Without excluding the fact that some of the Russophobes who have multiplied in the last decade and a half of Russian history may immediately grab a red pencil in search of the vulnerabilities of real notes for their ironic exercises, I will immediately say that the author proceeds from an internal, spiritual recognition of the fact of equality of all people. Christianity proceeds from the fact that all people are created by the Lord in His image and likeness. Communist ideology asserted that “man is man’s friend, comrade and brother,” and if an exception was made from this international unity, it was only on social grounds.

The democratic values ​​enshrined in the current Constitution of the Russian Federation also exclude any discrimination against people on the basis of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. . It would seem that on Earth, and in Russia in particular, the philosophy of Leopold the cat has finally triumphed: “Guys, let’s live together!” It would seem, but...

The authorities stubbornly pretend that there is no longer a national question in Russia. The Ministry of National Affairs was liquidated, marks in passports indicating the nationality of Russian citizens were eliminated, and informal but strict censorship was introduced in the media for discussing the national issue. All! We have buried our ostrich's head in the sand and believe that all dangers and worries have disappeared by themselves. But no!

If during the era of Soviet power interethnic problems were largely leveled out by general socio-economic equalization, persistent propaganda of internationalism and the sword of Damocles of the use of violence, then during the period of so-called democratic reforms, with a sharp weakening of the regulatory role of the state, social stratification of society, and the destruction of the usual areas of settlement of nationalities, interethnic the problems have become much more complex. And first of all, the Russian people became the victim of the changes that took place.

Leading Western political scientists have long come to the conclusion that the world is divided into six main civilizations, one of which is the Slavic-Orthodox, the border of which runs, with all its conventions, from the line drawn between Szczecin and Trieste in the West to the shores of the Pacific Ocean in the East. The Russian people played the main role in the historical formation of this civilization. Most experts agree that this particular civilization is now in the most endangered state, that is, it is in danger of extinction, which is primarily due to the crisis situation of the Russian people. For many centuries, Russians were aware of their civilization-forming role and bore on their shoulders the responsibility for the development of a multinational conglomerate of nationalities in conditions of peace and mutual understanding. No claims to national exclusivity! Only the demographic, scientific, technical and resource potential of the Russians allowed them to call themselves the elder brother in a family of equal peoples. The best indicator of that situation is the fact that at the end of the twentieth century there were 74 million mixed marriages, the spouses of which belonged to different nationalities living in the territory of the former USSR.

The West's historical hostility toward Russians is understandable. Catholic Europe is unlikely to forgive the Russians, who in 1612 thwarted its plans for the spiritual development of Russia with the help of the Polish protege of False Dmitry. The French will never forget that it was the Russians who broke the back of Napoleon's great army. The Germans, for all their demonstrated humility, carry in their souls the memory of the Russian capture of Berlin in 1945. But in all these cases, Russia was not the aggressor; it only fought off Western European invasions. The half century after the Second World War, which the West lived in fear of the USSR, in a fear that was largely self-cultivated and self-inflated, did not pass without a trace.

Distrust and fear of Russians have become genetic in the West. Therefore, it is not surprising that M. Thatcher at one time said that there is nothing terrible in the fact that 15 - 20 million Russians will remain on the territory of the former Principality of Moscow to preserve the language and ethnic group. Z. Brzezinski recently published a book in which he defines 2035 as a critical year for the existence of the Russian people.

Western politicians have always calculated that a radical decline in the vitality of the Russian people could be achieved mainly by creating internal conflicts and turmoil in historical Russia. Categories such as “Russia is a prison of nations” or “a colossus with feet of clay” were put into circulation, each time meaning to take advantage of the possibility of inflaming interethnic disagreements.

The Belovezhsky Accords of 1991 became a critical point in the fate of the Russian people, when the Soviet Union was liquidated. Almost overnight, the conditions of the historical existence of Russians radically changed. They suddenly became a divided people. New state borders cut through the body of the Russian nation, 25 percent of which ended up abroad. The political status changed, the Russian instantly turned from an older brother into an “occupier”, into the culprit of all the troubles associated with the Soviet system; repentance and repentance were everywhere demanded of him. The historical homeland, shrunk to the size of the Russian Federation, could not, did not manage, did not want to protect the interests of the Russians who remained abroad. She also did not want to accept them into her fold - who needs the angry, ruined millions of yesterday's fellow citizens?

The Russians themselves, who remained on the other side of the borders, did not have the skills to organize themselves. It never occurred to them that they would have to defend the most basic human and civil rights. As a result, disorderly migration to Russia and a difficult struggle for survival and self-preservation began in new states affected by the virus of national chauvinism of the titular nations.

The living conditions for Russians and in the Russian Federation itself have changed dramatically. They are associated primarily with the process of privatization of state property and natural resources. The personal composition of the privatizers, clan connections and rampant corruption led to the fact that the most law-abiding people of Russia - the Russians - found themselves practically excluded from the process of dividing up state property. Just look at the lists of Russian billionaires to be convinced of this. According to data obtained from unofficial but very competent sources, more than 85 percent of the current owners of large fortunes in Russia are not Russian.

The catastrophic impoverishment of the Russian population led to a decrease in its status among other peoples inhabiting Russia. It turned out to be materially, morally and psychologically crushed by the changes that had taken place, and was not ready for the changes that happened at lightning speed. If in Western Europe or the USA all migrants from abroad who come in search of more attractive living conditions remain on the lowest floor of the social pyramid, then in Russia, on the contrary, the streams of energetic young conquistadors pouring from the CIS countries and national outskirts quickly pushed aside the shy, conscientious Russians in second roles.

One cannot help but see the fact that legally the Russians find themselves in the most disadvantageous position. Almost all peoples have their own homeland in the form of national entities - subjects of the Federation. Almost all of them are called titular nations and, as such, enjoy economic benefits from the exploitation of natural resources on their territories. Some Russians found themselves in the position of a discriminated people. They are being pushed out of government structures, and difficulties are created for them in doing business in national autonomies. This practice is known from Tatarstan to Yakutia. Therefore, V. Zhirinovsky’s shocking calls for the abolition of national autonomies and a return to the system of pre-revolutionary provinces and equal rights for all Russian citizens are supported by a growing number of Russians, as the last Duma elections showed. If we have eliminated the “nationality” column in passports, if we have replaced the word “Russians” with “Russians,” then we must go further - to the elimination of national-territorial borders.

Talk about the demographic trouble in Russia has become ingrained. Until now, the Government has been hesitant to publish the results of the latest population census. Obviously, the responsible guys are “scratching their turnips”, thinking about what can be made public and what should still be hidden. All the partial data that we have allows us to assert that the greatest decline in the country’s population is occurring precisely at the expense of Russians.

They are primarily affected by impoverishment and demoralization, with their derivatives being alcoholism and drug addiction. Regions of Central Russia with a predominantly Russian population are dying out at a progressive rate. Wherever we go, when asked about the ratio of births and deaths, local leaders, with downcast eyes, answer: “The proportions are sad, as a rule, 1 to 3.” The Russian government relies on attracting labor from abroad as the main reserve for maintaining the progressive pace of economic development and does not make any efforts to find solutions to save the Russian people from extinction.

The rural population throughout the world is the bearer and custodian of national identity. Folk music, folklore, national costume, morals and customs, the very character of the people were born and formed in the countryside, which for centuries was at the same time a source of labor for cities and defenders of the Fatherland. We see that for several generations, state power in Russia has contributed to the destruction of the Russian rural population. It began with a campaign of collectivization and dispossession, continued in the form of exorbitant taxes on every fruit tree in the garden, on every chicken or sheep during the time of Stalin, then took the form of the “liquidation of unpromising villages” under Khrushchev and continues to this day.

Now the matter is silently being carried out towards the liquidation of 15 thousand rural schools under the pretext of their lack of occupancy and unprofitability. Following the children brought by buses to the enlarged settlements, their parents also move there, abandoning villages and villages that have been inhabited for centuries. The Russian land is becoming bare, and along with this process the springs that fed our Slavic-Orthodox civilization are drying up.

The word “Russian” itself is prohibited. It is not used in official government documents, you will not hear it in the media (except in negative combinations such as “Russian fascism”, “Russian mafia”, etc.). It is considered scandalous and indecent to discuss the topic of the death of the Russian people.

Not long ago, Ella Pamfilova, who heads the public commission on human rights under the President of the Russian Federation (with a salary of 40 thousand rubles a month, as she herself said during the recording), and Dmitry Rogozin, one of the leaders of the electoral block "Motherland". Pamfilova naively asked: “I don’t understand what the “Russian question” is and why are you creating problems with your nationalist speeches?” And she, obviously, was not convinced by the answer that now it is the Russian people who are in the position of the most divided, most disadvantaged, most discriminated and morally oppressed people, dying out at a catastrophically fast pace.

Russians do not boast about their past, they only want complete equality so that their children have the right to a future. This is all the more true since it was the Russians who paid the main social price for reforming the country and protecting its integrity. Take a look at the lists of those killed on the Kursk nuclear submarine or at the heroes of the 6th company of the Pskov Parachute Division who fell in the mountains of Chechnya in an unequal battle with bandits, and you will see who else holds Russia, like Atlas, on his shoulders.

