Why were Russians called Russians? Origin of the Russian people. All-Russian media project "Russian Nation" - all ethnic groups of Russia as inseparable parts of a single Russian nation

According to the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on the strategy of national policy, its main goal is “strengthening the all-Russian civic consciousness and spiritual community of the multinational people of the Russian Federation ( Russian nation)".

The wording “multinational people” is also found in the preamble of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but it does not explain what this concept means. At the same time, similar terms are strictly defined in the constitutions of other countries.

It is known that the authors of the Constitution of the Russian Federation intended to introduce the concept of “Russian nation” into the text, but these attempts were not crowned with success. Meanwhile, this term, found in the presidential decree, requires attention at the highest level - legislative.

“Russian nation” is not a civil-political term, but an ethnic one. Actually, this should be fixed at the constitutional level. However, we cannot immediately propose changes to the text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. An intermediate step is required in the form federal law, which would provide clear legal explanations of what a “Russian nation” is.

As the head of the expert group, I proposed not just a law “On the Russian Nation,” but a law that would correspond to the tasks set in the presidential decree. Title of the law: “On the Russian nation and management of interethnic (interethnic) relations.”

It is extremely important that the concept of “ethnos” appears in it, which does not allow the Russian nation as a civil nation to be separated from the ethnic nation. In this way we close the unity of the civil-political and ethnic nations.

This will allow us to reach the level of the European legal field, where the nation is clearly defined as civil, but at the same time it allows us to preserve the diversity of interethnic relations, which are integral part Russian Federation.

However, the idea of ​​this law was not born today. Similar proposals arose earlier, but they were, as they say, around the bush. Because they defined the nation not through the dual unity of civil and ethnic and did not give a strict normative definition of the concept “Russian nation”. After all, this is a term that, except in the text of the presidential decree, does not appear anywhere at the official level. Yes, and there it is enclosed in parentheses as a note. However, if you take a closer look at the president’s public speeches and his articles, it becomes clear that this issue is extremely important to him.

You need to understand that solving such a problem is not elementary arithmetic. We are talking about solving a complex issue. However, we can already say that, based on existing developments, it is possible to give a strict legal definition to the concept of “Russian nation”.

There is no way around this without explanation.

The Russian people is a political concept, not an ethnic one. This, roughly speaking, is all of us: Tatars, Jews, Russians, Ingush, Chechens, etc. This is us, the Russian people.

The Russian people or Russian nation is already an ethnic concept. However, historically, the concept of “Russian people” was multi-ethnic: it includes Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. In tsarist times, for example, this multitude was divided into Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians, and “Russian” was an exclusively civilian definition.

Later, the division was removed for obvious reasons, but already under Yeltsin, discussions about the need to restore the concept of “Great Russian” revived. Of course, the majority did not agree with this, and “Russian” became part of a pure “ethnic group.” So, Ukrainians no longer call themselves Russians.

Curious, but Ukrainian language"Russian" is translated as "Russian". But in reality, Russian and Russian are not identical concepts. This is difficult for the residents of our many republics to accept. Thus, it was extremely difficult for us to introduce the concept of “Russian nation” into the Strategy.

For example, the Yakuts categorically refused to accept it for this very reason. We went out and talked, trying to reach a consensus. And now, with the adoption of a new law, such discussions, of course, cannot be avoided. The work with the republics remains very serious, but I think that understanding will be found.

The press is already writing that the president approved our law, but this is not entirely true. It’s too early to talk about timing. The Presidential Council was held, following which we expect a direct order from Vladimir Putin in a few days. And after this, an expert group will be formed that will begin work in this direction. I will lead the group.

Then everything is standard: preparation of a bill, its adoption in the State Duma, the Federation Council and signing personally by the president. If the law is successfully passed, it may be followed by corresponding changes to the Constitution. After all, the wording “multinational people” needs to be clarified: behind it is ethnic people Russian Federation, many ethnic groups, not a civil nation.

Why is it important?

It is officially believed that there is no state ideology in Russia, but in reality the state cannot live without ideology. Each political party, as a part of the state, has its own ideology, and the president also has certain ideological guidelines.

The question is different. State ideology cannot be made mandatory. But the state itself must inevitably follow a certain ideological path. And the people who will replace the current government will be able to change the paradigm of this ideology.

Therefore our law has target an installation, as in the USA, which created the state precisely through goal-setting, or even the USSR, which saw its goal as achieving communism. What goal does modern Russia set for itself? What is the goal of a multi-ethnic people? Is he just living?

The goal of our bill is the Russian nation and its unification.

Lermontov is a great Russian poet, but remove “Mtsyri”, “Hero of Our Time” and “Demon” from his work. That's it, Lermontov is gone. And why? Yes, because there is no Caucasus in his work. I think in this example the concept of “Russian” or “Russian nation” is fully revealed.

For many centuries, scientists have been breaking their spears, trying to understand the origin of the Russian people. And if research in the past was based on archaeological and linguistic data, today even geneticists have taken up the matter.

From the Danube

Of all the theories of Russian ethnogenesis, the most famous is the Danube theory. We owe its appearance to the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years”, or rather to the centuries-old love of domestic academics for this source.

The chronicler Nestor defined the initial territory of settlement of the Slavs as the territories along the lower reaches of the Danube and Vistula. The theory about the Danube “ancestral home” of the Slavs was developed by such historians as Sergei Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky believed that the Slavs moved from the Danube to the Carpathian region, where an extensive military alliance of tribes arose led by the Duleb-Volhynian tribe.

From the Carpathian region, according to Klyuchevsky, in the 7th-8th centuries the Eastern Slavs settled to the East and Northeast to Lake Ilmen. The Danube theory of Russian ethnogenesis is still adhered to by many historians and linguists. Huge contribution Russian linguist Oleg Nikolaevich Trubachev contributed to its development at the end of the 20th century.

Yes, we are Scythians!

One of the most vehement opponents of the Norman theory of the formation of Russian statehood, Mikhail Lomonosov, leaned toward the Scythian-Sarmatian theory of Russian ethnogenesis, which he wrote about in his “Ancient Russian History.” According to Lomonosov, the ethnogenesis of the Russians occurred as a result of the mixing of the Slavs and the “Chudi” tribe (Lomonosov’s term is Finno-Ugric), and he named the place of origin of the ethnic history of the Russians between the Vistula and Oder rivers.

Supporters of the Sarmatian theory rely on ancient sources, and Lomonosov did the same. He compared Russian history with the history of the Roman Empire and ancient beliefs with pagan beliefs Eastern Slavs, finding a large number of matches. The ardent struggle with the adherents of the Norman theory is quite understandable: the people-tribe of Rus', according to Lomonosov, could not have originated from Scandinavia under the influence of the expansion of the Norman Vikings. First of all, Lomonosov opposed the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their inability to independently form a state.

