The controversial bill has been renamed. A few words on a possible law on the Russian nation

Proposal to create a Federal Law on Russian nation“But what is definitely absolutely possible and needs to be implemented - we need to think about it directly and start working on it in practical terms - this is the law on the Russian nation,” said Vladimir Putin, commenting on the corresponding initiative. According to him, such a law could develop into a strategy for the development of national relations in Russia. “Our strategy, which you and I developed together, needs to be transformed – but we just need to work hard on this too,” said the head of state.

In addition, the president supported the idea of ​​holding a Year of Unity of the Russian Nation. “It seems to me that a good event could be with the involvement of everyone who has gathered here today in this room so that we can work together. You just need to choose a year. We already have some plans for the year, we need to ensure that some events do not overlap with others. This could be a very big significant, consolidating event that would affect almost every ethnic group, every people living in Russia,” said the Russian leader.

Putin complained that not everyone still understands what a beautiful country they live in, so for many it would be interesting to get to know the peoples and ethnic groups inhabiting Russia. The full transcript of the meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations can be found.

The author of the idea to create federal law about the Russian nation, who expressed this initiative, V. Putin became the head of the department Russian Academy National economy and civil services (RANEPA), former minister for Nationalities Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailov. He also proposed the name of the law - “On the Russian nation and the management of interethnic relations.” Later, in an interview with TASS, he told the details of his initiative.

According to Mikhailov, the law on the Russian nation and management of interethnic relations will allow top level consolidate the concept of the Russian nation as a “political fellow citizen” and determine the goal of the state’s development. Mikhailov pointed out that in the Constitution of the Russian Federation the concept of “multinational people of the Russian Federation” is not deciphered; everyone interprets it in their own way. "Some people think that this is civic nation, others - that this is a nation of nations, a multi-ethnic people,” he explained. – “At the same time, in the State Strategy approved in 2012 national policy for the period until 2025 there is already such a thing as the Russian nation.” According to Mikhailov, the disadvantage of the strategy is that it is limited by time frames. “I believe that we need to move from strategy to the law on the Russian nation,” Mikhailov said, pointing out that the legislation different countries there is a concept of a nation, “for example, British, American, French.”

The scientist believes that the law will mark a “national line.” “This is a decoding of the concept of “Russian nation” not only as a “civil nation”, but also as special kind civilization. When we say “Russian nation,” this means co-citizenship in a country with clearly defined borders.” According to Mikhailov, the concept of “Russian nation” “does not have any ethnic basis, it is purely political co-citizenship.” "The Russian nation in in this case is a union of all citizens. We connect the civil, political nation with ethnic communities,” he believes.

Expert assessments

Nikolay Starikov:

“Based on the information that was announced in the media on October 31, it is still difficult to talk about the meaning that will be put into the law on the Russian nation. The name is quite broad, so we need to wait for this law to be filled with some meaning. But before we receive this information, some time will pass. Therefore, now I would like to outline my vision of this problem.

At the moment, it is obvious that the severity of interethnic relations has largely subsided - thanks to the situation of unprecedented external pressure on the Russian Federation, economic sanctions, attempts to be drawn into war, which every citizen of Russia feels, regardless of his nationality. As soon as we feel that we are being attacked, we unite. It is very good that we in no way lost this feeling, this opportunity, this ability to unite the citizens of our state after the collapse of the Soviet Union and along the path of so-called reforms. This is the first.

Second. In order to understand how we can develop our state, we must ask ourselves the question: how did it develop? For anyone who studies with an open mind historical facts, it is obvious that Russia is a free union of Eurasian peoples that has developed around the Russian people. It is the three components of this definition that are important: a free union; Eurasian peoples; around the Russian people. This means that the Russian people, of course, are the state-forming people in the Russian Federation. But at the same time, the uniqueness of our state association lies in the fact that not a single non-Russian people (nationality) that is part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union has ever been subjected to any extermination or attempts to deprive them of their national identity. This is a rich mosaic, where each of the parts is equally valuable, and together they make up the palette that is the value of the Russian world. This means that a “nationality” column should appear in the passports of Russian citizens. Even in our Constitution it is written that our people are multinational. This corresponds to what you and I know even without the Constitution. But you and I cannot write and cannot read a person’s nationality in a citizen’s passport. This happened in the Soviet Union. There is nothing to be ashamed of. To those who say that we have interethnic marriages and it will be difficult for someone to determine their nationality, I would like to say that I have not seen a single person who did not know his nationality, even if his parents belong to two different ethnic groups .