In the State Duma of the new convocation, when forming the leadership of the culture committee, a reasonable question was asked at one time: “Do you think it is normal that in Russia the head of the culture committee is I. Kobzon, his deputy is A. Rosenbaum, and the Minister of Culture is M. Shvydkoy ?" There was a painful silence until the presiding officer dismissed the question, deeming it “incorrect.”

But it is considered “correct” when single acts of vandalism are speculatively presented as the approach of a certain era of “Russian fascism,” and some high-ranking government officials even claim that “Russian fascism is worse than German.”

Hitting the national pride of the Russian people in this way is not only mean, but also unsafe. During the Great Patriotic War, it was the Russians who bore the brunt of the war against fascism, for which they deserved the great honor of receiving the famous Stalinist toast at the banquet after the Victory Parade. How can one forget the words of Marshal Kh. Bagramyan (Armenian by nationality), who wrote that he did not dare to introduce units and formations into battle if they were not staffed by more than half Russians. The Russians, together with all the peoples of the then USSR, defended a common home, a common destiny against fascism, and suddenly now they found themselves almost in the position of being suspected or accused of fascism.

It is irritating and painful to attempt to use in anti-Russian propaganda the actions of individual groups of thugs and hooligans to defame an entire great people. A suspicion arises that public manifestations of xenophobia on the part of skinheads, their symbols, appearance, actions are financed and directed by some dark, deeply anti-Russian forces in order to create a negative image of our people and provide a pretext for a slander campaign against them in the press.

Once I happened to see in the Izvestia newspaper a large photo report allegedly taken during tactical exercises in the forests of “militants” - Russian nationalists - in the forests near Moscow. This fake smelled of rotten food a mile away. Theatrically staged mise-en-scène, clearly calibrated photographic angles, well-fed, satisfied faces of the actors and... lousy comments.

Young men supposedly from RNU, who for almost 15 years have been living in some remote dungeon, without exerting any influence on the public life of the country, suddenly at the right moment someone comes to the surface and marches along Beskudnikovsky Boulevard or somewhere else to then, after another wave of hysteria, disappear into oblivion without a trace.

While B. Berezovsky was in charge in Moscow, such pranks were attributed to him; now, apparently, his accomplices are doing this. Everyone remembers the story of the provocative anti-Semitic billboard placed on a highway near Moscow, with a hand grenade attached. The incident led to the lightning-fast adoption of a law on extremism, but for some reason the real organizers and perpetrators of this act were never found.

Terror as a form of struggle against one’s opponents has never been inherent in the Russian people. Terrorism is not a Russian worldview. The vast majority of terrorists in our history were not Russian by nationality. Terrorism is a reaction of a disadvantaged minority, a reaction out of powerlessness, out of a feeling of revenge. Russians have always felt like a strong majority in their country. This philosophy was best expressed by P. Stolypin, who himself became a victim of a terrorist: “They need great upheavals, we need a great Russia.”

The historical uniqueness of Russia lies in the fact that all the peoples living in it took part in its state development. But we must admit that in many respects interethnic relations in Russia are determined by the national well-being of the Russian people - the gatherer of the union of Russian peoples, the creator of a common state, the support of Russian statehood. The historical role of the Russian people is great in the formation and development of a multinational state, and they need the same attention to themselves as other peoples of the Russian Federation. However, we have to admit that by the beginning of the 21st century, the Russian ethnic group had lost its integrity, was in conditions of a catastrophic reduction in numbers, cut into pieces by state borders, and had its rights infringed upon in the foreign ethnic environment of the near abroad.

Tendencies to diminish the importance of the Russian people as a great people, a creative people, began to appear in public opinion. And the current Constitution does not reflect the place and role of the Russian people, the Russian nation in preserving the unity and integrity of the Russian state. This situation, along with the process of “sovereignization” taking place in the national-state and national-territorial formations of Russia, led to the fact that processes began to occur, so to speak, “de-ethnicization” of the Russian people, that is, “washing out” the Russian national and national -cultural potential of these formations. Statements began to appear that national-state and national-territorial entities are not historical areas of settlement and residence of the Russian ethnic group.

The growing internal protest of Russians against their humiliated position has long found its political expression in the cartoonish nationalist rhetoric of the Liberal Democratic Party of V. Zhirinovsky, who proclaimed: “We are for the Russians, we are for the poor,” and as a result received more than 10 percent of the votes in the last elections. The same protest was expressed by almost 10 percent of voters who cast their votes for the Rodina bloc. Did the Kremlin really not see these figures and not hear the dull, growing murmur of the Russians? If not, then the question of a dangerous loss of social sensitivity on the part of the authorities will arise.

The ways for a democratic solution to the problem of the Russian people do not lie in establishing their supremacy in the community of peoples of Russia, but in establishing equality of rights for every people of the Russian Federation, its citizens, regardless of nationality and religious affiliation. In preserving and strengthening the unity and integrity of the Russian Federation, in adopting legislative acts, concluding international treaties that provide a firm guarantee of protecting the interests of compatriots abroad.

The needs and interests of the Russian people must be fully taken into account in federal and regional programs, in the political, economic and cultural life of the republics, autonomous entities, and all subjects of the Russian Federation. Unresolved problems of the Russian ethnic group, no matter how unexpected it may sound, can in turn be a source of ethno-confessional tension.

Nikolai Leonov, "Gudok" April 3, 2004
Lieutenant General, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

The Russian state has historically been formed as a multinational state. At the time of its emergence, covering a small territory in the northeast of the Russian plain (in the 14th – first half of the 16th centuries, the southern border with the Mongol-Tatars passed 80-100 km from Moscow, in the west Smolensk and Kursk were the territory of Lithuania), the Russian state was constantly expanding . The unification of lands east of Moscow took place in the process of struggle against Mongol-Tatar rule. Moscow Rus', liberating itself, liberated other lands from conquerors, which had been inhabited since ancient times by various ethnic groups. As a result of the liberation struggle, the Russian state included many peoples who had long been connected with the Russian people by a common historical development: the peoples of the North and Volga region - part of the Mari, Meshchera, Yugra, Komi (at the end of the 14th century), Pechora, Karelians, Sami, Nenets, Udmurts (at the end of the 15th century).

In the 16th century Bashkirs were annexed to Russia. This happened after the capture of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible. He turned to the peoples enslaved by the Mongol-Tatars with a proposal to accept Russian citizenship. The Bashkirs responded to this proposal in 1552 by turning to the king with a petition. In 1557, after a repeated request, they became part of Russia.

In the middle of the 16th century. The Siberian, Kazan, and Astrakhan khanates that survived the collapse of the Golden Horde disturbed Russia with robberies; invasions did not stop, accompanied by murders and arson. In 1556, the Astrakhan Khanate recognized vassal dependence on the Russian state without resistance. As a result of stubborn struggle, the Kazan Khanate was also annexed to Russia. Thus, the Volga along its entire length - from its source to its mouth - was included in Russia.

In the 16th century Siberia became the sphere of interests of the Moscow state. Its territory was inhabited by peoples who led a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle and professed paganism. There were fragments of the Mongol state that were vast in territory but militarily weak. In 1581, the Cossack squad of Ermak Timofeevich (by modern standards the detachment looked very modest: about 500 Cossacks and about 300 so-called military men) began moving to Siberia. Khan Kuchum, who had been annoying with his devastating raids, was finally defeated in 1598. The peoples and tribes of Western Siberia saw in the Russian state a force capable of protecting them from the nomads of Southern Siberia. In the first half of the 17th century. Russia included the peoples who inhabited Eastern Siberia: Yakuts, Buryats, Khakass, etc. Outlying territories in the south, east and northeast of Siberia became part of Russia in the second half of the 17th century, Kamchatka and the adjacent islands - at the very end XVII - first half of the XVIII century.

In just one century, Russian explorers covered the distance from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean, and Russia very quickly and firmly established itself in a new vast space. The explorers, and then the Russian administration, for the most part, easily established the necessary contacts with the peoples of Siberia and the Far East. That is why resistance to Russian migration was insignificant, and if conflicts arose at first, they were settled quickly and did not have far-reaching consequences. So the well-known expression “conquest of Siberia” is, rather, an emotional image that captures the development of vast expanses and a difficult natural environment, and not the subjugation of the ethnic groups living in these territories.

In the first years of the 17th century. the peaceful process of transition of Kalmyks to Russian citizenship began. The Russian state was interested in protecting its borders from the Crimean Tatars and Turks. In 1655, representatives of the Kalmyks took an oath of allegiance to the Russian government. In 1657 this oath was confirmed. In 1661, citizenship was secured by signatures. The entry of the Kalmyks into Russia was thus based on a written agreement concluded voluntarily, taking into account mutual interests.

In the 17th century Russia included a small part of the North Caucasus and the regions of the Don and Yaitsky Cossack troops.