Gellenthal's theory

The hypothesis about the origin of Russians, unveiled this year by Oxford scientist Garrett Gellenthal, seems interesting. After spending great job for the study of DNA various peoples, he and a group of scientists compiled a genetic atlas of migration of peoples.
According to the scientist, two significant milestones can be distinguished in the ethnogenesis of the Russian people. In 2054 BC. e., according to Gellenthal, trans-Baltic peoples and peoples from the territories of modern Germany and Poland migrated to the northwestern regions of modern Russia. The second milestone is 1306, when the migration of Altai peoples began, who actively interbred with representatives of the Slavic branches.
Gellenthal's research is also interesting because genetic analysis proved that the time of the Mongol-Tatar invasion had virtually no effect on Russian ethnogenesis.

Two ancestral homelands

Another interesting migration theory was proposed at the end of the 19th century by Russian linguist Alexei Shakhmatov. His “two ancestral homelands” theory is also sometimes called the Baltic theory. The scientist believed that initially the Balto-Slavic community emerged from the Indo-European group, which became autochthonous in the Baltic region. After its collapse, the Slavs settled in the territory between the lower reaches of the Neman and Western Dvina. This territory became the so-called “first ancestral home”. Here, according to Shakhmatov, the Proto-Slavic language developed, from which all Slavic languages ​​originated.

Further migration of the Slavs was associated with the great migration of peoples, during which at the end of the second century AD the Germans went south, liberating the Vistula River basin, where the Slavs came. Here, in the lower Vistula basin, Shakhmatov defines the second ancestral home of the Slavs. From here, according to the scientist, the division of the Slavs into branches began. The western one went to the Elbe region, the southern one - divided into two groups, one of which settled the Balkans and the Danube, the other - the Dnieper and Dniester. The latter became the basis of the East Slavic peoples, which include the Russians.

We are locals ourselves

Finally, another theory different from migration theories is the autochthonous theory. According to it, the Slavs were an indigenous people inhabiting eastern, central and even part of southern Europe. According to the theory of Slavic autochthonism, Slavic tribes were the indigenous ethnic group of a vast territory - from the Urals to Atlantic Ocean. This theory has quite ancient roots and many supporters and opponents. This theory was supported by the Soviet linguist Nikolai Marr. He believed that the Slavs did not come from anywhere, but were formed from tribal communities living in vast territories from the Middle Dnieper to Laba in the West and from the Baltic to the Carpathians in the south.
Polish scientists - Kleczewski, Potocki and Sestrentsevich - also adhered to the autochthonous theory. They even traced the ancestry of the Slavs from the Vandals, basing their hypothesis, among other things, on the similarity of the words “Vendals” and “Vandals”. Of the Russians, the autochthonous theory explained the origin of the Slavs Rybakov, Mavrodin and Greeks.

Russians are extraordinary numerous people, formed from the tribes of the Eastern Slavs. Today most of Russians live on the territory of the Russian Federation (more than eighty percent of its population). Where did the Russian nation come from?

Russians descended from the Indo-European group of peoples. If you believe archaeological data, the Slavs appeared in the first millennium BC. They are the direct ancestors of the Russians and some other peoples. Slavic tribes, or rather East Slavic tribes, gradually settled and occupied the area of ​​modern Russia.

The Eastern Slavs are even called “Russian Slavs”. Each tribe had its own name depending on the area where they were located. But later they all united (in the twelfth century), and then gave rise to the Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians (this happened in the seventeenth century).

After the tribes united, the Old Russian nation was formed. The main groups of Eastern Slavs from which the Russians originated:

• Krivichi.
• Slovenia.
• Vyatichi.
• Northerners.

It is also necessary to note the Finno-Ugric tribes: Merya, Meshchera, Muroma and others. But the process of uniting the tribes was disrupted due to the invasion of the Mongols. Gradually, the Cossacks, Belarusians, and Ukrainians began to separate themselves. The Russian state was formed in the fifteenth century, from where the Russian people emerged.

Where the Russian people came from can be found out from ancient literary sources: “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “Veles’s Book”.

Where did the word “Russian” come from?

It is not difficult to guess that the name of the people came from the word Rus', that is, from the state in which they lived. In turn, the origin of the word Rus is still controversial. There are many versions on this matter, which you can read about in the article “Theories of the origin of the name Rus”.

Initially, the word “Russian” was not used, they said Russian people. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the name “Russians” came, then “Great Russians”. But at the same time, the word “Russians” appeared here and there.

Where did the Russian land come from?

The emergence of Rus', the state, occurred as a result of the settlement of lands Slavic tribes. Initially, these were Kyiv, Novgorod and the adjacent territories, the banks of the Dnieper and Dniester rivers. The Russian land was then called the Old Russian State, or Kievan Rus. Independent Russian principalities gradually formed (starting from the twelfth century). Then, in the middle of the sixteenth century, the Russian land was called the Russian kingdom. Since the eighteenth century - the Russian Empire.

Where did the Russian language come from?

Russian is an East Slavic language. It is very common in the world and also takes the lion's share among others Slavic languages by frequency. Today, Russian is the official language in Russia. In addition, it is such in some other countries that have several languages.

Vladimir Lebedev

31.01.2012 - 16:27

Russia is a country of 100 nationalities. Who is here: Tatars, Ukrainians, Azerbaijanis, Chechens, and Mordovians. And all nations answer the question with honor: “Who? What?". That is, they are nouns. And only one nation of Russia – the Russians – answers the question “Which one?” Which?". That is, they are an adjective - a part of speech that describes the characteristics of an object or its affiliation.

Most likely, the word “Russian” is a truncated form of the broader expression “Russian people” or “Russian people”. That is, people living in Rus' (and, accordingly, belonging to Rus'). That is, it is constructed according to exactly the same rule as the expression “Soviet people”, from which the concept “Soviet”, similar to the concept “Russian”, has already begun to be formed.

In other words, “Russian” is a word as far from the concept of nationality as “Soviet”, which, as everyone knows, is based on the word “Council”. Moreover, the Council is a body of political power. In this sense, the Soviet people can just as well be called “Parliamentary people” or “Majlis people”, meaning only the form of their state political structure.

What was the political structure like in Ancient Rus'? Vechev. So why weren’t the Russian people called “Vecheva”, but called “Russian”? Yes, because the adjective “Russian” refers to our people by the fact of belonging not to the Veche, but to Rus', which was not the name of a state authority, but the State itself. More precisely: a type of State, which actually constituted the sign of distinctiveness by which our people received the name “Russian”.

What kind of State is this and where was it located? And this state was called, more precisely, the type of state was “Rus”, and it was located... And where, by the way, was the state called Rus?

You will be surprised, but historians are still arguing about where Rus' was located: from the extreme north of Europe (Norman Rus') to the extreme south of Europe (Khazar Rus'). Moreover, in both cases, historians do not know exactly where the name “Rus” came from, for which they come up with a variety of toponymic explanations, which usually boil down to the fact that this was the name of the river near which Russian people lived.

