 18: 29
    Russia and the Russian people will not be able to survive "quietly" like Switzerland in Europe. Wrong situation - or we will revive the empire and be strong (and put things in order within the empire - and in the Caucasus as well) - or they will crush us

    Even Putin and Medvedev (I am surprised) talked about this more than once - the conversation is not about living better or developing - the question is about the survival of the Russian world and culture - we won’t be able to rise - they will crush us

    Therefore, the empire must be revived right now and urgently - and all those who harm enemies - whom Stalin would put to the wall - and we, comrades, should at least expose them
  11. Optics
    +2
    4 November 2011 18: 37
    I am for the empire. Only the "Eurasian Union" is not at all a prerequisite for it. As for "strangling neighbors in an economic way" - but what are they doing with neighboring countries in the world today? Either you are the main one, or you are a subordinate and even in one unit (country). if you do not want to be in the empire, you will feed it. A union is a voluntary (?) Association, and the will of the individual is bought by additional financial, raw materials, material resources, i.e. at the expense of other members of the union. And the empire develops at the expense of the entered territories and gives protection to the territories. Yes - based on superiority.
    Now we have f (p) dederation, and how is the GDP distributed? At whose expense do individual republics and subjects feed? They are like helminths spoiling the body of the state, but this is how the current state works ...
    I am for the empire.
  12. wow
    +5
    4 November 2011 22: 13
    We were, we are and we will be an EMPIRE in the best sense of the word, whoever likes it!
  13. +4
    4 November 2011 22: 53
    Ivan35,
    Putin is striving for this. Russia has no choice but to become / be an empire.
    1. Antagonist
      -2
      5 November 2011 15: 21
      Empire - Galactic Level ... smile
  14. +1
    5 November 2011 15: 49
    The only possible form of existence for Russia is the Empire, it is stupid to refer to Europe or the Pindos, as the crap and liberals do, there are no analogues of Russia in the world and it is unlikely to be, with a sin in half, you can pull China by the ears, but with a large number of ethnic groups, they all tried to bring them under a single standard, and the religions inside the country are very similar to them, while Russia, with the dominance of the Slavic population, has always been polyethnic, polycultural and polyconfessional, perhaps this was and is its strength. we can squabble in the insides of families to cows and snot, but when the "precinct" comes, we immediately unite against him
    but to compare Russia with any other country is the same as trying to compare a carpentry workshop with a furniture factory, it seems, but ....
  15. +3
    5 November 2011 17: 02
    An empire ... It is both simple and very difficult to create it ... Like a complex organism, it acts interconnected ... and consists of small parts ... To start creating something Great, you need to create the same great in its small parts ... start with yourself! So you went on the street, someone smokes, someone eats, let's say ice cream, but most (I’ll say not all at once) will throw out the cigarette butt / candy wrapper not even two steps to the trash can !!!! To the question "Why ???" I always get the answer: "So there is a janitor, they pay him money for this !!!" then the question arises! "Why did we stop appreciating other people's work ???" How can you build something Really Great if all parts of it are flawed !!!! and so wherever you look! in whatever sphere you look, it's the same everywhere! Why on the street if a person became ill with his heart and the seizure began, everyone turns away and says that the drunk has already drunk in the morning! and nobody will even help !!! Where did the complicity go? where is mutual aid ??? I understand that now everything is being done to destroy sane people ... and if this happens, then we can only have a slave empire ...
    Therefore, start the construction of the Empire with yourself! Learn to help even strangers !!! Respect other people's work without dividing it according to national aspects! and you will be one of many who will be able to build Our Great Russian Empire !!!!
    1. +1
      5 November 2011 18: 26
      Asmoday, I feel your experiences and support your calls.
    2. Mesniy
      -3
      6 November 2011 21: 53
      and don’t dream, on the territory of Raska there is one law - FWM - wolf to man.
      In the zone since Soviet times - "die you today, and I tomorrow."
  16. Pol
    +6
    6 November 2011 12: 28
    I believe in the greatness of Russia!
    The country that rallied the edge of the Earth
    On so much tidbit, beautiful!
    What are we waiting for Satan’s raid ...

    But we are people! We can do it!
    Mother Russia to raise!
    Yes, out of ruin! But we are People !!!!
    And we can give the homeland ...

    My love and all my courage
    Tolerance, will, and yourself !!!
    And we will not forget our Mother!
    RUSSIA!!! We will save you !!!!

    And you will rise! Sharp! Proudly!
    Lift your head off your knees !!!
    Lift it up! And you can’t lower it,
    Farewell to the captives imposed on us !!!

    And who will raise Mother - Russia?
    Her sons and daughter !!!!
    And let them hope that we will perish ....
    RUSSIA!!! WE SAVE YOU !!!!

    You will rise as a proud giant!
    And in the hands of his children!
    And, you know MOM - we will help !!!
    LET READ YOU - THE FATE OF PEOPLE !!!
  17. enikey
    0
    6 November 2011 14: 24
    It has never been in history for an empire to rejoice
    1. +2
      6 November 2011 15: 30
      Well, you’re wrong, the example was after the collapse of the Russian Empire, the USSR was created, in fact, also an empire, and this is definitely an extension of the Russian Empire, so you never say never
    2. +2
      6 November 2011 18: 09
      Russia will be the first to succeed.
      1. Mesniy
        -6
        6 November 2011 21: 50
        will not, the scoop is nourished, reincarnation is not permissible, it will be necessary - we will fight, we learned from the beginning of the 90s to pull the trigger
  18. Don
    +1
    7 November 2011 17: 04
    I hope we will soon create the Eurasian Union, and then with time the empire.