The formation of the Russian centralized state was important for the peoples of Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, who were guided by Russia in the struggle against foreign enslavers. In 1654, the Great Rada (council) was held in Pereyaslavl, which decided to reunite Left Bank Ukraine with Russia. The Right Bank was reunited later - at the end of the 18th century. But even after this, part of the Ukrainian lands (Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina, Transcarpathia) remained part of the states neighboring Russia.

Moldavia, enslaved by Turkey, also sought help from Russia. In the 17th century Moldovan rulers several times turned to the Russian government with a request to accept Moldova “under the royal hand”, into Russian citizenship. In 1711, Peter I concluded an agreement with the Moldavian ruler Cantemir, which established the Russian protectorate over Moldova.

In the second half of the 17th century. Russia began a grueling struggle with the Lithuanian-Polish state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as Crimea and Turkey in support of the desire of the Belarusian lands and Right-Bank Ukraine for reunification with Russia. Lithuanian-Polish troops fought desperately for Belarusian and Ukrainian lands. At the instigation of Turkey, Crimean troops invaded the territory of Ukraine. Russia has been fighting for the security and strength of its borders for more than a century, simultaneously protecting Belarusian and Ukrainian lands. As a result of this struggle, only on July 3, 1700, the humiliating tribute to the Crimean Khan for Russia was canceled.

Throughout the 18th century. The Russian government is intensifying its policy in the North Caucasus. The Crimean khans, Turkey, Iran, and Russia fought for influence in the North Caucasus. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. some mountain peoples accepted Russian citizenship. Russia included Kabarda, Karachay-Cherkessia and Ossetia. However, in general, the process of annexing the North Caucasus was complex and contradictory, mainly through military methods, and was lengthy.

The Kazakh people, constantly experiencing attacks from their eastern and southern neighbors, sought the protection of Russia. Abdulzhair, who was elected leader at a meeting of three zhuzes, having fought off another invasion from Dzungaria, turned to the Russian government with a request to accept the Kazakhs into Russian citizenship. On October 10, 1731, Abdulzhair and the elders of the Junior Zhuz took the oath to the Russian government. In December of the same year, the Khan of the Middle Zhuz, Semeke, accepted Russian citizenship. In 1740, Khan Abdulmambet and Sultan Ablai took the oath. The senior zhuz, which was under the domination of Dzungaria for a long time, joined Russia in the first half of the 19th century.

The territory of the eastern Baltic changed hands from Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden, and Denmark. Northern War 1700-1721 opened access to the Baltic Sea for Russia and ensured its economic maritime ties with other countries of the world. As a result of victories in the Northern War, Estonia, parts of Latvia and Karelia with Vyborg came under Russian rule. During the Russian-Swedish war of 1808-1809. The Grand Duchy of Finland, which had previously been part of Sweden, was annexed.

As a result of the three divisions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795), carried out by three powers - Russia, Austria and Prussia - Belarus, Right Bank and Western Ukraine (without Lvov), most of Lithuania and Courland were included in the Russian state. Thus, the reunification of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands took place. Sitting in 1814-1815. The Congress of Vienna transferred the Duchy of Warsaw (Kingdom of Poland) to Russia.

In the second half of the 18th century. as a result of the wars with Turkey (1774,1783,1791), Crimea and the northern shores of the Black and Azov Seas were ceded to Russia. According to the 1791 treaty between Russia and Turkey, the territory between the Bug and the Dniester became part of Russia, and as a result of the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812. According to the Treaty of Bucharest, Bessarabia was also liberated from Turkish rule. The annexation of Bessarabia to Russia contributed to the faster development of the economy of this region and the culture of the Moldovan people.

For centuries, Transcaucasia was subjected to destructive wars, seizures and divisions of territory. Thus, feudal Armenia was repeatedly divided by Iran, Byzantium and Turkey, conquered by the Arab Caliphate and Mongol-Tatar hordes. Having lost hope of achieving independence on their own, the Armenian society decided to ask for outside help. Based on this, the Armenian envoy Ori decided to turn to Russia in mid-1701. Peter I did not deny the need for help to Armenia, but Russia’s hands were tied by the war with Sweden. Only after the Russian-Iranian war of 1828-1829. Eastern Armenia joined Russia.

The territory of Azerbaijan was also the scene of numerous bloody wars. It was also at various times under the rule of the Arab Caliphate, Turkey, the Mongol-Tatars, and Iran. In the 18th century Ambassadors were repeatedly sent to St. Petersburg with a request to accept the Azerbaijan Khanate into Russia. The entry of Azerbaijani lands into Russia began in 1801. By the end of 1806, most of the Azerbaijani khanates were annexed.

In 1783, on the basis of the Treaty of Georgievsk, Eastern Georgia formally came under the protection of Russia. This treaty displeased Turkey, and Persia devastated Eastern Georgia and intensified its policy in Transcaucasia. Persian aggression forced Christian peoples to seek protection from Russia. In 1799, Eastern Georgia again turned to Russia for help. By 1810, most of Transcaucasia was included in Russia. Turkey retained the Yerevan and Nakhichevan khanates, as well as Western Georgia.

In 1809, a number of societies in Dagestan voluntarily accepted Russian citizenship. The oath of Russia was re-taken in Ossetia and Ingushetia. The North Caucasus, south of the Kuban and Terek rivers, turned out to be an independent island surrounded by the territory of the Russian state. In 1816, General A.P. Ermolov was appointed governor of the Caucasus, who pursued a policy of strengthening Russia’s position in the Caucasus. During the Caucasian War (1817-1864), the North Caucasus was brought under the control of the tsarist government. As a result of the wars with Persia and Turkey, Western Georgia, the Nakhichevan and Yerevan khanates were annexed.

Since the mid-60s. XIX century Russia began to actively advance in the Central Asian direction. Here, on the basis of the settled population, there were 3 state formations based on the principles of citizenship - the Bukhara Emirate, the Khiva and Kokand Khanates. Annexation of Kazakh lands to Russia in 1846-1854. (Senior Zhuz) caused a military clash with the Kokand Khan, whose army was defeated by the troops of V. A. Perovsky. In 1865, the offensive of Russian troops ended with the capture of Tashkent, which became the center of the newly formed Turkestan Governor-General. In 1868, the Khanate of Kokand and the Emirate of Bukhara recognized their dependence on Russia, and in 1873, the Khanate of Khiva. In 1876, the Kokand Khanate became part of Russia, and Khiva and Bukhara retained their autonomy. The annexation of Central Asia ended in 1885 with the capture of the southernmost fortress - Kushka.

Thus, over three centuries - from the 16th to the 19th centuries. – Russia was formed as a multinational state. In 1721, Peter I was given the title of emperor, and the Russian state became the Russian Empire. However, it did not become a colonial empire: there was no division into the metropolis and colonies. The colonial stage of expansion, characteristic of Western European colonies, aimed at the enslavement and exploitation of other peoples, did not develop in Russia. New lands were included in a single state, and the peoples living in these territories retained their identity, ethnic and religious features.