We are such “cheap people” that, unlike other peoples who proudly call themselves Chechens or Avars or even Bashkirs, we took and named ourselves after some river, which dries up almost every year, leaving the great and mighty Russian people without Stanovoy toponymic ridge.

Do you find this explanation of the name of the Russian people convincing? We don't. Moreover, we are firmly convinced that the Russian people are not our national name at all, just as the name Soviet people has never been the name of any people included in the USSR, which was, as is known, the World Empire. And empires are such huge entities that, of necessity, they are always divided into administrative units. Like Satrapiy in the Persian Empire or Ulus in the Tatar-Mongol horde.

So our ancient empire was divided into “Rus” or “Reich”: Great Rus', Little Rus', Kievan Rus, Lithuanian Rus. Check out the latest title: Lithuania+Rus. Can the word “Rus”, with the obviously national qualifier “Lithuanian”, mean nationality? No.

What can she do? To mean a state form of division: such as a republic in the USSR. Do you know when the Empire began to be called the Republic? The Roman Empire (and we are talking only about it everywhere) began to be called the Republic after in the Empire, as a result of the massive resettlement of rural barbarians to cities, the cities turned into Polis - City-States, which first of all indicates that the United The empire ruled by the One Emperor fell apart into Parts, that is, into Polis. To the same Polis from which such words as “Ulus” (P+Olisy=P+Ulus), and “Pruss” and “Rus” were formed.

Are you asking what the word “Polis” means?
Yes, the same as the word “Ulus” or “Rus” - namely: Rez or Rezan or Ryazan (here is another Rus' - Ryazan), which in modern language usually sounds like “Narez” (whoever has a dacha knows what it is), although in Russian historical literature they are usually called feudal “Allotments” (this is such a large plot of land with the City at its head that it is given into the possession of the Prince). So the word “Polis” (from which all the names of Narezov or Allotments in the world came, including the German Reich, which is the Russian “Rez”) means just a Cut, or as they used to say - Polez (remember that the word “Rez” " used to begin with the letter "L", and the example of "Blade" instead of "Rezviy" is the best confirmation of this).

As a result, we see that the word “Rus”, from which the name of our people came, does not mean anything other than the name of Polis or Ulus, or Narez, to which we were assigned after the collapse of the Empire, which collapsed under the blows of the Barbarians of the Steppe - the same Tatar-Mongols or Perso-Arabs, who actually divided our United Roman-Egyptian Empire into their uluses or satrapies.

We will not delve into the details of this process now, but will limit ourselves to the question posed: What nationality were the Russians? Kievskaya (if we keep in mind that our national history begin with Kievan Rus)? Great (if we keep in mind that this was the name of Great Rus', within which the Great Russians - the current Russians - lived)? Moscow (if we keep in mind that Moscow became the political center around which all parts of the defeated imperial people who moved from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe as a result of the Exodus of the Slavs gathered). There are no such nationalities and never have been (with the exception of offensive national nicknames like “Moskal”).

What's left over?

Only one name: Slavs, who appeared in Europe (including Northern Europe) exactly when the last bastion of the Empire, Byzantium, was attacked by barbarians. It was at this time - a we're talking about about 5-6 centuries AD - in Europe, out of nowhere, a huge migratory column of Slavs appears - the mysterious Ants, consisting of 12 tribal unions, namely: Slovenians, Krivichs (by the way, this is what we Russians are still called by the Balts), Northerners, Drevlyans , Polyan, Dregovichi, Ulichi, Volynyan, Radimichi, Dulebov, Vyatichi, Horvat.

The question arises: who were these mysterious Ants? And the Ants are none other than Vantas or Veneti or Venedi, known in history for the fact that they came from Rome (where they built Venice and all the other Roman cities), and even earlier - from Troy, which, after being captured by the barbarians, They left the Danaans under the leadership of Aeneas. And Troy - as we now reliably know - is a city in Egypt, located in the First Memphis nome under the name of Turov (with the etymology Troy - C + Troy - Build or St + Roy, which in Egyptian sounds like “Place at the Excavated Mountain” , which They built by digging the Earth - and in this form we are talking about the Pyramid of Cheops).

In other words, speaking about the nationality of Russians, we, first of all, must proceed from the fact that Russians... are Egyptians.

Second: Russians are Romans (more precisely: the indigenous population of the Roman Empire, of which Egypt was a part)

Third: Russians are not just the main population of the empire, but also its native ethnic group, which was subjected to assimilation by the Barbarians of the Steppes as a result of the so-called Synoicism, which actually resulted in the Degradation and Fall of the Empire, which turned into a plebeian Republic with its subsequent division into Polis or Ulus or Rus.

Fourth: The Russians are the original ethnic groups that were successively expelled from the Empire, who did not want to mix with the Barbarians of the Steppes and preferred the Exodus from each new place of residence, if the Barbarians became the predominant population in it.

This is how the formula of the Three Romes arose: The first Rome is Troy, which the Russians abandoned when the Arab Turks prevailed in it.

The second Rome was Rome, which the Russians abandoned when the Roman Empire was conquered by the barbarian Turks along with the Persians.

The third Rome was Moscow, which became the last Rome for the Russians, since there was nowhere to retreat beyond Moscow.

Based on materials from the magazine “Opponent”