Therefore, in my opinion, the legislative initiative that was announced yesterday is an attempt at a new level to begin to designate with terms, to fill with meaning the same concept that once was “multinational Soviet people" It is wrong to say that the Soviet people did not exist. a great victory 1945 was carried out precisely by the great Soviet people.

The overwhelming majority of Soviet people lived together and did not even think about national problems. We were forced to think about this after 1991, when a number of small nations were instilled with the idea of ​​their suppression by the Russians, and many Russians began to acutely feel the infringement of their national identity. In the USSR, all this was overcome. But it is completely unclear on what ideological basis - if in modern Russia there is no announced project for the future - are they going to build a new unity of ethnic groups in the Russian Federation?

After all, the state project, the civilizational project, is built by a community of people called the people. And in order for this nation to take shape, there must be a certain base - a commonality of views, culture, ideology. Today we see attempts to build this state project, stimulating development, filling the Russian World project with a certain meaning. And the complexity of this process lies precisely in the fact that there is no ideological basis. The ideas that Russia should bring to the world have not yet been formulated.

Let's remember our own experience, the Russian Empire was an Orthodox empire that brought certain ideas to the surrounding space. And she carried them quite successfully - just look at geographical map. The Soviet Union also had a super idea that it brought to the surrounding space. But the ideas that Russia should bring to the world today have not been fully formulated. Because the ideas of a market economy, liberal dogmas, human rights, which in no way correlate with the responsibilities of the same person, are absolutely secondary to the same ideas that we, unfortunately, learned from our American and all sorts of other partners.

Therefore, in Astrakhan the correct direction is indicated, but the wheels have not yet been attached to our state car, without which it is very difficult for it to move further. You can, of course, carry it in your arms, but such a path of movement in metaphysical space cannot be distant and successful. That’s why I said that we must now wait, giving the authors of the idea that was expressed yesterday the opportunity to present to the public a little more than the name of the bill in question. Because it can be breakthrough, new and truly lay the foundation of the civilizational idea that our state will bring to the world. But, unfortunately, there is a possibility that this may not happen.

Couldn’t the message from Russia to the rest of the world be precisely our unique Eurasian ability to live without suppressing, the ability to live in the world in the most different ethnic groups and even races - that which unites and Soviet experience, and imperial experience, and medieval, and pre-Christian experience? The ability to live in peace has a name. This is justice. It is justice that has always been inscribed on the banners of Russia. And we must return her name to our modern banners. By the way, this is precisely why Russia is so popular in the world today, our national leader’s rating is so high, because the actions that Russia takes in the foreign policy arena are just. We are on the side of justice. We stand for the preservation of international legislation, for its observance, for the impossibility of the strong arbitrarily robbing, destroying, and bombing the weak. All this causes a serious response in the world, because the lack of justice there is acutely felt. Probably, the highest mission of Russia is to convey the idea of ​​justice to the whole world.

When we act in the way that God’s providence originally laid down in the meaning of existence Russian state, then everything works out great for us, we develop. As soon as we try to play other people's games by someone else's rules, we enter a difficult period in our history. I think every effort should be made to fill this new legislative act sense necessary for the development of the state. We must also remember not only the Russian experience, which is certainly rich, but also the global one. Let's remember how states developed and how they fell into decline.

You don’t have to look far for examples; you can remember Byzantium. When in the Eastern Roman Empire everyone was Roman, when there was a superidea of ​​Orthodoxy, the state developed, grew stronger and not only remained afloat, but existed perfectly for many centuries, unlike the destroyed Western Roman Empire. As soon as interethnic conflicts began, as soon as the Romans began to divide within themselves into Greeks, Armenians, Italics, Syrians, Jews, Slavs, and so on, the state was destroyed, and this had a rather sad effect on almost all the peoples that were part of the then Eastern Roman Empire . We see exactly the same thing in the example of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. As soon as division into national enclaves began, the state collapsed, weakened and disintegrated. Here we can debate for a long time what came first: first the collapse of the state, and then a surge of nationalist sentiments, or vice versa, but for me personally it is obvious that if the historical community “Soviet people” had been as strong in 1985 as in 1945 -m, the state could not disintegrate. Therefore, first they attack ethnic unity, then the destruction of the state inevitably begins.

To summarize, I want to say that the authors of the idea of ​​​​creating a law on the Russian nation understand what happened to Soviet Union. And that is why they are trying today to create a new community, which, of course, exists, but is not yet fully expressed in the senses that are required today. Therefore, we must make every effort to ensure that these meanings appear, and then under our state car we will be able to attach the wheels necessary for its movement forward.”