Russia is a multinational state

History has decreed that the Russian people have always occupied a special position among other peoples. Let me make a reservation right away - in this case we are not talking about
about some kind of exclusivity or God's chosenness. No, recognition of the special place of the Russian people in the history of mankind is only a statement
well-known. And in this short essay I will dwell on just a few points that emphasize and illustrate what was said above.
Russia was, and still is, at the junction of two great civilizations, figuratively called East and West. But never Russian
society was neither only Western nor only Eastern. Of course, Russia perceived, and, it must be said, sensitively perceived, the influence of both
sides. It is not without reason that historians studying the past of our Motherland constantly compare Russia either with European countries or with the eastern powers. AND
in both cases some common features are found. However, Russia has always had its own historical destiny, different from other nations. And this fate, in
in turn, significantly influenced the fate of both western and eastern neighbors.
This influence was reflected primarily in the fact that throughout its centuries-old history Russia served as one of the most important bridges, one of
the main transmission links between Western and Eastern civilizations. It’s not even a matter of trade contacts that took place on Russian territory
between West and East. The main thing is the collision of two different cultures, two different worldviews. And Russia acted in the face of the West
representative of the culture of the East, and before the East - a representative of the culture of the West.
In addition, Russia was not only a bridge, but also a barrier separating East and West and protecting them from disastrous collisions with each other.
friend. Thus, it was Russia that absorbed the great invasion of the East into the West in the form of the Tatar-Mongol hordes, and then for two centuries resisted the Turkish
empires. On the other hand, Russia stopped the Catholic expansion of the West to the East and did not allow crusades to unfold throughout the Eurasian
continent.
The Russian people, in their modern form, were formed over several centuries on the basis of the Slavic tribes that occupied in ancient times
vast territory of Eastern Europe. In their customs, in their economic life, in their spiritual make-up, the Slavs differed from their neighbors
tribes of Western Europe, and from the peoples of the East.
Thus, the territorial community that existed among the Slavs, which arose early and for a much longer time, compared to the West, determined the receptivity
Slavic peoples to external influence (when representatives of other tribes, “strangers”, could calmly settle in Slavic communities). In the same time
the Slavs, purely outwardly accepting “alien” customs and orders, internally retained their originality and over time processed everything foreign in their own way,
making it all Slavic.
The simplest example is associated with the name of the Russian people themselves. The fact is that the word “Russian” is not of Slavic origin at all. This is the title
one of the peoples who lived next to the Slavs and became their princely family. But the “Rus”, although they were the ruling family among the Slavs, in the end
were assimilated by the same Slavs, i.e. absorbed. And, leaving their name to the Slavs, the “Rus” disappeared into historical oblivion.
In the process of formation of the Russian people, a large number of different peoples, including non-Slavic ones, took part, but the Slavic
the component has always remained dominant, cementing the connection of the seemingly incompatible.
All this testifies to the amazing vitality of the Slavic peoples, which determined the originality of the Slavic worldview - much
more optimistic than in the West and East; much more susceptible to influences and at the same time capable of rethinking and original
master any of them.
The difference between Russia and the West and the East was also expressed in the fact that in Rus', from ancient times, a unique form of Christianity developed, and subsequently
received the name Orthodoxy. This was primarily due to the uniqueness of the Slavic worldview. Christianity was introduced to
Rus' did not come out of nowhere - by that time the Slavs had a developed system of pagan beliefs.
And it turned out that Christianity in Rus' coexisted with paganism for quite a long historical period. In pre-Mongol times, it generally developed
dual faith, when paganism and Christianity retained independent, fairly separate spheres. Thus, the main content was preserved
paganism - the deification of nature, and Christianity, essentially, did not extend to this area.
Of course, the Christian church fought against the remnants of paganism, but also adapted to it, just as, for example, it adapted purely Christian
pagan holidays. And some pagan rituals have been performed by the people for centuries, and some of them have survived to this day.
Russia is one of the most multinational states in the world. It is inhabited by over 100 large and small nations, different in origin, language,
culture, peculiarities of life, but closely connected by a common historical destinies. 22 nations, numbering more than 1 million people each, form 96.3%
the entire population of the country. Another 30 nations, numbering from 100 thousand to 1 million people each, together make up 3.4% of the total population. Thus, the share
the remaining several dozen peoples account for only 0.4% of the country's population.
The ethnic composition of the country's population is constantly changing, as evidenced by data on the number of peoples of Russia recorded in censuses
population. During the 1926 census, 194 ethnic units were identified, during the 1959 census - only 109, and in the 1970 census - 104 peoples. IN
The 1979 population census identified the same peoples as in 1970, but the first publication provided data on 101 peoples (in the “other” column
nationalities” includes data on the smallest nations, as well as peoples living mainly outside of Russia). Over the past more than
For a thirty-year period in Russia, processes of ethnic consolidation were rapidly going on - the merging of closely related territorial, tribal and other groups
people into large nationalities and nations. These processes were especially intense in previously socially and economically backward areas.
Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Siberia. And many of the long-established peoples of our country have become more monolithic, the isolation of their individual groups
decreased or disappeared altogether. For example, some groups of Cossacks, Kamchadals and a number of other ethnographic groups by the time the Soviet Union was established
the authorities often did not yet recognize themselves as parts of the Russian people and differed significantly in dialect, culture and way of life from the bulk of Russians. Now
they can only be distinguished with great difficulty even as ethnographic groups. The differences between Boikos, Lemkos, Hutsuls and
other Ukrainians; Latgalians and Latvians themselves. Mishars, Kryashens and Nagaibaks, identified as independent by the 1926 census
peoples, merged with the Tatars, Mingrelians, Svans and Laz - with the Georgians; the Kipchaks, Turks and Kuramins disappeared among the Uzbek people; about 20
small ethnic groups of the Altai-Sayan Highlands united into two larger peoples - Altaians and Khakassians. In this way, characteristic of our country
processes of ethnic consolidation led to a reduction in the total number of peoples.
Russians (in the 19th – early 20th centuries the name Great Russians or Great Russians was also used) are the largest people in Russia, forming more than 85%
population of the country. They are settled throughout the country - from the shores of the Barents, White and other seas of the Arctic Ocean to the coast of the Black and
Caspian Seas; in the west, Russian settlements face the Baltic Sea, in the east – to the Pacific coast. In the areas of their ancestral
settlement (most regions of the European part of Russia) they make up over 95% of the total population.
For many centuries, the Russian people formed the main core of the multinational Russian state. He always played a leading role in
economy and socio-political and cultural life of the country. The highly developed Russian culture had a great influence on the culture of other peoples
countries, Russians helped previously backward peoples raise their material and cultural level. Russian language has become a second language for many peoples
Russia.
By their origin, Russians are related to the East Slavic tribes, which in the second half of the 1st millennium AD. occupied the current
territory of the European part of Russia; A number of non-Slavic peoples of this region also took part in their formation. In the 9th century. in Eastern Europe it has developed
Old Russian state (Kievan Rus); in the 9th–13th centuries. from numerous Slavic tribes a single ancient Russian nation emerged, based on
which, after the collapse of the Old Russian state (beginning of the 12th century), three related nationalities began to form - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.
The Russian people took shape in the 14th – 15th centuries. in the region of Veliky Novgorod and the Volga-Oka interfluve in the process of a fierce struggle against
Tatar-Mongol yoke. From the beginning of the 14th century. Moscow is gradually rising and the population of the northeast and north of Rus' is rallying around it. WITH
With the formation of the Russian unified state, there is a continuous expansion of the ethnic territory of Russians at the expense of the sparsely populated eastern,
northern and southern regions. The borders of the Russian state expanded especially significantly in the 16th – 17th centuries, when Russians began to populate Nizhny Novgorod.
Volga region, Urals, North Caucasus and Siberia. In the XVIII – XIX centuries. the expansion of Russia’s borders was accompanied by the settlement of Russians in the Baltic states,
Black Sea region, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Kazakhstan and the Far East. The Russians came into close contact with the peoples who lived here and influenced them
great influence both economically and culturally, while at the same time perceiving the cultural achievements and economic skills of local ethnic groups.
With the emergence and development of capitalist relations, the Russian people consolidated into a bourgeois nation (XVII - mid-XIX centuries).
The Russians, who settled over a vast territory, as a result of centuries-old historical development and interaction with other peoples,
mid-19th century A number of ethnographic groups emerged. The largest of them are the northern and southern Great Russians, which differ in some features
language (speaking and swearing dialects), culture and way of life. An intermediate position between them is occupied by the Central Russian group, inhabiting the central
regions of Russia - part of the Volga-Oka interfluve (with Moscow) and the Volga region.
In many areas of the country, smaller groups have been preserved, distinguished by certain cultural and everyday specifics: the Pomors of the White coast and
Barents Seas; Pustozers and Ust'tsilema in the lower reaches of the Pechora; Kerzhaks in the forest belt of the Middle Urals; Meshchera in the north of the Ryazan region; Polekhi in
Kaluga-Bryansk-Oryol Polesie; the old-timer population of Siberia and the North (Kolyma residents, Russian Ustinets, Markovites, Kamchadals, etc.),
having adopted many features of the surrounding peoples; Old Believer groups - “Poles” (in Altai), Semeiskie (in Transbaikalia). To ethnographic groups
We can also include various groups of Cossacks who emerged as a military class in the 15th – 17th centuries. in the basins of the Don, Kuban, Terek, Ural rivers, as well as in Siberia.
The non-Slavic peoples of Russia occupy mainly its peripheral territories: the Middle Volga region, part of the northern regions, the Kama region and the south-
western part of the country. Most of these peoples are neighbors of the Eastern Slavs and, thanks to centuries-old cultural communication, have become close to them
according to their economic, cultural and everyday way of life.
The Tatars are the largest people in Russia after the Russians. The ethnonym “Tatars” first appeared in the 6th – 9th centuries. among the Mongol tribes living in the south
east of Baikal. In the XIII – XIV centuries. after the Tatar-Mongol invasions, this name was extended to some peoples that were part of
Golden Horde. In the XV - XVI centuries, during the existence of the Tatar feudal khanates (Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberian, etc.), there was
the formation of separate groups of Tatars - the Middle Volga region and the Urals (Kazan Tatars and Mishars), the Lower Volga region (Astrakhan Tatars), Siberia and
etc. In the 16th – 19th centuries. Tatars were called many Turkic-speaking peoples living on the outskirts of Russia (Azerbaijanis, some peoples of the Volga region, Northern
Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia). Kazan Tatars were the most numerous and socio-economically developed by the end of the 19th century.
formed into a bourgeois nation.
Ukrainians are the third largest people in Russia. Ukrainians, just like Russians and Belarusians, separated from a single ancient Russian nationality,
formed from related East Slavic tribes. As an independent ethnic community, the Ukrainian nationality finally took shape by the 16th century.
V. The center of formation of this nationality was the Dnieper region - the Kiev region, Poltava region and the south of the Chernihiv region. Consolidation and strengthening of the Ukrainian ethnic group
took place in the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian and Hungarian feudal lords, as well as the Turkish-Tatar invaders. Since the 17th century Ukrainian people began
gradually transform into a bourgeois nation; this process intensified after the reunification of Left-Bank Ukraine with Russia in 1654 and especially
after entering in the 90s of the 18th century. into the Russian Right-Bank Ukraine. It ended in the second half of the 19th century. after the abolition of serfdom.
Among Western Ukrainians, ethnographic groups of Lemkos, Boykos, and
or Verkhovinians, and Hutsuls. In Polesie, the Litvins and Poleschuks continue to retain some originality.
Chuvash (self-name – Chavash) are the fourth largest people in Russia. The Chuvash ethnic group emerged in the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD. V
forest-steppe regions of the right bank of the Volga as a result of the mixing of Turkic-speaking Volga-Kama Bulgarians with local Finno-Ugric tribes. Destruction
Volga-Kama Bulgaria by the Tatar-Mongols in the XIII – XIV centuries. caused the resettlement of the Bulgarian Suvars to the right bank of the Volga, which further accelerated the process
Turkization of local tribes. In the second quarter of the 15th century. Chuvash lands were included in the Kazan Khanate. Annexation of Chuvashia to the Russian
state in 1551 contributed to the further ethnic consolidation of the Chuvash people.
According to dialect and some cultural characteristics, the Chuvash are divided into two ethnographic groups: the riding ones, or Viryal (northwestern
Chuvashia) and grassroots, or anatri (northeastern and northern Chuvashia).
Peoples
Number

