Instead of the law on a single Russian nation, a law “On the foundations of statehood” will be developed. national policy". This decision was made by the working group to prepare the concept of the bill. This was caused, as its leader, academician Valery Tishkov, explained to Kommersant, "by the unwillingness of society to accept the idea of ​​a single nation." The law should spell out "the conceptual apparatus, the division of powers between levels of government, the system monitoring the interethnic situation." According to experts, it is first necessary to "make a comprehensive analysis of the situation in the interethnic sphere" and "unblock discussions" on this issue in society.

At the first meeting of the working group to prepare the concept of the bill on the Russian nation, proposals from its members were discussed. According to the former head of the Ministry of Nationalities Valery Tishkov, it was decided to call the bill “On the Fundamentals of State National Policy.” “It’s calmer this way. It turned out that society is not very prepared to perceive such a concept as a single nation uniting all nationalities. Considering that the president also proposed translating the strategy of state national policy into the language of law, we decided to change its name,” he explained to Kommersant. . Let us recall that on October 31, at a meeting of the Presidential Council on Interethnic Relations, the former head of the Ministry of Nationalities, Vyacheslav Mikhailov, proposed developing a law “On the unity of the Russian nation and the management of interethnic relations.” Vladimir Putin instructed the presidium of the council to prepare the bill by August 1.

The concept of the Russian nation as a single political nation has sparked debate. In the national republics they spoke out against it out of fear that the Russian nation would become a nation of Russians, and the rest of the peoples would lose their ethnicity. The Cossacks, on the contrary, demanded that the “state-forming role” of the Russian people be taken into account in the document, that the status of Russians be legally determined and that a federal program be adopted to support them. The Church is concerned about the fate of the “Russian world,” in which it includes all Russians, including those living abroad. Vladimir Legoida, head of the synodal department for relations of the Church with society and the media, spoke about the unifying role of the Russian people, language and culture in the “Russian world,” according to a Kommersant source in the Presidential Council on Interethnic Relations, speaking at a meeting of the working group.

According to new concept the bill, which, according to Mr. Tishkov, the working group will present in a month, the document will spell out the conceptual apparatus, the mechanism for delimiting powers between the federal, regional and local authorities, a system for monitoring ethno-confessional relations in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, state policy towards small and indigenous peoples, principles of ethnological examination of bills. He noted that a special section will most likely be devoted to the Russian nation. “We will collect proposals from members of the working group for the meeting of the Presidium of the Presidential Council in April, then we can talk about the concept,” noted Mr. Tishkov.

“We are still studying the experts’ proposals,” Vladimir Zorin, a member of the working group and former Minister of National Affairs, confirmed to Kommersant. He considers the name of the law “On the Fundamentals of State National Policy in the Russian Federation” to be “one of the working options.” The main thing, in his opinion, is to “enshrine once again at the legislative level the ideas of the state national policy strategy that were included in real life". The law, Mr. Zorin believes, should be built on the basis of strategy; the goals of national policy should be spelled out in it: "strengthening the all-Russian civic consciousness and spiritual community of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation); preservation and development of the ethnocultural diversity of peoples; harmonization between national relations; adaptation and integration of migrants." Mr. Zorin is confident that society agrees with the stated goals of national policy, and discussions around the concept of “one nation” are of a political nature.

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, a member of the Commission of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation for the harmonization of ethno-confessional relations, is confident that “it is necessary to unblock discussions in society that have been pushed under the carpet, including about the Russian nation.” Mr. Chaplin proposes to “remove the division between the elite and the people and begin an open discussion in society on the main problems,” one of which he considers to be the question of the state-forming role of the Russian people. It can be solved, according to Mr. Chaplin, by passing two laws - on the Russian nation and on the Russian people.

Expert on national issues Magomed Omarov is confident that normal law one can write about state national policy only on the basis of a “comprehensive analysis of existing interethnic problems": "Now the real situation is unknown, normal sociological research no, only routine monitoring and reports are done." The expert community, according to Mr. Omarov, "does not dare to talk about real problems, is not ready for a frank conversation on this topic with the authorities and society."

Natalia Gorodetskaya

Today, at a meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed with the need to develop a law on the 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,” the president said. He further explained that the law could be developed on the basis of a strategy for the development of national relations in Russia - and thus become its logical continuation.

“Our strategy, which you and I developed together, can be transformed - but we just need to work hard on this too,” Putin said. According to news agencies, initially it was proposed by the head of the RANEPA department, Vyacheslav Mikhailov, to develop a law “On the Russian Nation and the Management of Interethnic Relations”. The law must “absorb all innovations related to interethnic relations.”

Regarding the strategy for the development of national relations in the Russian Federation, we recall that the decree “On the Strategy of State National Policy Russian Federation for the period until 2025" was signed by the president in 2012. The document, in particular, talks about the “spiritual community of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation)”, the need to “preserve and develop the ethnocultural diversity of the peoples of Russia” and “successful social and cultural adaptation and integration of migrants”.