To strengthen statehood, Russia needs a separate law on the Russian people, protecting Russian citizens regardless of their nationality anywhere globe. The leader of the LDPR stated this Vladimir Zhirinovsky. According to him, it is very important to feel the difference between the formulations “nation” and “people”.

“The definition of Russians specifically as a people is much more important for understanding the significance and greatness of Russia on the world stage. The concept of “people” and the law itself, which concerns every resident of the country, will become the unifying element that the great power so lacked, believes Zhirinovsky, whose words are quoted by the LDPR press service.

"Here we're talking about about one thing: we need a concept that will unite us. This law should apply to all residents of our country; we will not introduce strict limits that we will only protect Russians who live on the territory of our country. We will protect them everywhere,” said the LDPR leader.

According to him, to a certain extent, the law on the Russian people will repeat an already existing idea, born in the Soviet Union. Citizens of the USSR defined themselves as the “Soviet people,” perceiving the idea of ​​community and unity as the main components of a strong state. Now Russia, especially against the backdrop of the constant hysteria of the West, needs such a concept more than ever, Zhirinovsky said.

“We live where we were born. We are the Russian people. It is most important. According to the law on the Russian people, everyone will be able to call themselves whatever they want - Russian or Russian. But everyone will be united by the main concept - the concept of the Russian people, common to all of us,” the LDPR leader emphasized.

According to him, by adopting such a law, the state will clearly demonstrate to the whole world that citizens living on the territory of Russia or beyond its borders who speak Russian are not just people of different nationalities. These are people united by a common idea and understanding its importance for the development and strengthening of the country. That is why the law on the Russian people, proposed by the LDPR, will lead Russia to new level interaction with other countries, Zhirinovsky said.

Let us recall that previously the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin approved the idea of ​​preparing a law on the “Russian nation”. According to expert assessments, some indigenous peoples of Russia may disagree with such a concept, in particular the Russians, whose identity will be eroded and destroyed.

Moscow, Anastasia Smirnova

Moscow. Other news 07.11.16

© 2016, RIA “New Day”

November 4 is the day of the so-called national unity. Probably by this day, the President approved the idea of ​​​​adopting a law on the Russian nation and classified this task as something that absolutely needs to be implemented.

TOLERANCE OR FRIENDSHIP OF PEOPLES?

I don’t presume to judge whether such a law is needed and what should be written in it. But it is absolutely necessary to strengthen and maintain friendly relations between the peoples inhabiting our land. Not all phenomena of life can be regulated by law: some are regulated by morality, everyday customs and habits, some - religious beliefs. Take this global and eternal question- relationships between men and women. Do we need a special law for this? I personally think it’s not necessary, but there may probably be other opinions. The law is not needed, but correct and reasonable education is necessary. The same is true with interethnic relations.

In general, interethnic relations have much in common with relations between men and women. While there were no feminists, men and women considered themselves friends, tried to the best of their ability to please each other, but feminists appeared - and now women immediately felt oppressed and powerless. You see, they are not allowed into some higher positions, they are not allowed to do this and that, for which they must immediately enter into battle with the oppressors. I think the less talk about it, the more sense. Otherwise, people, out of their weakness, like to attribute their own failures to some infernal force: it’s not me who is a fool, but “pigish male chauvinism” is to blame. Something similar exists in relations between peoples.

“As a result, almost 80% of the country’s citizens - I note this with satisfaction - consider relations between people of different nationalities to be friendly or normal,” Putin cited statistics, adding, not without pride, that a few years ago this figure was only 55%.

It seems to me that the Soviet concept of “friendship of peoples” needs to be reintroduced. This is not tolerance, that is, tolerance, but friendship. You can tolerate something disgusting, but you can only be friends with someone you like. Friendship of peoples is mutual interest, curiosity, learning languages. We have vast experience in this matter. In the Soviet Union, the entire atmosphere of life was permeated with the friendship of peoples. The child read (or rather, they read to him) fairy tales of the peoples of the USSR, he looked at the pictures and saw how beautiful the folk clothes were. different nations, they told him where they live and what they do. There was sympathy and interest. It continued at school. The anthologies have always contained a certain number of poems and stories by writers from the republics of the USSR and simply different peoples of our country. The best poets translated them. At VDNKh, the child saw the “Friendship of Peoples” fountain (by the way, very much appreciated by Italian tourists for some reason), and gradually the idea of ​​​​friendship of peoples entered his consciousness. It took special effort to destroy it.