In thousand people
In % of everything
to the population
Russians
Tatars
Ukrainians
Chuvash
Nationalities
Dagestan
Bashkirs
Mordva
Belarusians
Germans
Chechens
Jews
Udmurts
Mari
Kazakhs
Komi and Komi-
Permians
Armenians
Ossetians
Buryats
Yakuts
Kabardians
Other
Total
113
522
5011
3658
1690
1402
1291
1111
1052
791
712
701
686
600
518
466
365
352
350
327
319
2487,6
137
410
82,6
3,6
2,7
1,2
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,8
0,6
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,4
0,4
0,3
0,3
0,3
0,3
0,2
0,2
1,87
100,0

Introduction

Federal structure and history of a multinational state

Russia is a multinational state

Conclusion

Introduction

The logic of political science, its content, and therefore its specificity in comparison with other social sciences are largely determined by the understanding of politics as a social phenomenon.

The term "politics" (from the Greek word "polis") refers to essentially contested concepts that still cause heated debate. And this is natural. Having appeared more than two thousand years ago, politics has evolved along with the development of society. By giving the rights of citizenship to a new term, Aristotle understood it as a civilized form of community, serving to achieve the “common good” and “happy life.” Since then, the content of the term has received various interpretations, in which, depending on the circumstances, certain properties of politics as a social phenomenon came to the fore. However, despite all the differences in approaches to its definition, politics has essential features that distinguish it from all forms of social interactions.

The totalitarian past and many years of lack of demand for political science in Russia did not allow wide sections of society to competently and meaningfully participate in the formation of democratic institutions of power, revealing their political underdevelopment and naivety. However, as Nobel Prize laureate M. Friedman rightly noted, “... society is what we ourselves make it... The creation of a society that protects and expands the freedom of the human individual, does not allow excessive expansion of the power of the state and is watching. so that the government always remains the servant of the people and does not turn into their master.”

The solution to such a large-scale task largely depends on the formation of a civically mature and politically active personality, capable of living in conditions of freedom and democracy. The creative potential of this type of personality is due to its orientation towards such values ​​of civil culture as rights, freedoms and personal dignity; respect for democratic institutions of government, political tolerance, respect for opposition and dissent; the desire for harmony, the prevention and civilized resolution of conflicts, etc. The assimilation of the norms of democratic culture allows the individual to actually and competently participate in social transformations. And here political science can and should play an invaluable role.

1. Federal structure and history of a multinational state

multinational Russian state

The Russian Federation is a historically multinational country, and, therefore, one of the main tasks of the state structure of Russia has been and remains the arrangement of its peoples within a single state. This problem covers both federalology and ethnopolitical science, as well as a number of other scientific and educational disciplines. It is important for us to substantiate the advantages of a federal state in the arrangement of various peoples, capable of preserving their originality and at the same time ensuring state unity.

Modern Russia is home to about 200 peoples and ethnic groups, different in language, characteristics of their material and spiritual culture, and religious affiliation. Russia is a communal state that has developed over many centuries, consisting of a union of peoples and is the result of the evolution of peoples who have a common history, on the basis of which the solidary socio-political, spiritual and moral qualities of the community are formed, which was formerly called the Soviet people, and now the multinational Russian by the people. At the same time, invariably emphasize the fundamental role of the Russian people in the ethnic, ethnocultural and political formation of Russian statehood, which today represents the result of the historical solidary community of different peoples on the basis of Russian culture while maintaining their originality.

Historical trends in the formation of a multinational Russian state. The process of uniting people and nations was carried out in several ways: on the one hand, Russia, becoming an empire, expanded, annexing new lands and peoples, and, of course, like other colonial empires, sought to assimilate them. However, thanks to the spiritual characteristics, primarily of the Russian and other peoples of the country, it was still possible to preserve the unique diversity of cultures, religions and languages. And most importantly, move along the path of building a solidary community - the multinational people of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the management of the “national outskirts”, even under the conditions of the tsarist autocracy, was carried out to one degree or another taking into account their local and national-ethnic specifics. For example, the Grand Duchy of Finland had a special legal status within Russia and enjoyed broad autonomy. It had its own constitution, approved by the emperor. In the Polish territories that became part of Russia, the Kingdom of Poland was formed, which also had a special status. The Baltic states had the usual administrative-territorial division into provinces without any special interference in socio-ethnic and ethnocultural affairs. At the end of the 18th century. they were united into the Baltic region, which had a special legal status. The Bessarabian region had autonomy status. In Central Asia, the Turkestan region was formed, headed by a governor general. The Emir of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khiva retained the attributes of independent states that were under the protectorate of Russia.

Another trend - harshly aggressive - was partially realized in the North Caucasus, although here everything cannot be reduced to the Caucasian war, as many still do. And long before the war, the peoples of the Caucasus were drawn to Russia and lived quite peacefully with the Russians. Look at the agreement with the Avar Khan in 1588 or with the Chechen communities in 1708. I'm not even talking about Kabarda and Ossetia, Georgia and Armenia. For many Russian people, the Caucasus has become a homeland, a source of inspiration, creativity and knowledge of friendship. The generous spiritual beauty of the peoples of the Caucasus did not leave the great Russian people indifferent, just as the openness of the Russian soul was attractive to the Caucasians. Although the laws and traditions of the time were very strict. And there are plenty of tragedies that happened under various political regimes. And conflicts still break out, which are provoked by various kinds of political provocateurs during the transition period. But over the years, oddly enough, due to the archaic nature of the tsarist political regime, both the level of consideration of ethno-national characteristics and adaptation to each other began to decline; national separatism and national chauvinism, with their aggressive manifestations, began to destroy the unity of Russia.

Unitarization of state construction and management as a factor in creating a revolutionary situation at the beginning of the 20th century. The national-chauvinistic course of tsarism gradually increased. The independence and special status of Finland and Poland were reduced to a minimum, although under the pressure of circumstances some concessions were made on the national issue. “The Russification of the natives was the primary task of the new Caucasian administration, and the school was the best tool” - these were the guidelines of the tsarist administration. Even Georgian and Armenian parochial schools were banned as developing a “spirit of national isolation”1, although they had previously existed. In this regard, tsarism fully prepared the peoples of Russia for a revolutionary rebellion, often leaving no other forms of protecting their national identity for the possibility of its development. The vaunted excessive centralization of the state did not strengthen the Russian state, but prepared it for collapse, although the attitude of ordinary Russian people and part of the progressive intelligentsia towards other peoples of the empire, as well as them towards the Russian people, was historically generally friendly, benevolent, and solidary. As a result, representatives of all nationalities of Russia stood up in the struggle against tsarism, as well as in defense of tsarism. Together with the Russian people, which once again confirms the historical closeness of our peoples, the commonality of their destiny.

Two trends in the state structure of Russia. In the sphere of development of peoples in the Russian state, it is necessary to overcome the dictates of two trends: aggressive national chauvinism, national unitarianism, on the one hand, and national separatism, on the other. These are objective tendencies, however, they are dangerous in their extremes, and not in themselves. The greatest threat to the integrity of the country is posed by national separatism, which boils down to political demands for the secession of individual peoples and subjects of the Federation from the Federation. Let's roughly call this an attempt to destroy the integrity of the Federation on the part of its outskirts. This was clearly demonstrated by the tragic experience of legitimization (primarily by Russia) of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But often this trend intensifies against the backdrop of tightening unitarism, where the possibilities for independent development of territories and peoples are reduced to a minimum. It should be noted that such attempts to destroy the integrity of the Federation come from the center.

To secede from the USSR, as is known, the RSFSR used in the early 90s. experience of “legal aggression”. This was a very dangerous period for Russian statehood, because it marked a break in historical continuity in the state structure of a multinational country, not to mention a violation of the constitutional norm of maintaining integrity, and not simply the collapse of one or another political system. All this should be taken into account when analyzing the processes of the 90s, and not reduced to the ethnic factor. It is also important to realize that the ethno-national factor was largely a cover for specific political projects of struggle and collapse.