And, therefore, according to Russian officials, the Russians do not need such autonomy. On the other hand, there is no de jure confirmation that Russians in Russia have the status of a state-forming people, and that Russia belongs to the Russian nation. This situation erases the Russians from the legal field, “suspending” the people in an uncertain state in which they have no sovereignty. On the other hand, any small ethnic or religious minority is allowed to organize national-cultural autonomy if this minority does not yet have a national quasi-state formation (“republic” or national autonomous region).
At the same time, the word RUSSIAN is under an unspoken ban in all Russian media. It is not used because it “has a national connotation.” But neutral words “Russians, Russian” are actively used, and these words, as a rule, are used primarily in relation to Russians. Although in theory, all citizens of Russia should be called “Russians”, regardless of nationality. For example, Russian media call Russian athletes “Russians”, and athletes from national republics “Dagestans”, “Tatars”, “Ossetians”, etc.
Historian Alexander Daniel, commenting on Yeltsin’s use of the word “Russians,” suggested that the president’s advisers were afraid of the word “Russian” because it “smacked of ethnicity.”
And in 2016, the head of the department Russian Academy national economy and civil service Vyacheslav Mikhailov proposed creating a law “ About the Russian nation and management of interethnic relations." Russian President Vladimir Putin supported the idea and noted that such a law contributes to the creation of a strategy for the development of national relations in Russia. The purpose of this law, apparently, is to unite all the peoples of Russia into a single cultural and political community (nation). A nation is a political association of citizens based on common citizenship and language. However, the law on the “Russian nation” caused a flurry of criticism both from the state-forming Russian people, for whom such a law actually means the inevitable loss of ethnic identity, and from representatives of the non-Russian population of Russia, who said that this law would allegedly violate their rights (although , this law was created exclusively in their interests). At the same time, some “experts” did not see any threat to the Russians in this law. But they immediately began to squeal about the supposedly inevitable assimilation by Russians of 20 percent of the country’s non-Russian population, which is protected by various regional laws, which cannot be said about the Russians.
At one time, we already had a “civil nation” in the person of the “Soviet people,” which largely depersonalized the Russian people. There is an attempt at renaissance not only of Lenin and Khrushchev times, but also of the 90s. Yeltsin also liked to address his compatriots: “Russians”!
In its real embodiment, all this policy of the “Russian nation” and “tolerance” in the national question is aimed at “melting” Russians into “Russians”, while all other peoples, basically, remain themselves.
In the idea of ​​the “Russian nation” there is indeed a lot that reminds us of the “Soviet people”, and this similarity is by no means accidental. It is enough to remember that the initiator of the adoption of the law, V. Mikhailov, was in the past a career employee of the apparatus of the CPSU Central Committee and a specialist in the history of the CPSU. The topic of his candidate's dissertation is “The activities of party organizations in the western regions of Ukraine for the international education of the population,” and his doctoral dissertation is “The activities of the CPSU in the formation and deepening of the internationalist consciousness of the working people of the western regions of Ukraine (1939 -1981).” The idea of ​​the “Soviet people,” which in a modernized form can be called the “Russian nation,” follows from this scientific issue in a completely logical way. At the same time, the international education of the CPSU of the working people of the western regions of Ukraine, as we know, ended in complete collapse, and its fruits can partly be observed today in the Donbass.
The introduction of the idea of ​​the “Russian nation” to the masses will inevitably undermine the state structure of Russia, which it inherited from the USSR.
The central media, keeping silent about the mass indignation of the Russian public on this issue, still could not ignore the statement of film director, State Duma Deputy Stanislav Govorukhin, who called the word “Russian” disgusting and noted that the inhabitants of Russia for many centuries called themselves “Russians” " Film director, State Duma Deputy Vladimir Bortko and Federation Council member Alexei Pushkov spoke in the same spirit, but a little softer.
The Russian Orthodox Church also opposed the adoption of the law. The head of the synodal department for relations between the Church and society and the media, Vladimir Legoyda, speaking at a meeting of the working group, noted the unifying role of the Russian people, language and culture. In addition, the law on the “Russian nation,” in his opinion, will contradict the concept of the “Russian World,” which unites all Russians, and not just those who live in Russia.
As a result, conversations about the “Russian nation” stopped, it was decided to rename the law and call it “On the Fundamentals of State National Policy,” and the word “RUSSIANS” began to be used in the Russian media even more often than before.
Opinions.

Vladimir Putin

In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that “Russia has developed for centuries as a multinational state-civilization, held together by the Russian people, the Russian language and Russian culture, which are dear to all of us, which unite us and do not allow us to dissolve in this diverse world. For the planet, we, regardless of our ethnicity, have been and remain one people.”

Patriarch Kirill

In 2014, Patriarch Kirill stated that “the fate of the Russian people, their well-being, their integrity, the maturity of their self-awareness must be recognized as key factors in preserving the spiritual and political unity of Russia. Neglecting this today means destroying the state, planting a time bomb in it. Similar trends took place in the sphere of national politics in the 1990s, when a group of scientists and politicians postulated an artificial opposition between Russian and Russian. At that time, officials received unpublicized instructions: not to use public speaking and official documents the word “Russian” as supposedly weakening the unity of the nation. And today, unfortunately, one can hear statements that the Russian people are heterogeneous, that their unity is a fiction, and also about the existence of new, previously unknown nations, such as, for example, “Pomeranian”, “Cossack” or “ Siberian.” Behind the attempts to eliminate the word “Russian” from use are ideas that have long proven their lifelessness in the West, where voices are increasingly heard calling for the abandonment of multiculturalism and the melting pot theory.

Publicist, Chief Editor online magazine "Russian Observer" Egor Kholmogorov

Let us first of all honestly admit that there was no “Soviet people” in the ethnic and cultural sense - in the sense in which large historical nations exist - and could not exist under the conditions of the organization itself Soviet system. There are, of course, young modernist nations, such as, for example, the USA, but these are nations of migrants. The peoples of the Soviet Union lived in the places in which they had always lived. Moreover, they had their own state entities- Union republics. Culture was supported and developed in them: Uzbek, Latvian, Moldavian, Armenian... For some of these peoples Soviet period was a time of powerful cultural revival. It is not serious to say that peoples who are settled in their own places and still have their own quasi-statehood can merge into one nation. The original idea was absolutely absurd. As a result, it turned out that mixing and the emergence of something close to the concept of the Soviet people occurred mainly in cities due to two factors. The first is interethnic marriages. The son of an Armenian and an Azerbaijani woman, taking into account some conflict between these two nations, felt more like a Soviet person than an Armenian or Azerbaijani. The second factor due to which the replenishment of the Soviet people occurred was the loss of ethnic self-identification of Russians among the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Russian identity, unlike others, was not specifically supported in the USSR. Some Russians lost it and immediately began to consider themselves ideologically Soviet people.
But still, the layer of bearers of Soviet identity, which overlapped the old ethnic ones, was relatively small. It mattered among the intelligentsia and party workers, but not among the masses. It is clear that as soon as the processes of the collapse of the Soviet system and the national renaissance during the era of perestroika began, this identity disappeared from all nations except the Russians. By 1989, all ethnic outskirts had become increasingly nationalistic.
Simply due to the fact that Russian national identity was suppressed much more strongly, in Russia this process dragged on for much longer. longer period. But it was precisely when it was restored that conversations about the Russian nation began, and I think that this is just some kind of stupid setup. This is a mincemeat that they are trying to turn back, and in conditions where, apart from conflict, it will not give rise to anything. The Russian nation cannot appear in the form in which the authors of the law present it, as a kind of synthesis and unification of various peoples and nations living on the territory of the country. This law constitutes an international criminal offense against them. The Russian nation exists. It is described in many ethnographic reference books, encyclopedias, and so on. Then it suddenly turns out that the Russian nation will be abolished, and “Russian” will appear in its place. Purely legally, this can be regarded as a threat of genocide, because genocide is not always physical extermination. The ban on Armenians in Turkey calling themselves Armenians is also a form of ethnocide.
A law on a certain “Russian nation” is no more needed than a district police officer’s order to rename me Yuri or Igor. The authors of this idea entered into very dangerous ground. This will not lead to anything good. In fact, it is proposed: let’s put everything into one pot, declare it the “Russian nation” and let’s build it. But it is not clear on what basis to build it - purely logically, it must be built on a Russian basis, as on the basis of the majority of the population, and if on some kind of neutral basis, then there is a danger that Russians will be artificially separated from their roots.
There is a danger that other peoples will not want to turn into Russians, and Russians will be forced to follow this comb. That is, this stupid project will not give anything but chaos in interethnic relations.