The idea of ​​friendship among peoples lived among ordinary people until the very end of the USSR. I remember well how in the summer of 1991 I was in Azerbaijan on a business trip, and fully experienced this sincere friendship. No one could even imagine that in six months we would become strangers to each other.

WHO IS GUILTY?

This idea was destroyed in the old proven way: weak little man they explained that another nation was to blame for his unsightly life. In general, the easiest way to “buy” a person is to tell him that he, a) deserves more and b) this more was taken away from him by such and such, and if it weren’t for him, wow, how would you live.

These conversations should be resolutely blocked. Is this censorship? Well, yes, she is the one. And without it, governing the state is impossible, no matter what the progressives mutter, who in the overwhelming majority have not even managed a kiosk in an underground passage in their lives.

Under Soviet rule (under Brezhnev), the idea of ​​a new historical community arose - the Soviet people. Good idea, uniting. It seems to me that it should be reintroduced into circulation - in the form of the “Russian people”. It seems to me that there is no need to emphasize the word “multinational”. Yes, the Constitution says “We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation...”. But this doesn’t seem promising to me; on the contrary, we must emphasize unity. It seems to me that we need to talk about the “Russian nation” - about the unity of all the peoples inhabiting Russia. Subsequently, perhaps, instead of “Russian” they will say “Russian”, as ALL subjects of the Russian Tsar were once called, but this is a matter for the future. For now - “Russian nation”. The Russian nation consists of many peoples. We love them, respect them, study their past and present. As, indeed, we study local history, the local history of all the edges and regions of our common country. Why, for example, don’t they broadcast songs of the peoples of Russia on the radio, but always play foreign pop music or whatever it’s called?

What position should you strive for? It seems to me like this. We are all Russian. But everyone has some kind of small homeland. “Small Motherland” - this concept needs to be revived and cultivated. This is the place where you were born, where your ancestors are, your roots, dear graves, etc. Or maybe you were not born there, but the roots are there. And such diversity creates our strength, our beauty, our wealth. It is curious that the famous publicist A. Wasserman calls Odessa his small homeland, and considers himself Russian. This is correct and reasonable.

But to start broadcasting this idea right off the bat (we are all Russian, but everyone has their own small homeland) is, in my opinion, premature. This idea needs to be introduced gradually. The main thing is to understand which direction we are going. We need to learn from our Western “partners” about the gradual introduction of ideas. Imagine, thirty or fifty years ago, someone would have declared in France or Germany that homosexuality is the norm. Look, you could even get a black eye under your eye. And now - nothing, they implemented it. Graduality, steadyness and a firm understanding of which direction we are going - this is how ideas are introduced into the minds.

The idea of ​​friendship between peoples is a living and necessary idea. We need to return to her. But not just return, but adapt it to new reality. And skillfully and steadily broadcast.

WHO ARE THE RUSSIANS?

But the matter does not end there. As soon as they started talking about the law on the Russian nation, supporters of the special protection of the Russian people immediately perked up. He, as many believe, is the most oppressed and powerless, and therefore needs special protection.

So I would like to start by discussing: who are the Russians?

Residents of the Russian Federation? The so-called “Russian-speaking”? Those who are NOT Jews and NOT “chuchiki”? Racially pure Slavs without admixture... by the way, who is admixed? - Finno-Ugric, Mongol-Tatars, and so on, little by little - all sorts of Polovtsians, Pechenegs or “ancient Ukrainians”... In general, it is not easy to establish a criterion.

There are two approaches to establishing belonging to a nation, let’s call it conventionally German and Latin.

Germanic gravitates towards animal science: it is based on race, breed, heredity, anthropological types, reaching to the measurements of the skull... Hitler and his minions did not invent anything - they simply took to the last extreme what was in the air and what the German genius always gravitated towards - to the doctrine of the inequality of peoples. This idea is originally English. As for Nazism, the Englishman will outdo the German in this matter. In the colonies, the British firmly isolated themselves from the local population and treated the colonized peoples like cattle. The French separated much less, and the Portuguese simply mixed together.

All the ideas of Nazism, together with the practice of rationally maintaining the smaller livestock needed by the owners of life - all this was developed and tested by the British in the colonies. The idea expressed by Thatcher in its inescapable simplicity that something like this is not required in Russia large population, is a very Anglo-Saxon idea. The German Nazis differ from the Anglo-Saxon ones only in that the Germans loudly trumpeted this and theorized scientifically. However, let’s leave this fascinating question: it’s off topic today.

The second approach to establishing belonging to a nation is Latin. The French and Italians gravitate towards him. The name, of course, is conditional: this approach is characteristic not only of Latin peoples.