There will be a completely viable Federation in Russia, provided that the Constitution of the country is strictly followed from Moscow and further to every village. However, this viability was already adversely affected by the weakening of state power in general, as well as the bipolarity of public opinion, closed in its extremes, and, in addition, a huge number of socio-political organizations (more than 3 thousand), which in their program documents declare the most contradictory and approaches to solving problems of government, and especially the national question, that are contrary to the country’s Constitution. For Russian politicians, the relationship between ethnicity and state is the most incomprehensible and controversial problem with a lot of theses offensive to the united people. Our ethno-national issues are historically overloaded with false prejudices and stereotypes. Steps to practically realize the potential of the Federation in strengthening the integrity of the state are being taken by the new President of Russia V.V. Putin, who is moving to reform federal relations, right down to local self-government. However, instead of democratic, legal mechanisms for implementing this reform, in practice there is often again a bias towards bare administration, unitarism and unification.

The position of modern parties and movements in the state building of modern Russia. Parties and movements of national-patriotic orientation see the federal structure of Russia as a strictly unitary state, emphasizing that only on such a basis can Russia be strengthened as a “great power” (Congress of Russian Communities, LDPR). They believe that the issue of developing and accepting forms of self-determination by the peoples of Russia should be excluded altogether, including from the Constitution. This is a previous attempt to build everyone along the line of strict unitarianism, preventing the principles of democracy from being included in the state structure, which indicates a lack of understanding that we are talking about self-determination and identity, first of all, of the Russian people. In addition, the fate of the Russian nation, concentrated throughout the country in territories and regions, largely depends on the possibilities of both independent and holistic development in a single country in alliance with all the peoples of the Russian Federation. The main prospects for the development of the Russian state and the peoples of Russia depend primarily on the state and prospects for the development of the Russian people.

2. Russia is a multinational state

Lately, life itself has been pushing us to understand many pressing issues of national policy. Raising and discussing them is not easy, but avoiding this means driving the problems deeper and giving rise to relapses of what we have already received in Kondopoga and on Manezhnaya Square in Moscow. Among the priority problems of today, I consider the need for special attention to the development of the Russian people, Russian culture and the Russian language. I am impressed that this topic was clearly stated by Russian President D.A. Medvedev during a recent meeting with leaders of parliamentary parties. This is an important signal. I would like to believe that he will reverse the strange trends in our political life, in particular, the absurd “shyness” in the use of the concepts “Russian”, “Russian people”, “Russian identity”, etc., almost reaching the point of ousting them from political vocabulary. Such a falsely understood tolerance leads to the fact that extremists begin to interpret the “Russian question” in their own way, speculating on it and poisoning the consciousness of young people. And this is not tolerance at all! This is stupidity and misunderstanding of the soul of multinational Russia, its history and modern realities.

We can rightfully say that the words “We, a multinational people,” with which our Constitution begins, were written by History itself. In the same way, the principle of federalism that underlies our statehood, the principles of equal rights of nations and the inadmissibility of interethnic hatred are historically determined. Russia emerged and developed as a multinational state. Otherwise, it could not have developed given the scale of the Eurasian space from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, with the unique ethnic, geographical and natural-climatic diversity that it had to master and unite. It is appropriate to recall the vivid formula of Russian identity, which belongs to Catherine II: “Russia is not a state, Russia is the universe. How many climates there are, how many peoples, how many languages, customs and beliefs!”

Due to such features, the “melting pot” strategies and methods that we know from the history of other countries were completely unsuitable for Russia. We had nothing similar to what, for example, white settlers did with the Indians during the era of the development of North America or what happened during other colonialist epics, when entire ethnic groups disappeared without a trace and were assimilated by a stronger nation. Being part of Russia, not a single people has lost their native language. Moreover, about a hundred peoples and nationalities that did not have a written language acquired it along with national textbooks and schools. Under the hand of Russian statehood, many peoples received such a state-legal status that they could hardly have had under other variants of historical development.

Looking back at history and comprehending the realities of today, we have the right to formulate three important theses.

First. It is the Russians who have always been and are now the core and unifying force of the multinational Russian people. It was on them that the mission of the collector of lands and the main supplier of human resources to fulfill this mission lay and lies. The fact that today more than 80% of the population of Russia are Russians, of course, should be adequately taken into account in the state national policy.

Second. Russian culture should be considered as the foundation of the Russian nation. Any nation entering the space of the Russian “universe” freely develops its national traditions. But at the same time, he has at his disposal the achievements of Russian culture, which he can also consider his own. In this sense, the system-forming role of Russian culture is completely obvious.

And finally, the third. The Russian language is the most important bond of the peoples of Russia, a factor ensuring their unity. And not only because it has state status, but due to the vital needs of the citizens themselves. After all, it is in Russian that millions of Russians of different nationalities communicate on a daily basis. And besides, for many he is also a guide to world culture. You can recall the succinct aphorism of the poet Rasul Gamzatov: “I am without the Russian language, like without wings.” The great Avar knew what he was saying: for him, who wrote poetry in his native language, it was translations into Russian that brought him the widest fame and glory.

Everything that has been said does not mean that we should talk about some kind of national superiority of the Russian people over others or special privileges for them. Moreover, this is not a reason for manifestations of narrow-minded, radical nationalism. “Nationalism is a manifestation of the weakness of a nation, not its strength,” said academician D.S. Likhachev. The greatness of the Russian people lies in the fact that their national character has always been dominated by a respectful, noble attitude towards other peoples, friendliness and the desire to live in harmony with their neighbors, communicating with them on equal terms. A lot here comes from the nature of “Russianness,” which itself had a huge variety of origins. It is enough to read the ancient chronicles to be amazed at the diversity of tribes that Rus' crystallized from. Well, if we take our entire history as a whole, we will find an endless amount of evidence that the “Russian idea” that the philosopher N.A. spoke about. Berdyaev, for centuries has been inextricably linked with the idea of ​​intercultural integration with the peoples of the Caucasus, Volga region, North, Siberia and many others. And it is no coincidence that one of the symbols of the Russian soul has become the great Volga River, which absorbs many other rivers and rivulets and at the same time gives life-giving moisture to everything that is in its area. The historical self-realization of the Russian ethnos, its civilizational power became possible precisely because of this openness and generosity, and not at all because of the desire to withdraw into oneself, to get rid of “alien” influences.

This truth is completely misunderstood by those figures who throw into society the slogan “Russia is only for Russians.” This is not just politicking and provocation. There is dense ignorance and immorality here. The slogan, presented as a defensive one, essentially humiliates the Russian people. Because they are trying to replace the broad Russian consciousness with a narrow ethnic one. The complexes of some downtrodden tribe are being imposed on a great people. If “Russia is only for Russians,” then what should we do with Pushkin and his admixtures of African blood? What to do with Akhmatova, who was Gorenko by birth, and took her pseudonym after the name of a distant Golden Horde ancestor? What to do with the great Orthodox philosopher Florensky if he is Armenian by mother?

Once upon a time, the outstanding scientist Vladimir Dal, who created the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language,” in response to the proposal of the Baltic Germans to self-identify in their community, replied: “I think and speak Russian, which means I belong to Russian culture and the Russian world.” This is a truly high understanding of “Russianness,” which is based not so much on the “call of blood” but on spiritual and civic principles. But if we define “Russianness” only by anthropological characteristics, “purity of race,” then we deprive ourselves of Gogol, Lermontov, Kuprin, Blok, the artists Levitan and Aivazovsky, the commander Bagration, the navigator Bellingshausen. What can I say! Entire noble families with Caucasian or Tatar roots, entire layers of the Russian intelligentsia, according to this flawed logic, would fall out of Russian history. And, unfortunately, such a primitive consciousness manages to be imposed on that part of the youth who, apparently, do not have a strong knowledge of Russian history and culture.

A traditional Russian question arises: what to do? Any national problem requires exceptional balance not only in decisions, but even in the tone of discussions. Therefore, when some politicians reduce everything only to cries about “genocide of the Russian people” or even worse - to rude attacks against specific national republics, similar to what Mr. V.V. recently made. Zhirinovsky, this can only inflame passions and lead the situation to a dead end.

One may disagree with those who believe that the root of evil is allegedly in some “flaws” in our Constitution. They say that all the troubles come from the fact that the Russian people are not called state-forming people. It is not forbidden, of course, to discuss: is there any point in such clarifications or not? But this is hardly the main thing. Doesn’t the very name of the state say enough – “Russian Federation”? Here, the entire dialectic of our statehood is already expressed: the concept of “Federation” reflects its multinational character, and the definition of “Russian” clearly indicates the fundamental, unifying role of the Russian people.

In general, the search for simple and quick solutions to the national question is an unpromising activity. One can be critical, for example, of the shocking calls by the people to abolish national autonomies and replace them with provinces of the pre-revolutionary model. Such crude intrusions into the delicate fabric of the national-state structure can break a lot of wood, but the peoples themselves will not go away, and therefore, the problems of interethnic relations and what gives rise to them will not go away either.