Director of the Levada Center, Doctor of Philosophy, sociologist Lev Gudkov

Of course, the project of the “Soviet people” was more a slogan than a reality. Practically and legally, this definition meant nothing, so there is no need to talk about the real “Soviet people,” which became evident at the moment when pressure and state control were weakened. This concept began to fall apart due to the emergence of a movement for equal rights, equalization of the status of autonomies and republics and the demand for greater rights for the latter. This ultimately blew up the imperial structure. There seems to be no meaning to this experience. The desire to return to Soviet times- repetition of the same mistakes.

Stanislav Govorukhin

Stanislav Govorukhin on the creation of the law on the Russian nation:
We have been the Russian people for many centuries, and now we are the Russian people in fact. “Russian” - the word itself is disgusting. It may have caught on, but “Russian woman”, “Russians”, even purely linguistically, sounds disgusting.
Later in an interview he Komsomolskaya Pravda said the following:
- It’s not that the word didn’t please. Journalists simply asked me a question about how Russian citizens should be called, and I expressed my tastes on this matter.

And what word do you think should be used to call our compatriots?

Russians.

But we are not all Russian. You are Russian, I am Russian. But Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chechens also live in Russia, not to mention Ukrainians, Belarusians and dozens of other nationalities.

The fact is that the whole world knows us, and the Bashkirs, and the Yakuts, and the Ukrainians, as Russians. People living in Russia are the Russian people. And now we have to explain to everyone that we are not Russians, but Russians? You will get tired of retraining the whole world. Either it is too early to talk about this topic, or it is necessary to retain the expression “Russian people,” which implies multinationality. Russians have not designated a specific nation for a long time. This is a community of people who live in Russia.

Do you think this will not offend anyone in our multinational country?

It’s quite absurd to be offended if this is a given. Although I’m sure there will be thousands of fools who will be offended.

State Duma Deputy Vladimir Bortko (Communist Party of the Russian Federation)

November 11, 2016 at plenary session Deputy V.V. spoke at the State Duma on behalf of the Communist Party faction. Bortko.
State Duma deputy Vladimir Bortko (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) proposed starting a discussion in the lower house of parliament about the legal enshrinement of the provision on the Russian people in the Constitution.
The issue became relevant in connection with the work on the law on the so-called. “Russian nation”.
During the meeting, Bortko drew attention to the fact that “the Russian people are not legally designated anywhere.”
“It is necessary to at least legally define the position of the Russian people, which is not contained in the Constitution,” the parliamentarian said.
Speaking about the work on the draft law on the Russian nation, Bortko expressed fears that a French model would be proposed. “There is every reason to believe that the authors of this law will propose some kind of French model of a nation, when all holders of identical passports without a recognized identity of the people are considered its members. Such a policy today has made France the prey of migrants and terrorists,” the deputy recalled. “Understanding this, I would like to initiate a discussion of this problem of our Constitution in the State Duma,” he said.
The modern Constitution is written liberally, Bortko believes. “Liberals who, to put it mildly, do not have a very good attitude towards the Russian people, which they have repeatedly expressed and are expressing,” the deputy said.
“Only with clear, legally verified relations between all the peoples included in the Federation, relations built on the basis of absolute equality, regardless of size, without division into senior and junior and legal positions that clearly indicate the positions of the Russian people themselves, the law can become the cement, which turns the millionth national country into a single whole without winks and omissions in the form of “well, you understand,” Bortko is sure.
Full text of his speech:
- Human Rights Commissioner in the Russian Federation Tatyana Moskalkova noted that the idea of ​​the Russian nation is attractive at first glance, but it should not be associated with one people, even the titular nation, since “this may offend other peoples, nationalities, nationalities.”

In this regard, I would like to talk about the Russian people, especially since there is no titular nation.

What is the place of the Russian people in the constitutional and legal system of the Russian Federation?

In the model set by the constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, there is no Russian people: the state of the Russian Federation denies the Russian people legal subjectivity, Russian national identity is outside the constitutional and legal field of the Russian Federation.

What is “the people”? A people is also determined by a number of characteristics - language, culture, territory, religion, historical past, etc. But the people are also defined by others the most important feature: a people is several generations of people who have been related to each other for centuries and continue to reproduce family relationships among themselves by having children. By uniting as a people, they solve the problem of preserving their unique genetic material in their descendants.

How fewer people, the more jealous he is of preserving his selfhood, his unique difference from others, which can and should be understood. But elementary justice forces us to treat the same large nations, in particular to Russian, which is impersonal to such an extent that it is not legally designated anywhere. Even in its own Constitution, unlike, by the way, the Constitution of Tatarstan, which directly speaks of the Tatar people as state-forming people. We open the Constitution of Tatarstan and read: “This Constitution, expressing the will of the multinational people of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Tatar people...”.

The constitution of the Chechen state, however, does not contain the phrase “Chechen people,” but the Chechen language is mentioned as the state language. The head of Chechnya heads the “World Congress” Chechen people”, January 9 in Chechnya is the official date of “Day of Restoration of Statehood of the Chechen People”. That is, this is a Chechen national state.

The Russian people currently do not have their own state, while the Chechens, Bashkirs and Tatars do. The Russian Federation recognizes these states and concludes treaties and agreements with them.

By the way, some agreements that the Russian Federation concludes with states former USSR- are accepted outside the interests of the Russian people.

Example. After secession from the USSR and the expulsion of the Russian population, Tajikistan plunged into total poverty and devastation, but at the same time the population continues to increase. To stay in power, the Tajik authorities need somewhere to house the excess population. And the Russian authorities need low-paid workers. The Russian Federation and Tajikistan agree among themselves that the Russian Federation will receive surplus Tajiks and replace the Russian population with them. All this is officially called “replacement migration”. Everyone is happy, except the Russians, whom no one asked.

I recently returned from a meeting of the Russian-Caucasian Initiative club. There, the Caucasian peoples themselves said that they wanted to designate the place of the Russian people in our Federation, which has not yet been designated in any way. This is not us, this is what the Caucasus wants! The Caucasian peoples want clear and understandable relations with the Russian people, but for this it is necessary to at least outline the legal position of the Russian people. What the Constitution does not contain.

The efforts of the “Russian-Caucasian Initiative” are aimed at getting out of the paradoxical situation preserved in Russia, when Russians, making up 80% of the population and having every reason to consider themselves the creators of this country, are legally deprived of any legal personality in it and are “unknown”. Unlike a number of others Russian peoples, they are deprived of the right to count at least one square meter Russian territory with its national statehood. At the same time, not being a minority, they do not have the right to “national-cultural autonomy” - i.e. support of one's cultural identity with the help of the state.