What is this approach? It's simple. The criterion of a nation or race is a sense of self, a cultural tradition - nothing more. (Note for the sake of curiosity: in the Latin tradition, “race” often refers to what we would rather call a language family: Latin, Germanic, Slavic.... By the way, in Romance (Latin) languages, the breed of dogs is also called the word “race”: race in French , raza in Spanish, razza in Italian).

Let's try to understand how the Latin mind perceives race and nation? Let's turn to authoritative primary sources. Here is a venerable author in this sense - Mussolini. The founder of fascism, and fascism, we are taught, is racism. Here's what the founder thought about race:

"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races exist today. Funnily enough, not one of those who proclaimed the “greatness” of the Teutonic race was German. Gobineau was a Frenchman, Huston Chamberlain was an Englishman, Woltmann was a Jew, Lapouge was a Frenchman.” Reasonable, right?

In The Doctrine of Fascism, the official text (it was written for the Italian Encyclopedia), Mussolini formulates:

“A nation is not a race, or a specific geographical locality, but a group lasting in history, that is, a multitude united by one idea, which is the will to existence and domination, that is, self-consciousness, and therefore personality.” (The translation is clumsy, but the meaning is clear).

A SENSE OF COMMON DESTINY

That is, the criterion of a nation is subjective and psychological.

As you feel, so it is. It is a sense of shared history and shared culture. Common fate. That is why, despite all the difficulty of “mentally” establishing nationality, it is very easy to establish it “by feeling.” Theoretically it’s not simple, but in practice it’s simpler than steamed turnips. There are a lot of people who confidently and without doubt say about themselves: I am Russian. (Or, respectively, “I am French,” “I am German,” etc.). On what basis? Yes, not at all. Based on feeling. They are Russians, and that’s all. For example, I am like this. Although I have ¼ confirmed Ukrainian blood. Or my husband. Half of him is of Ukrainian blood, and half of the other half is Belarusian. That is, Russian blood, it turns out, is no more than a quarter. And since his surname is characteristic of Poland, then, one might think, he has a Polish one; and since the famous Jewish Pale of Settlement passed through Belarus, maybe the Jewish Pale of Settlement too... And all together - Russian. In the past, there was such a humorous saying in Russia: “Dad is a Turk, mom is a Greek, and I am a Russian person.” Very correct, that's exactly what it is. Or rather, this MAYBE is normal. If a person feels culturally and morally-psychologically Russian, then he is Russian.

Here I would like to remember my Western Ukrainian ancestors. My great-grandfather was from Volyn from the village of Gorodok, and took his wife from near Poltava. My grandmother was born in 1898. was born there. My great-grandfather was an estate manager, a peasant. The landowner noticed that the manager's girl was smart and advised her to study further, after the parochial school, which most people then graduated from. She was sent first to Warsaw to a gymnasium (Warsaw was psychologically the closest Big city for the then Volyn), and then to Moscow, where she graduated from high school. Then I entered the Besstuzhev courses, which I did not have time to complete: the revolution got in the way. So, I remember, at the end of my grandmother’s life, my friends sometimes asked her: “Lukia Grigorievna, are you Ukrainian by nationality?” To this, my grandmother invariably answered: “Girls, there is no such nationality - Ukrainian. The Bolsheviks invented this. We are all Russian. Only some are Great Russians, others are Little Russians, and some are Belarusians. And together they are all Russians.” My ancestors spoke Polish better than Russian (my great-grandmother did not really learn to speak Russian until the end of her days). However, after the revolution they proved their “Russianness” by deeds. Volyn then went to Poland, and they did not want to stay there, and left for central Russia - to Tula. They felt that they would be deprived Orthodox faith, they will spread Catholicism, and so they left. These are the Russian people.

Not only language, not only faith, not both at once, not everyday habits, not culture, but something that cannot be reduced to any of these factors determines national identity. Some feeling, spirit.

SMALL AND BIG HOMELAND

Can there be two or more of these feelings? Is it possible to be Russian and at the same time a Komi-Zyryan or Gorno-Altaian? In my opinion, nothing prevents this. Mountain Altai- this is your small homeland, there are your ancestors, customs, fairy tales, language. But at the same time, you are Russian, the great Russian culture is your culture, and the great Russian people are your people. Moreover, different nationalities were once included in Russia not by force of arms, not conquered, but they themselves joined because they were threatened by other countries and peoples. Remember, from Lermontov, from “Mtsyri”:

About the glory of the past - and about that
How, depressed by my crown,

Such and such a king in such and such a year
He handed over his people to Russia.