Based on Putin’s words, it can be assumed that the same ideas and theses will become the “reference points” of the new law, but within the framework of this document they will receive a clearer legal design and legal status.

Let us also recall that last year the Federal Agency for Nationalities Affairs was created by presidential decree. One of the department’s tasks was declared to be “strengthening the unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation).” And now we can definitely say that all of this is part of a single, well-thought-out strategy for the development of interethnic relations and the creation of a civil nation.

Its role in the life of the country cannot be underestimated: national unity for such a large state inhabited by various peoples is one of priority tasks not only state development, but also national security. It can be noted that one way or another, a legally enshrined definition of a nation, its rights and status is the norm for states inhabited by various peoples who attach great importance state unity and those who value their sovereignty.

The status of a nation at the legal level was enshrined in the pre-revolutionary constitution of France, and the “American nation” is one of the defining concepts of US legislation. Great importance This issue is also discussed in China, which is also inhabited by various peoples. At the official level, the PRC actively supports the doctrine of the Chinese nation; priority attention is paid to the formation of “state consciousness” (state identity) among citizens, while simultaneously relegating the ethnic consciousness of nationalities to the background.

In addition to securing the status of a civil nation at the legislative level, at the same meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations it was proposed to hold a year of national unity in Russia. Perhaps it will be the coming year, 2017, or the next one - 2018.

“It seems to me that the event could be good. With the involvement of everyone who has gathered here today in this hall so that we can work together. You just need to choose this year,” Vladimir Putin noted.

The President believes that this event could become very important: “This could be a very big significant consolidating event that would affect almost every ethnic group, every people that lives in Russia,” he said. Putin also noted that it could play a serious educational role.

"Among other things, this could be very interesting. Unfortunately, we ourselves still do not understand everything about what country we live in, what a beautiful country. And for many people living next to their neighbors, it would be interesting to learn about ethnic groups and peoples that inhabit the country. Such things that we, unfortunately, do not encounter in everyday life, but which, of course, are the basis of the Russian multinational people and, of course, are our value,” the president believes.

Based on the results of the above, it can be noted that in Russia there is an active and conscious global process of forming a single nation, including all the peoples of Russia, with a single civil and national consciousness, with a common understanding for all citizens of what the “Russian nation” is, based on common values and principles. And enshrined at the highest legislative level.

“Spontaneously” national unification has been going on for a long time; Russian citizens felt united without any laws. However, now this process will be formalized and supported officially. Which is natural - and, of course, good.

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 by religious beliefs. Take such a global and eternal issue - the relationship 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 different nationalities friendly or normal,” Putin cited statistics, adding, not without pride, that a few years ago there were only 55% of these people.

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: they explained to the weak little man that another people 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 - 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 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 the 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 Russia does not need such a large population is a very Anglo-Saxon idea. The German Nazis differ from the Anglo-Saxon ones only in that the Germans trumpeted this loudly 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 former time 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 she entered the Besstuzhev courses, which she did not have time to complete: the revolution interfered. 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 is your small homeland, where your ancestors, customs, fairy tales, language are. 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 came down
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 large languages ​​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 called “folk culture,” which was taught by a great enthusiast of this matter. She taught children, among other things, to sculpt from clay, they studied 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. Talking about “big” life - about politics, about science, technology, about general life - is artificial and unproductive. Yes, in fact, this is actually what happens.

In the language of Bolshevik discussions a century ago on national question 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 - these are ALL 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.

The highly respected 19th-century philologist and philosopher 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, 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 new government I didn’t 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.

At one time, a 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 - the Soviet nation” and it would put a lot in its place.

The Soviet nation existed at least since 1941, and with all the recognition of the greatest contribution to the victory of the Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kazakh and any other people of the USSR, it 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 both ethnic and cultural-historical, were not endowed with the proper status and resources in the USSR to carry out the mission of “holding” on the territory of 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, it will not work and sincere love to 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 many stages, 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.

In this capacity of a “core ethnic group” (the definition I took from the book by Vladimir Makhnach and Sergei Elishev “Politics. Basic Concepts”) I see the Russian people. 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 to the “Russian people”. As a Russian person, I would never agree with this. Russian and Russian are simply different categories; you cannot replace one with the other, just as you cannot replace the Russian language with the “Russian” language. By the way, Mikhail Lomonosov tried to do this together with Catherine II, and during the period of active imperial construction, but nothing worked out for them. The history of the long-suffering 20th century clearly shows: the less Russian there was left in a Russian, 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.