It is important to understand: the very interethnic contradictions and conflicts that we face today are just the tip of the iceberg. And their main, deep-seated reasons lie in the unresolved socio-economic problems, huge social stratification, mass poverty, unemployment, and the lack of life prospects for many people. When a person is humiliated and insulted by the fact of his miserable existence, it is very easy to push him to the idea that someone with a different hair color, eye shape, etc. is supposedly to blame for this. Who mainly went on a rampage at Manezhnaya and during subsequent unauthorized actions? Some seasoned, “ideological” xenophobes? Not at all. These were mainly 14-15 year old teenagers from the outskirts of Moscow and from small towns in the Moscow region, children from not very wealthy families, whose fate, apparently, is not seriously addressed by either parents, schools, local authorities, or the relevant government agencies. working with youth. To see this as just a surge of extremism is wrong. This was undoubtedly a social protest, although expressed in a completely inadequate form. Well, such factors as unprofessionalism and corruption of law enforcement agencies, lack of control over migration processes, etc. also acted as detonators of interethnic hatred.

That is why, when talking about national politics, we should not reduce everything to just a narrow range of issues. We need a broad, large-scale look at it. What is needed is not a search for some miraculous panacea, but systematic, comprehensive and coordinated work. Unfortunately, so far what we pass off as national policy looks more like an imitation. For a long time there was not even a corresponding line in the budget. With difficulty, we finally got it to appear in the 2011 budget. But those 80 million rubles that appear in the “national policy” column are a drop in the ocean. They can provide some support to national cultural centers and hold a number of events. But it is unrealistic to solve the large-scale and complex problems that arise in the sphere of interethnic relations with such a feeble approach. Moreover, all this is entrusted to the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation, which already has many major concerns related to the country’s construction complex, housing and communal services, etc. National policy, it turns out, was initially relegated to some secondary, “optional” position.

Meanwhile, underestimation of national policy negatively affects all peoples and nationalities of Russia - both small and large. Everyone feels this to one degree or another, everyone feels dissatisfaction. For Russians too, this gives rise to misunderstanding, and even a feeling of some kind of systemic injustice. Moreover, there are a number of factors that add nagging severity and anxiety. Let's not forget that the collapse of the USSR hit the Russian people the hardest: millions of compatriots at one point found themselves separated by borders from their historical homeland. We must not forget about the consequences of the “sovereignty parade” of the 90s, when there was a mass exodus of Russians from a number of national republics, and about the demographic “Russian cross” - a bitter symbol indicating that since the beginning of the 90s the mortality curve among the Russian population intersected with the fertility curve and rushed upward from it. Not every nation is able to withstand such blows of fate. The state should really begin to heal all these severe social and psychological traumas, but so far it has been avoiding and avoiding everything.

Unfortunately, quite a significant part of our political and business elite, many officials at the federal and regional levels do not understand the severity of national problems. These figures do not call Russia Russia, but “this country.” They are terribly disconnected from the pressing concerns of ordinary Russians, they think exclusively in terms of macroeconomic indicators, profits, and efficiency. But people turn their nose up at the concepts of “spirit of the people”, “national traditions”, “cultural development”, considering them as something secondary, or even completely unnecessary.

“Great ignorance of Russia among Russia!” - N.V. once exclaimed sadly. Gogol. It seems that if he were alive, he would repeat the same thing, looking at some of the realities of modern life. For example, how indifferent officials are towards the Russian village, seeing it as just one of many sectors of the economy. Hence the cynical views that we allegedly have an excess of rural population. Hence the chronic stinginess in state support measures for agricultural producers, thoughtless cuts in the social sphere, and massive closures of rural schools under the label of “optimization.” There is no understanding that the village is a unique way of life for millions of people, which to this day is the custodian of many original Russian traditions and customs. That this is a protected place from which the springs of our national character flow. If we do not protect all this from degradation, then in the end the roots of our national consciousness will be cut off and we will all begin to turn into Ivans who do not remember kinship.

Let's take our education system. One wonders why the public is forced to fight with officials so that the number of hours for teaching Russian literature and the Russian language is not cut, so that our younger generation leaves school literate and spiritual, and not stupidly memorized answers to Unified State Examination tests. The latest story with the draft educational standards generally looks like the apotheosis of bureaucratic insanity. How could it be possible to think of not including the Russian language (which is the state language!) among the compulsory subjects? This, in my opinion, can only be offered by those who have completely forgotten what country they live in.

An absolutely anti-national and anti-cultural model has emerged today on our television. Here, too, everything is determined by utilitarian logic, narrow economic interest, ratings, and advertising revenue. Do you want to join the famous Russian ballet and opera, and film adaptations of Russian classics? Go to the “Culture” channel - a kind of reservation for the intelligent public. All other channels are busy with something else - incessant “soap operas”, crime series, black stuff, entertainment, “strawberries”. Please note: even Russian folk songs have practically disappeared from mass television and radio broadcasts. Nationless, rootless pop music reigns everywhere.

But in all this there is a double danger. On the one hand, aggressive, corrupting mass culture, replacing true culture, hurts the moral health of Russians. But on the other hand, it also hits those centuries-old ties that connect them with other peoples of Russia. After all, what has the Russian language always brought to non-Russian peoples? Light, goodness, enlightenment. And this was received with gratitude. And what might be the reaction of representatives of, say, Islamic culture to the streams of dirt and immorality pouring from television screens, from the pages of the “yellow press”, from the Internet? At a minimum, this reaction will be a desire to isolate oneself from the evil broadcast in Russian. But something else is also possible - retaliatory aggression towards everything Russian. In this sense, a showman who swears on television, or a “star” who publicly demonstrates his naked charms, are the same provocateurs as a skinhead who tries to beat foreigners. Everything here is interconnected, and this vicious circle must eventually be broken.

The country needs a law “On the Fundamentals of National Policy.” The Federation Council is actively working on a corresponding bill. But the problem is so complex and multifaceted that it is hardly possible to immediately produce a completely finished product. Given the particular importance of the issue, wide public discussion will be required, as was the case with the bills “On Police” and “On Education”.

We need not only to formulate the right ideas and principles, but also to lay down effective mechanisms to ensure that the national factor is taken into account when solving any socio-economic and other problems. And also to create regulators of interethnic relations that would effectively ensure the prevention and resolution of conflict situations, establishing a system of intercultural communications and educating citizens about the traditions and customs of different nationalities living in Russia. In our country, there should still be a special government agency that would be responsible for all these issues. Of course, we do not mean creating another bureaucratic monster that just produces circulars and uses up budget funds. No, we need a truly living, operationally functioning structure that, firstly, would coordinate the activities of all other ministries and departments from the point of view of national policy, and secondly, would develop this very national policy and implement it.

There is no escaping the reality that in a market economy, with democratic freedom of movement, the number of contacts between people of different nationalities increases sharply. In this case, there is no mention of powerful flows of labor migration coming to Russia from abroad: this is a separate topic that requires special discussion. But our internal migration is also increasing. And here you cannot create rigid barriers that would force people to sit in “national apartments”. Yes, we must strive to reduce unemployment in the North Caucasus and other regions so that people have more opportunities to realize themselves in their places of traditional residence. But the market is the market, it will inevitably stimulate internal migration, which means it’s time to learn to extract from it not only the disadvantages, but also the advantages.

In the meantime, too much is happening spontaneously. In traditionally Russian areas, enclaves arise from visitors of other nationalities who, without integrating into local communities, begin to compete for a “place in the sun”, create powerful clan ties among fellow countrymen, finding patrons among local corrupt officials. As a result, this causes acute rejection and irritable “Here we come in large numbers!” among the Russian population. No one really takes into account who, where, where and why “came in large numbers”; no analysis of these processes is carried out, no forecasts are made. There is no systematic work with national diasporas, and the authorities, politicians and the public often undertake the establishment of a constructive interethnic dialogue only occasionally, from one emergency to another. In order to avoid a vacuum in all these issues, we need a kind of “headquarters” that develops national policy and is day-to-day responsible for its implementation.

Conclusion

Today, many people quite often recall the Soviet experience in solving interethnic problems. Some talk with nostalgia about the former “friendship of peoples,” while others, on the contrary, make fun of this. There is no point in making jokes: friendship and the unity of peoples were not a myth. It is enough to remember the history of the Great Patriotic War, look at least at the list of Heroes of the Soviet Union, consisting of representatives of a wide variety of nationalities. We must study and use all the best from the Soviet experience. But, let’s say, the experience of creating a “new type of community - the Soviet people” is hardly suitable. Because it was mainly an ideological project. What was ultimately meant? First you are a communist (Komsomol member, pioneer), and then you are Russian, Bashkir, Ossetian, Chuvash, Yakut, etc.