AND God's grace got off
To Georgia! - she was blooming
Since then, in the shade of their gardens,

Without fear of enemies
Beyond friendly bayonets.

Russians have never been an oppressor and exploiter for foreigners. He was the elder brother: he himself is undernourished, but I will feed the younger ones.

Abroad, we are all Russians, and this is the natural truth. They don't understand the details. In the same way, in the Trans-Baikal Military District, a guy from Noginsk is called “Muscovite”. At home we can be Bashkirs or Buryats. A nice Buryat couple worked for us. Cultural Russian Muscovites. But they did not want to lose their culture and read Buryat fairy tales to their six-year-old son before bed. And that's great! This is the same “blooming complexity” that Konstantin Leontiev once spoke about. Small and big tongues and cultures are precious colored threads from which the carpet of great Russian culture is woven. But in general we are Russians. Your own dishes, your own songs, fairy tales, customs - all this is beautiful and interesting, all this needs to be encouraged and cultivated. As well as Russian customs, songs and fairy tales. At the school near Moscow where my daughter studied, there was a subject “ folk culture”, which was taught by a great enthusiast of this matter. She taught the children, among other things, how to sculpt with clay, they learned the customs folk rituals...Songs, fairy tales, proverbs - this is the natural “place” where a person’s “small” ethnic identification lives. Speaking Komi, Avar or Ukrainian on topics of everyday life, customs, speaking it in everyday life is normal and wonderful. Talk about the “big” life - about politics, science, technology, common life- artificial and unproductive. Yes, in fact, this is actually what happens.

In the language of the Bolshevik discussions on the national question a century ago, this approach was called “ cultural autonomy" It seems natural and fruitful to me. Stalin, an expert on the national question, called himself a “Russian of Georgian origin.” This formula seems very simple and correct to me. We have a big Motherland: Russia, and according to it we are all Russians. And there is a small homeland that we love and appreciate. But everything has its place. Very simple and fruitful! He does not forget his roots, does not deny, does not overcome, does not cling to something big, powerful and prestigious. It remains what it is, but at the same time retains its living roots. In the end, Bulat Okudzhava (by the way, also Russian of Georgian origin) considered “Arbatism” his nationality. And Arbat, by the way, is a Turkic word, from the Horde, no less.

I was in Kyiv three years ago. I noticed a curious circumstance: all the inscriptions and advertisements are in Ukrainian. But the announcements that citizens themselves write on a printer or by hand are entirely in Russian. Near the Universitet metro station there are many advertisements offering diplomas, drawings, coursework - ALL of them in Russian. Maybe something has changed now...

In general, our Ukrainian brothers prefer to talk about serious things in Russian. Here is the famous video of Yulia Tymoshenko, where she proposes to kill Muscovites atomic bomb. Everyone clucks around this very bomb and does not notice the most interesting thing: they speak in RUSSIAN! Both interlocutors are Ukrainians, they speak among themselves, without the need to be understood by anyone else (in this case, it would be better to speak directly in English, as Saakashvili once did), and these national figures communicate in Russian language.

A very revered philologist and philosopher of the 19th century, Afanasy (sorry, Opanas) Potebnya, a true crest, Little Russian landowner, folklorist, true collector of Ukrainian folk art, said that writing about science in Ukrainian is like carrying firewood to the forest. This is an empty matter, unnecessary. It’s funny that a long time ago, back in the 80s, I happened to buy in Kyiv a collection of philological articles dedicated to Potebnya on the occasion of some anniversary, the so-called. "Potebnyansky reading". So there, almost all modern articles were in Ukrainian and Belarusian, only Potebnya himself was in Russian. And no one noticed the humor of the situation.

In the USSR, ethnic self-expression was not only not hindered, but on the contrary, this side of life was emphasized. Alphabets were created for unwritten languages, and children were forced to learn literature in this language. My Soviet Ukrainian friends preferred to send their children to Russian schools: they taught Ukrainian, but studied subjects in Russian. What about Ukraine? It was the same story in the Baltic states.

Where did this come from? After and during the revolution, the new government did not feel confident enough and tried to rely on any movements and popular feelings. So they tried to please the nationalists by proclaiming the notorious “right of nations to self-determination.”

After the war, it probably could have been done single state. (I don’t say “unitary” on purpose, because I don’t want to go into details). But either they didn’t get around to it, or it wasn’t easy to do. After the war, Stalin was in fact an autocratic monarch, but an autocratic monarch can only do so much. Only someone who has never led any organization imagines that the top person can do everything. Not everyone! And the larger and more complex the organization, the more the first person, as they say nowadays, has a corridor of opportunities.