Understanding this, President V.V. In 2012, Putin wrote a policy article “Russia: the national question,” in which he outlined the basic principles of a correct national policy. It was stated that: Russia is “a multi-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core”, that “the core that holds together the fabric of this unique civilization is the Russian people, Russian culture” and that “the Russian people are state-forming - by the fact of the existence of Russia.”

However, he also spoke out against introducing an amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the “state-forming Russian people.” "Is it dangerous. We don’t need this,” he said, answering a question in the State Duma from a deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, film director Vladimir Bortko.

According to V.V. Putin, introducing such an amendment will automatically make part of the Russian population first-class citizens. At the same time, he noted that the Russian people, in his opinion, really are “the basis, the backbone, the cement of the multinational Russian people.”

Some people ask: “Why, in general, is this amendment needed? What does it change? But this Russian amendment fundamentally changes the constitutional and legal basis of the Russian state. The inclusion of the Russian amendment in the constitution means the official adoption by the state of the Russian Federation of the following provisions:

1. The state of the Russian Federation recognizes the existence of the Russian people, the Russian people acquire subjectivity within the framework of the constitutional and legal system of the Russian Federation;

2. The State of the Russian Federation recognizes that it is located, among other things, on the lands of the Russian people;

3. The State of the Russian Federation undertakes to express the interests of the Russian people;

None of this is contained in the modern Constitution of the Russian Federation!

Let us recall that the rejected amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation was to replace the phrase “multinational people of the Russian Federation” with the phrase “Russian people and the peoples of the Russian Federation, united by a common destiny on their land,” that is, it simply demanded equality of peoples within the Federation.

The “Russian-Caucasian Initiative” became a grassroots movement aimed at correcting this situation. It was put forward in July this year in Maykop (Adygea) at a joint meeting public organization“Elders of Adyga” and the local branch of the “Izborsk Club” with the participation of representatives of Russian patriotic organizations and represents a demand to restore the state-forming status historically inherent in Russia to the Russian people. The fact that the initiative came precisely from the representatives Caucasian peoples, is extremely important, because By destructive forces, it is the Caucasus that is constantly presented as a kind of opponent of Russia and the Russians.

Subsequently, the “Russian-Caucasian Initiative” was discussed at various kinds of meetings and round tables, including a discussion on October 24, 2016 in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, and received the support of not only Russian patriotic organizations, but also more than 20 national associations in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Now conferences and other events are being held in the regions in support of it.

The RusKavInitiative is of particular relevance now, when there is talk about the law “On the Russian Nation”. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the authors of this “law” will propose the so-called. the “French” model of a nation, when all holders of identical passports are considered its members, without a recognized identity of peoples.

Such a policy today has made France the prey of immigrants and terrorists, while in Russia it will inevitably cause an explosion of separatism and national extremism, fraught with the collapse of the country.

Understanding this, I would like to initiate a discussion of this problem of our Constitution in the State Duma. But not only this one. Well, for example, paragraph 4, Chapter One of the First Section of the Constitution says: “... if an international treaty establishes rules other than those provided for by the law of the Russian Federation, then the rules of the international treaty apply.” That is, international law is “more important” than the Laws of the Russian Federation that we adopt. It seems that this provision of our Constitution needs immediate revision.

But returning to the problem raised earlier, I want to say that only with clear and legally verified relations between all peoples included in the Federation, relations built on the basis of absolute equality, regardless of size, without division into senior and junior, and legal provisions, clearly denoting the position of the Russian people themselves, the Law can become the cement that will transform a multinational country of millions into a single whole.

Without winks and omissions in the form of - well, you understand...

The modern Constitution was written by liberals who, apparently, did not treat the Russian people very well, which they have repeatedly expressed and are expressing. For example, the young but prominent liberal Sobchak in open letter to the President writes: “...The regime that was established in Russia in the early 2000s is scientifically called “elite autocracy.” In this construction, the authoritarian state, together with the elites - economic, intellectual, creative - opposed the dense and wild people of our country...”

What can I say? This is about the people about which Generalissimo Suvorov said: “We are Russians!” What a delight!

ON THE. Narochnitskaya

The Russian people are the core of the Russian nation, constituting around themselves a historical, cultural, political union of the peoples of Russia. The Russian nation is formed on the basis of Russian culture because it has a strong communal dominant, expressed, in particular, in the rare cultural openness and everyday livability of the Russian people. Therefore, Russian citizens of various nations communicate in Russian, which does not diminish, but elevates their ethnic dignity. By identifying ourselves with Russian statehood, we can call ourselves citizens of Russia. By identifying ourselves with the Russian nation, we call ourselves Russians. Therefore, an adequate address to all of us would not be “Russians”, but “citizens of Russia”, “compatriots”, “Russian people”.

Whether we want it or not, whether we realize it or not, all the peoples of Russia have been fused into a single nation by tragic history, because they live by a single spiritual tradition and a unity of historical destiny. We are united by the centuries-old experience of creating a unified statehood, culture and civilization, the experience of confronting an inhumane regime, the experience of shared suffering, of eliminating the ideology of hatred and destruction. It is impossible to creatively solve our problems independently of each other. Only a joint struggle against the enslavers of our spirit will free us. The Russian nation will survive as a conciliar subject of social and political action only if it revives its own state body.

The Russian nation is a spiritual and political council of the peoples of Russia, the basis of which is the Russian multinational (multi-ethnic) people. A full-fledged nation is a community of free and responsible citizens, which is based on spiritual and moral principles, on ensuring security, protecting the vital interests and property of all citizens of the country, regardless of national, religious, and political differences. The Russian people unite the Russian nation and constitute the Russian state. Only the Russian state will allow all the peoples of Russia to survive in the face of the coming severe redistribution of world resources.

Only the Russian state is capable of preserving every people of Russia in history, capable of protecting the traditional Russian lifestyle, culture and civilization, which means preserving all Russian elites. The Russian state is able to recover only with the revival of the state-forming people. The Russian people built a state for all the peoples of Russia; they have always been distinguished by religious tolerance and the absence of aggressive nationalism. Therefore, the vital interest of every people of Russia and all its elites - all-Russian and regional - is in the national revival of the Russian people. “The Russian people are the founder and core of Russian statehood. Other peoples... entered the Russian project, and consciously entered into the Russian Orthodox kingdom... And while the core role of the Russians was not questioned, then all the other peoples blossomed on this tree, who consciously linked their destiny with the Russian people and remained faithful to them. And this does not mean any ethnic hatred, on the contrary. The Russian people will survive, they will preserve themselves as a successive subject of history and culture, then all other peoples will blossom on this tree” (N.A. Narochnitskaya).