Representatives of which nations should receive Russian citizenship in a simplified manner? How to adapt migrants and is it worth taking an example from Europe in this matter? These issues were discussed at the Council on Interethnic Relations, which was held in Astrakhan. The meeting was chaired by Vladimir Putin. And before that, the president launched oil production at one of the largest Russian fields on the Caspian shelf.

The Astrakhan school named after Heydar Aliyev is preparing for National Unity Day. A border region inhabited by people of 147 nationalities. The mother of one of the school students is Tatar, married to an Azerbaijani.

- Have you learned Azerbaijani?

“I learned it, since I’ve been married for 10 years, I already know this language,” admits Ralina Nasirova.

“Is he Tatar? Does he know at least a few words?” – asked the correspondent.

“These languages ​​are very similar to each other, so we understand each other,” Ralina assures him.

People of different nationalities living in Russia have been able to understand each other for as long as the country has existed.

“It never even occurred to me to think about nationality, who my husband should be - Russian, Bashkir, Tatar. After all, the secret of family happiness is love,” the woman admits.

At a meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations, President Putin states: the national policy strategy approved 4 years ago is working.

“Almost 80% of the country’s citizens, I note this with satisfaction, consider relations between people of different nationalities to be friendly or normal. Several years ago, as surveys show, only 55% of our citizens gave such an assessment,” noted Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This, however, according to Putin, is not a reason to reduce attention to the issue. Moreover, interethnic and interregional contradictions have sharply worsened in the world, and tensions are growing due to the flow of migrants. At the same time, for their compatriots, the Council participants said, it is necessary to soften the rules when obtaining citizenship. To do this, they proposed compiling a specific list of the peoples of Russia.

“Who is ours, who is a stranger, who is ours, who is a stranger, at least, roughly speaking, determine. I proceed from that European world experience,” suggested one of the council participants.

“Let’s rely on our own. The European experience is not the best right now,” Vladimir Putin warned.

“Yes, yes, yes. But good. They have good experience, although they have a lot of nonsense, but what is good is at least this,” the council member continued.

“Listen, this is nonsense,” Putin was surprised. “In general, you saw what was happening. An emigrant raped a child in one of the European countries. The court acquitted him on two grounds: he speaks the language of the host country poorly and did not understand that the boy, and it was a boy, was objecting. I can't imagine what they are doing there. This is the result of the erosion of these traditional national values. And I don’t even know how to explain it, a feeling of guilt towards these migrants or what else. It’s not even clear what’s going on there. But a society that cannot protect its children today has no tomorrow, no future. Therefore, their experience, frankly speaking, is not the best. And we have a thousand-year history of the formation of a multinational state."

At the same time, in the country last years According to experts, the “civil nation” began to strengthen - the feeling of being part of Russia, part of a country with achievements both in the past and in the present. People of various nationalities are proud to be Russians. They are proud to be Russians and Crimean Tatars. A participant in the meeting, who came from Crimea, said that over the past two years, so much has been done for the Crimean Tatar people that has not been done for 25 years: the key decree on rehabilitation is only a part.

“We’ve decided on the location for the mosque, right?” – Vladimir Putin asked him.

“Yes, we have already laid it. We are very pleased, of course,” admitted a guest from Crimea.

“Everyone is happy, the place suits me, as I understand it,” Putin said.

“Of course. You know how many places for this mosque were chosen over the course of 10 years. They gave it, then they took it away. Now it has already been laid, they have begun laying the foundation. Thank you very much,” a council member thanked Putin.

Putin supported the proposal to hold a year of unity of the Russian nation, to create a law on the Russian nation - it will help in the development of interethnic relations.

The Astrakhan region, where the council meeting took place, is also a region with a powerful oil and gas complex. On October 31, the President launched oil production at the largest oil field in Russia discovered over the past 25 years. Despite the fact that the platform is located directly in the sea, the principle of zero discharge applies here.

“Nothing ends up in the sea,” the miners emphasize once again.

“Excellent. Nikolai Nikolaevich, begin,” Putin commands.

“The Filonovskoye field has been put into operation,” is heard from the loudspeaker.

“I congratulate you. There is a lot of work, Vagit Yusufovich (Alekperov) said, for 50 years. I hope you will continue to work actively and with the same quality,” Putin continued.

Offshore ice-resistant platforms are being built here in Astrakhan. So sanctions and restrictions on technology do not bother anyone here.

The support of the offshore platform can only be seen now. Then piles will be driven into the niches, and the support will lie on the seabed. The huge structure will hold the offshore platform in any weather, in any storm and in any ice.

“For the next 20 years, we plan to build almost 15 platforms annually. Until 2021, we build one platform every year,” Vagit Alekperov, president of PJSC Lukoil, proudly stated.

“This means that there will be orders for metallurgists, for those who produce pipes and cables. And of course, this is a significant contribution to the development of the country’s economy as a whole,” Vladimir Putin emphasized.

This field alone will produce 6 million tons of oil per year.