It seems to me that Russia has not yet spoken its word in history. And if she is destined to say it, then it will be best to do it with that simple and natural approach to the national question, which I tried to outline above with cursory strokes.

The Council on Interethnic Relations discussed, among other things, the development of the so-called “law on the Russian nation.” Russian President Vladimir Putin gave corresponding instructions.

The order itself sounds cautious, and this is correct, since we are talking about extremely complex matter. The assertive comments of the author of this initiative, head of the RANEPA department Vyacheslav Mikhailov, that appeared on the Internet, however, alarmed me. It is clear that since he voiced such an initiative, his personal vision of this problem should be completely clear. But he speaks as if the fact that he was appointed head of the relevant expert group automatically means that this particular vision should prevail. I don’t think that would be good for the business, and here’s why.

In my time famous historian, student of Lev Gumilyov and simply a wise man Vladimir Makhnach said that one of the key mistakes of the communists in the USSR was a superficial attitude towards national politics. He consistently criticized the Soviet leadership for neglecting the enormous heritage of Russian thought in the field of national identity, and insisted on respect for the people's principles.

He considered the formula “a new multinational community - the Soviet people” to be the quintessence of amateurism in the field of science about ethnic groups, emphasizing that the correct formulation from a scientific point of view would be “a multinational (multi-ethnic) community - Soviet nation"and she would put a lot of things in their place.

The Soviet nation existed at least since 1941, and with all the recognition greatest contribution in the victory of the Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kazakh and any other people of the USSR, won the Great Patriotic War exactly she. It would be strange, however, to consider that it was not a socio-political, but an ethnic community.

By the 1980s, the foundations of this nation were significantly undermined as a result of external influences and internal decay, and it was unable to maintain the unity of the country. In turn, the Russian people, as a community at the same time ethnic and cultural-historical, were not endowed with the proper status and resources in the USSR to carry out the mission of “holding” throughout the entire country.

There were no unified political nations in any of the newly independent states. Therefore, in all of them there was a potential for interethnic conflicts. Somewhere they found an intermediate solution, somewhere they found no solution at all and, judging by a number of signs, they are unlikely to find one if the political circumstances in general in the territory former USSR will remain unchanged.

Developing the right formula for national unity, based on respect for the identity of all the peoples inhabiting our country, will not be easy.

Here, first of all, it is necessary to overcome the narrow understanding of nationalism, which transforms it into chauvinism and ethno-radicalism. But we must also overcome the primitively understood internationalism, whose supporters reduce the essence of this concept to a prefix, forgetting that the main meaning of any word is concentrated in the root.

Without love for your people, without respect for their traditions, there will be no love for other peoples inhabiting your country, no respect for their traditions. Accordingly, there will be no sincere love for the country as a whole, respect for the political nation as a community of citizens of one state, but children of different nations. National identity and patriotism are not contradictory, but complementary phenomena.

During the existence of our country in the form of the USSR, the emphasis was on the socio-political basis of national unity. Complete denationalization, however, did not happen, and could not have happened, since ethnicity is not so much a cultural-historical and social category as a natural one.

There are, of course, among Russian citizens those who are for last decades under the influence of globalist ideas, he isolated himself from his ethnicity, but such people are in the minority. People always have a desire to maintain the unshakable foundations of their existence, and national self-awareness and paternal tradition are one of the most important in this regard.

So, national unity in our country, as I see it, is already being formed and will continue to be formed in a multi-stage manner, that is, not by uniting individual representatives of the various peoples inhabiting it into some kind of non-national community (such a community would be a chimera), but on an interethnic basis.

All ethnic groups in our country are equal, and it would be inappropriate to talk about any special position or special privileges for one of them. At the same time, due to objective reasons, some ethnic groups are endowed with special responsibility. Here I do not mean the desire to take on this responsibility - many can and should want to do this - but the ability to carry out this responsibility on a national scale.

I see the Russian people in this capacity as a “core ethnic group” (the definition was taken from the book by Vladimir Makhnach and Sergei Elishev “Politics. Basic Concepts”). And I stand on this position not because I am Russian myself, but simply by objectively taking in both the centuries-old history of our country and its modernity.

In saying this, I want to emphasize once again: the conversation about the “core ethnic group” is not a conversation about special rights and a special position in common system, but about special responsibilities, about cultural and historical duty, if you like.