Zakhar Prilepin

Zakhar Prilepin about the “Russian nation”. Interview with KP (Komsomolskaya Pravda):
KP Correspondent: And the Russian person is the one who was born here? Or anyone who has read Eugene Onegin?
Zakhar Prilepin: No, Russian is involvement in Russian culture. Towards the Russian matrix, history and Orthodoxy. Russian is generous and tolerant, strong but not vindictive, open but stern and consistent. Honoring national memory as a canon. Why such a question?
KP correspondent: Because it was decided to develop a law on the “Russian nation”. Even the President supported this. But why now?
Zakhar Prilepin: I think this project is determined by various events in the territory of the former USSR. One way or another, the same thing happens: a wonderful and beautiful state cannot cope with the imperial legacy of the Soviet Union. Not everyone is able to debug intra-ethnic relations. For 25 years they have been trying to show us that Russia should use Western European experience in building relations between nations. It turned out that there was no such experience. Or it doesn't work for us. That's why this request arose.
KP correspondent: Look, American actor Steven Seagal recently received Russian citizenship. Before him were boxer Roy Jones, fighter Jeff Monson and, of course, Frenchman Gerard Depardieu. It seems that Italian Ornella Muti is next in line. Why do they need this? Are they fleeing a sinking ship or are they promoting themselves?
Zakhar Prilepin: I think these people don’t need PR. They are seeking a new traditionalism. These people are tired of the kind of Western society in which they find themselves. Moreover, they themselves may not articulate such things, but the physiological feeling does not leave them. And it's not just Seagal. In Germany, for example, Putin's rating is approximately the same as Merkel's.
KP Correspondent: Recently, director Stanislav Govorukhin said that he was disgusted by the word “Russian”, which they are trying to use to replace “Russian”.
Zakhar Prilepin: I don’t see anything bad in this word. This is the self-name of Russians who are not ethnically Russian. There is no problem with this. Derzhavin, like many classics, for example, wrote about the “Russians”. How did this humiliate the Russian people? No way. I will call myself “Russian”. Resident of “Russia”. And if someone talks about Russians, I won’t be offended either.
KP correspondent: But with all this, how can we avoid slipping into nationalism and receiving rebuff from the regions?
Zakhar Prilepin: As far as I believe, a clear mechanism has been developed - how can we insure ourselves against a new collapse of the USSR and reincarnation separatist sentiments. There are thoughtful things that needed to be packed into one package. It will be done now. Peoples will receive certain ideological, political, cultural and diplomatic statuses, and then fit into the general concept. Indeed, in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea, the president uttered the words that we had all been waiting for so long. About the fact that the Russian people are the largest divided people in the world. After the collapse of the USSR, 25 million people remained outside Russia.
KP correspondent: For foreigners, we all look the same - “Russians”. But if you stop a Russian person on the street and ask who he is, he is unlikely to utter this legal concept.
Zakhar Prilepin: When we sit together in a tank, we are all Russian. And when it is necessary to emphasize national identity, then Kalmyks or Buryats, Tatars, Chechens. As always. And there is no contradiction.

Pyotr Tolstoy

Pyotr Tolstoy about the “Russian nation”. Interview with KP (Komsomolskaya Pravda):
- In recent weeks and months, there has been a lot of talk about such a term as “Russian nation.” Not Russian, but specifically “Russian”. How do you like the term “Russian” itself? Who do you consider yourself more - Russian or “Russian”?

I don’t use the word “Russian”. I never used it, even when I worked for 7 years in Sunday program The time where it would seem every other time it should have sounded, I personally did not pronounce it. At the dawn of Russian democracy there was a position of Secretary of State, and there was such a person as Gennady Burbulis. He ran to Yeltsin and said: we must say “Russians”, this word is in Dahl’s dictionary, then we will not offend anyone. But I don’t understand the meaning of the word “Russians”. In general, I believe that things should be called by their proper names. That's right what the founder said airborne troops Margelov: “We are all Russians to our enemies.” And Tatars, and Chechens, and Bashkirs. Our country is multinational and very rich. But this country is called Russia. When I see Pushkin, Gogol, Leo Tolstoy on the shelves today in a bookstore, and it says “ Russian writers“... You know, I’m just getting angry. What kind of Russian writers are they? They are Russian writers. Russians! We have Russian culture, Russian national tradition, Russian literature. And this is all Russia. It includes all those peoples who live in it.

The idea of ​​a law on the “Russian nation” appeared. Why is it needed, and how do you feel about it?

So far I haven’t heard anything concrete other than the idea, so it’s difficult for me to comment.

In general, what is the “Russian nation” for you?

As I understand it, we are talking about articulating what the different peoples of Russia have in common. We have something in common - love for our country. President Vladimir Putin said that patriotism can be national idea. There are other values ​​that are important to people, regardless of their origin, culture and religion. I think that such a category is justice in the deep Russian sense of the word. How to “live according to your conscience.” Every person understands for himself what it means to live according to his conscience. What's good and what's bad. It seems to me that such things bring people together. This law involves the search for terms that would bring together and stitch together all the peoples of our country.

So this is a story about ideology?

Undoubtedly. And all our stories are about ideology. People who shout at every corner that they have achieved the destruction of state ideology, they themselves are ideologized to the limit. They believe in some foreign investment, they have their own sect, which is very active. And they are spreading this sect terribly, preaching everywhere. But at the same time they forbid us to have any ideology.
-Viktor Militarev - Russian public figure, publicist, Russian nationalist:
It would seem that what’s wrong with the idea of ​​a Russian nation? After all, this is just the totality of all citizens living in Russia and abroad. And why shouldn’t we, citizens of Russia, be united in our citizenship and love our common Motherland? Moreover, the “Russian nation” is just another name for the Russian people. After all, Russia, by all European and world standards, is a monoethnic country. 80% of Russian citizens define themselves as Russian. 90% call Russian their native language. In addition, there is no discrimination against national minorities ethnicity Thank God, we don’t.
However, supporters of the idea of ​​a “Russian nation” do not at all consider modern Russia mono-ethnic state. And they consider it a multi-ethnic state, or, as we usually say, “multinational”. For them, the Russian nation is synonymous not with “Russian and other peoples,” but with “many peoples of Russia.” That is, in other words, “Russian nation” is for them a synonym for the term “multinational people of the Russian Federation” used in the Constitution.
It would seem that there is nothing criminal in this either. After all, this is all just a usage of words, which cannot in any way cancel the fact that there are 80-90% of Russians in Russia. Well, they called us, following Yeltsin, “Russians,” but do we feel sorry? Call it a pot, just don’t put it in the oven. However, it's not that simple.
It would be entirely possible to refuse to mention the Russian people in the Constitution and in the discussed Law on the Russian Nation, if not for one extremely fundamental circumstance. For some reason, almost all the constitutions of the republics within the Russian Federation, and, as a rule, in the very first lines it is mentioned “ titular nation"of this republic.
And, therefore, if we do not want to practice double standards, then we must either exclude the mention of titular nationalities in the constitutions of the republics, or introduce a mention of the Russian people in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal legislation. That's the minimum.
Our authorities, it seems to me, are confident that if not the “titular nationalities” themselves, then their “national elites” are much more united and, so to speak, “loud” than the Russian people. And it is presented by our authorities mainly in the form of the “silent majority”. And therefore, in order to “maintain stability,” national minorities should be “appeased” much more than the “silent majority.” Which “won’t go anywhere from the submarine anyway.”
The ideology of the “multinational people of Russia” is not the ideology of a civil nation, but a continuation of the “Leninist national policy,” that is, the ideology of internationalism.

