Great Russia and Russia

Toponymy paradoxes

Toponymy (the science of the names of localities and geographical objects) in the part concerning countries is full of paradoxes. "Great Greece" is not in Greece, but in Italy. This was not called Greece, which seized the surrounding lands and grew up on the entire Mediterranean, but only the territory of the Greek eviners (colonists) in Italy. “Great Sweden”, according to the Swedish archaeologist Tour Arne, was in Russia, more precisely, in Rus'. So in 1917 he called his book about the antiquities of the Vikings in Russia. This caused the indignant responses of Soviet scientists: he declared the Russian lands a colony of Sweden! But Arne was neither a fool nor a provocateur. He did not mean the Swedish colonies at all in the sense: the country won by the Vikings of the country, but only: territories inhabited by the Vikings during a variety of penetration - where a military man, where a trade, where under contracts.

Great Russia in the name should be more just Russia. But it is smaller and makes up only part of it. It so happened that when Kievan Rus broke up, its different parts began to receive different names. Great Rus' separated from small Rus', and white Rus' and the now forgotten black (according to the Neman) and Red (Galicia) were also formed, and later the new (Novorossia) joined. The growth of national identity and the struggle for international authority were connected with the transformation of the princely power into Tsarskoye, and this led in the XVI century. The name of the state is not Rus', but Russia (the term was formed in Byzantium under the influence of the biblical references of the people grew). As soon as the Russian lands visited different states, having survived the division, language and culture were also divided, and three East Slavic people formed, who were first called by Russians (solemnly - Rossi), but with clarifications: Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians. Over time, all of them were under the same state power.

Empire and colonial policy

Meanwhile, tsarist Russia, capturing more and more surrounding lands, conquering some, others - adding diplomatic measures, quickly turned into an empire. Part of these designations entered the royal title (under Alexei Mikhailovich - “All -Major and Maly and Bely of Russia Autocrant”). The territory of the Little Russians occupied the outskirts in the Russian Empire and was called Ukraine, respectively. Since the Little Russians have repeatedly claimed national independence and independence, they were often called Ukrainians, and this name, which did not bear a landolative shade, became a self-name (withdrawing a self-name from certain “ukrov”, proclaimed ultra-nationalists, is, of course, a bad joke). Thus, it was emphasized that Little Russians are not Russian, but a special people. For these and for other reasons (the claims of the imperial center to Russify the outskirts, the non-recognition of the Little Russians of the Ukrainians with a separate people) “Russians” became the name of only the Great Russians, and the name “Great Russians” lost its liveliness.

Among the annexed lands were not only the East Slavic, but also the habitat of non -treasured peoples, with alien religions and ways of life. Some of these peoples and countries managed to Russify, baptize and populate at least not completely Russians, others remained special peoples under the Russian authorities. All of them, with rare exceptions (Finns, at times, Poles, part of the Central Asian Khanates) did not receive any autonomy, but dissolved in Russian provinces. The local elite entered the Russian nobility.

From other empires (except, except Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian), Russian was distinguished in that its colonies were territorially adjacent to it, and from both named empires-in that a significant part of the colonies was much lower than the metropolis in the cultural level. This facilitated Russification.

The prerequisites of the collapse

Since the Bolsheviks, struggling for leadership in the revolution, could not rely on a powerful working class (this was not), and the peasantry was largely followed by the Socialist Revolutionaries, for the Bolsheviks there was great importance on the national liberation movement of the outskirts of Russia and various foreigners. The slogan that gave them such a support was the national self -determination of the peoples , that is, the destruction of the empire. Just as they sacrificed the victory in the world war, they put on Kon and the fate of the empire. For themselves, they did not rush from the wars and military victories, or from the expansion of their state. But, having won the civil war on these slogans, they faced the need to somehow fulfill promises. As a result, having gathered under their power the formed independent states (though not all), in 1922, under the guise of the Soviet Union, they restored the empire-with a single army, police, diplomacy, party-state power.

But it was no longer divided on the province - the structure of independent republics and other national formations was preserved in it. Of course, it was committed by fictitious republics, entirely subordinate to the Unified party dictatorship. It was an unconditional empire, but embarrassed by its imperial essence and who was trying to pretend that it was not at all an empire, that it, on the contrary, is a union of free states. Huge funds were allocated for this, national academies, opera theaters, libraries, and museums were built in national alleged-states, parliaments gathered-and all this, by and large, were the scenery, simulacra. But the forms were ready, and at any moment in the case of weakening the central government, they could be filled with real content (which later happened). Thus, the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Empire was laid back in 1922.