Evaluating from the point of view of what has been said new initiative in the field of national policy, its the positive side I will say that the question of developing a law was not raised" Russian people". As a Russian person, I would never agree with this. Russian and Russian are simply different categories, you can’t replace one with the other, just as you can’t replace the Russian language with the “Russian” language. By the way, Mikhail Lomonosov tried to do this together with Ekaterina II, and during the period of the most active imperial construction, but they did not succeed. The history of the long-suffering 20th century clearly shows: the less Russian there was in the Russian population, the closer we stood to the edge of the cultural and historical abyss.

In principle, it would be correct to make a new approach to improving the strategy and legislative framework state national policy.

At the same time, some comments made following the Council meeting are alarming. Among them I include, for example, the idea of ​​“the need to close the unity of civil-political and ethnic nations” and thereby “reach the level of the European legal field,” as well as the thesis about the possibility of “managing interethnic relations.”

And, of course, as is clear from what I said above, I categorically cannot agree with the interpretation of the concept of “Russian nation” as an ethnic concept. It needs to be considered purely in the civil-political and cultural-historical planes. Otherwise, the cause of interethnic harmony in our country will be seriously damaged.

Someone may say: “Why is it that a non-specialist undertakes to evaluate such an important legislative initiative”? I will answer. I really don't have a scientific degree.

But, firstly, I have twenty-five years of service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ten of which I was substantively involved in international and interethnic relations in the post-Soviet space, and the subsequent decade of participation in Russian domestic political life taught me a lot. And secondly, I am the future subject of this law. Not an object, I emphasize this again, but a subject. I have to live by it, I have to reap its fruits. Therefore, what he will be like for me, and for all of us, should be not indifferent.

Law on the Russian nation: will the Russian Federation be searched for “ pure Slavs" - publicist

It is clear why this bill will be about the Russian nation, and not about the Russians: Chechens do not consider themselves Russian, neither do Tatars, nor Bashkirs. The law on the Russian nation would blow up Russia. I cannot understand why this law on the Russian nation is needed. Because in the best case, it will not make things worse, that is, it will not create new national tension. But why do something that, in extreme cases, will not make things worse, I don’t understand.

However, against the backdrop of other meaningless matters with which the authorities are trying to distract society, this fits into the context of such a game, a general imitation, when the Russian leadership is engaged in some kind of nonsense. Either Syria, then, no offense to you, Ukraine, the “Donetsk Republic”, then endless butts with America... It all looks like a constant desire to distract people from the real pressing problems, very simple and very unpleasant. The problem of Russia is not what its inhabitants are called, but that their standard of living is falling, that housing and communal services are expensive... Instead, they are engaged in either foreign affairs, or PR, or wars for history, or inventing some kind of laws about the Russian nation .

Ukraine, Belarus or Kazakhstan have nothing to do with it - we are talking about the Russian nation. Naturally, this is a purely internal law. Firstly, when Putin said that the Ukrainian people do not exist, he, of course, said that Ukrainians belong to the Russian people, in the context of a sentimental Slavic-Russian brotherhood. Secondly, these are just words, just PR. Because passing a law, a legally binding document, according to which people would be divided according to ethnicity is 100% Nazism. Moreover, in this case I use “Nazism” not as a curse or accusation, but simply as a legal statement. Because if this is the law, and not a shout at a pre-election or some other meeting, then it is necessary to introduce criteria for what “Russian”, “Slavs”, “brotherhood” are. You need to buy calipers, measure skulls... Now, however, genetic analysis is enough.

That is, the law on the Russian nation would be one hundred percent Nazi law. Since Putin absolutely does not want to fall into the category of Nazis, there is no such law in Russia and cannot be by definition. We can only talk about citizens of the Russian Federation, which has nothing to do with their ethnicity or race. There is no problem of ethnic inequality in Russia; there is no such problem at the state level. There are ethnic prejudices. They were, are and will be. But these are people’s personal prejudices: they can’t stand Caucasians, and there are still plenty of anti-Semites. No law can remove this. De facto, there are now no government restrictions or privileges for small nations in Russia.

There are quite noisy Russian nationalists - Nazis, simply put. Again, not in terms of swearing, but in terms of statements. Those who believe that the citizens of the country are nonsense, but ethnicity is important. But the authorities always treat them condescendingly: they press them individually, separately, work hard, but try not to touch upon the ideology itself, so as not to offend the majority of the population. Naturally, the law on the Russian nation will be extremely unpleasant for these people, and a conflict may occur between nationalists and the government. Nationalists consider Putin their leader in Russia, and they are largely disappointed with him. We are disappointed that the same speech about the Slavs and Russians remained empty words. But since they have no other leader, they treat Putin well.