We live in a democratic state, so we should not invent artificial ideological constructs. But it is, of course, necessary to fill the concept of “multinational Russian people” with real meaning. But this can be done only by finding a verified balance of two equal, interdependent principles - national and civil. There is nothing wrong with people’s national consciousness growing and manifesting. "I am Russian! What a delight! - commander Alexander Suvorov once said. How can such a sincere feeling harm if it is addressed primarily to oneself and is not intended to offend or humiliate anyone? Let a Russian be proud that he is Russian, a Tatar - that he is a Tatar, a Chechen - that he is a Chechen. Another thing is important: that along with this sense of self, another equally significant and strong feeling lives and grows stronger in the souls of people - pride in Russia, in belonging to a unique family of nations, in common history, the values ​​formulated in our Constitution, etc. And in this field it is necessary to concentrate as much as possible the efforts of government bodies, parties, public organizations, schools, families, scientists and cultural figures.

List of sources used

1. Mukhaev R.T. Political science: textbook for students of law and humanities faculties. - M.: PRIOR Publishing House, 2000

National interests: essence, structure, political mechanisms of formation [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: #"justify">. Modern Russia: the problem of tolerance in a multinational state [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: #"justify">. Tavadov G.T. Political science: textbook. - M.: Omega-L Publishing House, 2011

Shtanko M.A. Regional conflicts in the modern world: a textbook. - Tomsk: TPU Publishing House, 2006

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

1st year student 112 gr.

Meshcheryakov Oleg

Moscow, 1998

History has decreed that the Russian people have always occupied a special position among other peoples. Let me make a reservation right away – in this case we are not talking about some kind of exclusivity or God’s chosenness. No, recognition of the special place of the Russian people in the history of mankind is only a statement of what is generally known. And in this short essay I will dwell on just a few points that emphasize and illustrate what was said above.

Russia was, and still is, at the junction of two great civilizations, figuratively called East and West. But Russian society has never been either only Western or only Eastern. Of course, Russia perceived, and, it must be said, sensitively perceived, the influence of both sides. It is not without reason that historians studying the past of our Motherland constantly compare Russia either with European countries or with the eastern powers. And in both cases they find some common features. However, Russia has always had its own historical destiny, different from other nations. And this fate, in turn, significantly influenced the fate of both western and eastern neighbors.

This influence was reflected primarily in the fact that throughout its centuries-old history, Russia served as one of the most important bridges, one of the main transmission links between Western and Eastern civilizations. It’s not even a matter of trade contacts that took place on Russian territory between the West and the East. The main thing is the collision of two different cultures, two different worldviews. And Russia acted before the West as a representative of the culture of the East, and before the East as a representative of the culture of the West.

In addition, Russia was not only a bridge, but also a barrier separating East and West and protecting them from disastrous collisions with each other. Thus, it was Russia that absorbed the great invasion of the East into the West in the form of the Tatar-Mongol hordes, and then resisted the Turkish empire for two centuries. On the other hand, Russia stopped the Catholic expansion of the West to the East and did not allow the crusades to unfold throughout the Eurasian continent.

The Russian people, in their modern form, were formed over several centuries on the basis of Slavic tribes, which in ancient times occupied a vast territory of Eastern Europe. In their customs, in their economic life, in their spiritual make-up, the Slavs differed from their neighboring tribes of Western Europe, and from the peoples of the East.

Thus, the territorial community that arose early and much longer, compared to the West, existed among the Slavs, determined the susceptibility of the Slavic peoples to external influence (when representatives of other tribes, “strangers,” could calmly settle in Slavic communities). At the same time, the Slavs, purely outwardly accepting “alien” customs and orders, internally retained their originality and over time processed everything foreign in their own way, making it all Slavic.

The simplest example is associated with the name of the Russian people themselves. The fact is that the word “Russian” is not of Slavic origin at all. This is the name of one of the peoples who lived next to the Slavs and became their princely family. But the “Rus”, although they were the ruling family among the Slavs, were ultimately assimilated by the same Slavs, i.e. absorbed. And, leaving their name to the Slavs, the “Rus” disappeared into historical oblivion.

In the process of formation of the Russian people, a large number of different peoples, including non-Slavic ones, took part, but the Slavic component always remained dominant, cementing the union of the seemingly incompatible.

All this testifies to the amazing vitality of the Slavic peoples, which determined the originality of the Slavic worldview - much more optimistic than in the West and East; much more susceptible to influences and at the same time capable of rethinking and assimilating any of them in their own way.

The difference between Russia and the West and the East was also expressed in the fact that in Rus', from ancient times, a unique form of Christianity developed, which later received the name Orthodoxy. This was primarily due to the uniqueness of the Slavic worldview. After all, Christianity was not introduced into Rus' out of nowhere - by that time the Slavs had a developed system of pagan beliefs.

And it turned out that Christianity in Rus' coexisted with paganism for quite a long historical period. In pre-Mongol times, dual faith generally developed, when paganism and Christianity retained independent, fairly separate spheres. Thus, the main content of paganism was preserved - the deification of nature, and Christianity, in essence, did not extend to this area.

Of course, the Christian church fought against the remnants of paganism, but also adapted to it, as, for example, it adapted purely Christian holidays to pagan ones. And some pagan rituals have been performed by the people for centuries, and some of them have survived to this day.

Russia is one of the most multinational states in the world. It is inhabited by over 100 large and small nations, different in origin, language, culture, and lifestyle, but closely connected by a common historical destiny. 22 peoples, numbering more than 1 million people each, form 96.3% of the country's total population. Another 30 nations, numbering from 100 thousand to 1 million people each, together make up 3.4% of the total population. Thus, the remaining several dozen peoples account for only 0.4% of the country's population.

The ethnic composition of the country's population is constantly changing, as evidenced by data on the number of peoples of Russia recorded in population censuses. During the 1926 census, 194 ethnic units were identified, during the 1959 census - only 109, and in the 1970 census - 104 peoples. In the 1979 population census, the same peoples were identified as in 1970, but the first publication provided data on 101 peoples (the column “other nationalities” included data on the smallest peoples, as well as peoples living mainly outside Russia)

Over the past more than thirty years, processes of ethnic consolidation have been rapidly progressing in Russia - the merging of closely related territorial, tribal and other groups of people into large nationalities and nations. These processes took place especially intensively in the previously socially and economically backward regions of Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Siberia. And many of the long-established peoples of our country have become more monolithic, the isolation of their individual groups has decreased or disappeared altogether. For example, some groups of Cossacks, Kamchadals and a number of other ethnographic groups at the time of the establishment of Soviet power often did not yet recognize themselves as parts of the Russian people and differed significantly in dialect, culture and way of life from the bulk of Russians. Now it is only with great difficulty that they can be identified even as ethnographic groups. The differences between the Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls and other Ukrainians are also quickly disappearing; Latgalians and Latvians themselves. The Mishars, Kryashens and Nagaibaks, identified as independent peoples by the 1926 census, merged with the Tatars, Mingrelians, Svans and Laz - with the Georgians; the Kipchaks, Turks and Kuramins disappeared among the Uzbek people; about 20 small ethnic groups of the Altai-Sayan Highlands united into two larger peoples - Altaians and Khakassians. In this way, the processes of ethnic consolidation characteristic of our country led to a reduction in the total number of peoples.

Russians (in the 19th – early 20th centuries the name Great Russians or Great Russians was also used) are the largest people in Russia, forming more than 85% of the country’s population. They are settled throughout the country - from the shores of the Barents, White and other seas of the Arctic Ocean to the coasts of the Black and Caspian seas; in the west, Russian settlements face the Baltic Sea, in the east – to the Pacific coast. In the areas of their original settlement (most regions of the European part of Russia) they make up over 95% of the total population.

For many centuries, the Russian people formed the main core of the multinational Russian state. He has always played a leading role in the economy and socio-political and cultural life of the country. The highly developed Russian culture had a great influence on the culture of other peoples of the country; Russians helped previously backward peoples raise their material and cultural level. The Russian language has become a second language for many peoples of Russia.

By their origin, Russians are related to the East Slavic tribes, which in the second half of the 1st millennium AD. occupied the current territory of the European part of Russia; A number of non-Slavic peoples of this region also took part in their formation. In the 9th century. in Eastern Europe, the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus) emerged; in the 9th–13th centuries. From numerous Slavic tribes, a single Old Russian nationality emerged, on the basis of which, after the collapse of the Old Russian state (beginning of the 12th century), three related nationalities began to form - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

The Russian people took shape in the 14th – 15th centuries. in the region of Veliky Novgorod and the Volga-Oka interfluve in the process of a fierce struggle against the Tatar-Mongol yoke. From the beginning of the 14th century. Moscow is gradually rising and the population of the northeast and north of Rus' is rallying around it. With the formation of the Russian unified state, there is a continuous expansion of the ethnic territory of Russians due to the sparsely populated eastern, northern and southern regions. The borders of the Russian state expanded especially significantly in the 16th – 17th centuries, when Russians began to populate the Lower Volga region, the Urals, the North Caucasus and Siberia. In the XVIII – XIX centuries. the expansion of Russia's borders was accompanied by the settlement of Russians in the Baltic states, the Black Sea region, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Kazakhstan and the Far East. The Russians came into close contact with the peoples who lived here, exerted a great influence on them both economically and culturally, while at the same time perceiving the cultural achievements and economic skills of local ethnic groups. With the emergence and development of capitalist relations, the Russian people consolidated into a bourgeois nation (XVII - mid-XIX centuries).