The best evidence that all these national academies, theaters and other institutions were fictitious was that in the Central Republic - Russian - such institutions, separate from the central ones, was not created. For what? All their functions were perfectly performed in combination with central institutions. At first, when the struggle against the revolution was still inherited by the Russian Great Power Shovinism, this could be subjected to it, but since the end of the thirties this policy has replaced with emphasis on an increasingly intensive education of patriotic feelings in the Russian people, but Russian institutions did not arise. Patriotic and Russifier Policy conducted central institutions.

In relation to the National Republics, this policy was expressed in the combination and alternation of two opposite trends: one - encouraging the development of national traditions, the other - the fight against separatist temptations. For guarantee, local elites were completely cut and replaced from time to time. Sometimes whole nations were repressed and deported.

The consequences of such a story

The fall of Soviet power meant the destruction of the empire. The weakened empire was going to turn into a loose confederation, but in fear of the Putch of the Derzhimord, the Union republics rushed in all directions, hastened to break off. The empire at once lost its captures in three centuries and brought to the pre -Petrine size. National formations of a lower rank (autonomous republics, regions and regions) remained in Russia, but their autonomy strengthened. Now you have to go to the end and grant them - to give them large subsidies, to play their elite, to provide it with preferences even throughout the empire.

In the actual Russian territories, this causes discontent. Nationalists were added to the opposition forces (democrats, the imperial forces, the conservatives of monarchists with banners, and communal services). Some of them follow the Kilvater for imperials or conservatives-sclericans, or communists, but for the most part they formed an independent mass, focused on the final destruction of the empire and the construction of a separate purely Russian state, putting on the slogans "Enough to feed the Caucasus!" And "Russia for Russians!"

So they recalled that in Russia, which retained the Soviet imperial structure, Russians, now composing more than 80% of the population in it, unlike the former “younger brothers” are not represented in state structures either to their Academy of Sciences, or their national societies and institutions similar to national entities of various autonomous republics. They perceive calls for the friendship of peoples as a relapse of the Bolshevik “international” policy and the oblivion of the national interests of the majority, calls for tolerance - as an indulgence of alien morals and parasitism of foreigners. They with pain experience damage to the health of the people, the depletion of the gene pool, a drop in fertility. They are afraid of influx of uncultured and unskilled migrants that change the appearance of the people. With indignation, they reject the name of citizens of the desired state as “Russians” - this was a designation of all subjects of the empire. They defend their national identity as Russians - in essence, Great Russians.

Government ideologists, apparently, strive to pull out this mass on different political platforms-even more to tie one of them to the imperial-state-sides such as Prokhanov or Zhirinovsky, the other part-to the Orthodox fundamentalists and monarchists A Ly Mikhalkov, to the conservative-intransigal platform, the third-to the communists who have published, which have published. Nationalist phraseology (here the front is wide: from Zyuganov to Udaltsov).

Caution forecasts

It can be expected that supporters of the liberal and democratic platform, focused on global values, to civil rights, will cease to retreat from Russian national problems in the near future and will see many goals in opposition nationalism, common with their own. Signs of this are visible in some shares of Kasparov and Navalny. In fact, both the democratic intelligentsia with its liberal ideas, and the main supporters of the Russian national idea are in an obvious opposition to the current government, also do not want the return of the Communists and are coldly related to socialist utopia.

The realization of the rights of the people to an independent national-state existence and renunciation of colonial ambitions equally satisfy both sides. The health of the people - the fight against alcoholism and drug addiction, a real, and not ostentatious contribution to young working families, is a grateful task for both sides, and for this it is necessary to identify these shortcomings, and not perceive them as Russophobia (which some nationalists sin).

Both sides can come to a consensus about a decisive restriction of illegal and random migration and the formation of enclaves of an alien population - what is fraught with conflicts. Migration should be limited (in order not to compete with its population), normalized, to bring qualified labor and dissipate visitors around the country for the fastest assimilation. The separation of powers and the transfer of control over finances of the regions would solve the problem of regional grievances and conflicts.

I believe that the nationalists have something to think about to attract strength. When discussing the fate of Russia as a state, there are no questions about its composition - there are many Russian areas where other peoples that do not make up the majority live densely. How to be with them? We will have to think through the issue of respect for minorities - and not only national ones. If in the Russian state the path to the heights of all its citizens will be opened and there will be no quotas and percentage norms, then in such a state some other peoples, traditionally cohabiting with the Russians, will also want to be in such a state.

I think that a serious and important conversation will have on the composition of the Russian people. Who is entitled to be considered Russian? In this matter, not all nationalists rely on the measurement of skulls and verification of genes. Many will agree with the liberal understanding that the general historical fate and a sense of solidarity, as well as the language and culture, determine the nation, and in each nation there are people of different ethnic origin.