Moreover, today only Russia adheres to this ideology, albeit in a bashful form. Even China, despite all its “official internationalism,” is trying to populate all of its “autonomous regions” and other national territories with Han Chinese so that there are at least 80% of them everywhere. And Western countries, despite all their current “multiculturalism,” do not at all abandon the assimilation of minorities.
The idea of ​​the “Russian nation” has the following component: the position of the authorities, based on the views of an internationalist nature and asserting that national minorities should be taken care of more than the people who make up the majority of the population.
Representatives of the Russian intelligentsia from the national republics have been “howling like wolves” for a long time, saying that Russians in the republics increasingly feel like second-class citizens. This is approximately how Russians and Russian-speaking people feel in Ukraine.
Migration, which takes away jobs from Russian citizens, has been causing extreme irritation for many years. Moreover, in last years irritation with migrants is further aggravated by the fact that many in our country have the impression that a migrant worker from Central Asia It is much easier to obtain Russian citizenship than for a Russian living in Central Asia. And every single one of the migrant entrepreneurs from Transcaucasia are citizens of Russia, and have been for quite some time.

And all this is further aggravated by the fact that for many years, in almost all conflicts on ethnic grounds, the authorities practiced selective justice in favor of the non-Russian side of the conflict. Thank you that, at least at this point, at least some progress has finally begun. Since the conflict in Sagra, law enforcement agencies began, so to speak, to “judge fairly.” Not always, but quite often. Plus, we must add, of course, the literally heroic efforts of the heads of Chechnya and Dagestan Kadyrov and Abdulatipov to prevent youth interethnic conflicts in Moscow.
So, the situation, of course, has not reached the boiling point, thank God, but to say that peace and grace reign in our interethnic relations would be, to put it mildly, an extreme exaggeration. And it would be extremely naive to believe that the proposed Law on the Russian Nation will be an effective means of inter-ethnic pacification. At least in the concept proposed by its initiators.
It is necessary, along with the recognition of the rights of Russian national minorities to develop their national cultures, to legislate the fact that the Russian state is built on the “monoculturalism” of Russian culture. That Russian culture lies at the heart of our state.

And finally, perhaps most importantly. Stop using disgusting and tongue-tied bureaucratic phraseology, which is not only stylistically tasteless, but also raises reasonable suspicions among the majority of the population of pursuing Russophobic policies. Let's learn by heart once and for all: not “the multinational people of Russia,” but simply “the people of Russia.” And not “Russian nation”, but “Russians and other peoples of Russia”. And believe me, such a rejection of bureaucratic caring and replacing it with the normal Russian language will greatly improve interethnic relations in our country.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky

To strengthen statehood, Russia needs a separate law on the Russian people, protecting Russian citizens regardless of their nationality anywhere in the world. This was stated by the leader of the LDPR 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 was so lacking great power, says Zhirinovsky, whose words are quoted by the LDPR press service.

“Here we are talking 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 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 take Russia to a new level of interaction with other countries, Zhirinovsky said.

Vladimir Tkach

Among the many anti-Russian theses, one can single out one that is used by all the enemies of the Russian people without exception. They use it because it is the most destructive for us. This is the thesis that “Russia is a multinational country.” What makes it destructive is not the very recognition of the fact that many peoples live in Russia, but that false conclusion, which is made from it about the equivalence of the peoples of Russia. In an incomprehensible way, the 120 million Russian people who created Russia became only “one of the peoples inhabiting it.”
However, that’s not all: the thesis about “multinationality” does not even mean “equality” of the Russian Giant with the Lilliputian peoples.
In the state created by our ancestors, the Russian people found themselves virtually powerless compared to other peoples. Having received political status in the form of their own republics and autonomies, they have the opportunity to pursue a policy of their own national development in these territories.

The Russian people do not have such an opportunity.

The status of a “multinational country” does not allow the implementation of the National Development Policy towards the Russian people at the all-Russian level. But to carry it out officially at any level other than the state level is unacceptable and criminal. After all, this will mean denying the Russian people the right to all of Russia.

It turns out that we seem to be at home, but nothing belongs to us.

The Russian people do not have an official political status - that is, their very existence is actually not recognized.

The current president has defined the Russian people as the “cement” that holds Russia together.

What kind of status is this - “cement”? Other Peoples have both political status and political rights, but the Russian people are “cement”?!

Another, much more outstanding political figure and real reformer, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, said the following about this: “A people who do not have national identity are the manure on which other peoples grow.” To be manure (sorry, “cement”) for the existence and development of other Nations - this is the status determined for the Russian people in Russia today.

The enemies of the Russian people go so far as to openly call nothing other than Russian national identity a threat to Russia. This comes from the very top. This nonsense is poured on us from TV screens. We are simply enveloped in this nonsense.

What kind of state have we received that sees the national unity of the Russian people as a terrible enemy? Who does it belong to, who does it serve? How does it turn out that the national oppression of Russians is the key to the existence of this state?

The answer to these questions is simple. They are trying to make us believe in outright nonsense by substituting concepts. Our political lack of rights is indeed the guarantee of existence, but not of the state, not of Russia, but of the regime of national betrayal and occupation.

In an effort to keep control of the country in its thieves' hands, this government decided to replace with itself the basis of the state integrity of Russia - the unity of the Russian people. Instead of developing the Russian people, as the basis for the existence and development of all of Russia, we are offered to rely on the existing political regime, creating the illusion of his indispensability. Pathetic blackmailers are introducing the idea that if they don’t exist, Russia won’t either. One can only wonder - how could Russia exist without them, the “irreplaceable” ones, to this day, for more than one thousand years?!

Only a narrow-minded mind does not understand where all this will lead. Any power is finite. Moreover, one that is built on the disintegration of society, on theft and lawlessness.
Any serious socio-economic and political crisis (and these happen regularly) will lead to the natural result of such a policy: the national elites nurtured by the regime will begin to tear apart the country created by the Russian people. And without national unity, the Russians will not have the strength to stop this.

Only an immature mind can believe that the interests of Russia can exist separately from the national interests of the Russian people. The people are the creator of Russia, the people are its master.
Vladimir Tkach