On March 14, 2014, the following message caught my attention:
“The FSO will study the attitude of Russians towards Putin and migrants.
The Federal Security Service (FSO) plans to conduct large-scale surveys and research in 2014 to study the attitude of Russians towards the work of the president and migrants.
A large-scale survey will take place in mid-March and October 2014, during which respondents will be asked about their attitude to the implementation of Vladimir Putin’s inaugural May decrees.
35 thousand people will take part in another survey - on interethnic and interfaith relations and an assessment of the activities of governors in these areas. The FSO also plans to find out in which areas of life “migration pressure” causes a negative reaction from Russians” (03/14/2014, 07:17, “Gazeta.Ru”).
I am convinced that, first of all, the information of the FSB Border Service about the real parameters of external migration should be brought to the attention of citizens of the Russian Federation. And only then conduct a survey about “migration pressure.”
In one of my previous publications, “Making Good Out of Evil,” I provided the text of my next letter to the highest authorities of the country. The questions were as follows: “What are the figures for the natural decline (extinction) of the Russian people for 1992-2012? Do you have it? What is your forecast for the number of Russian people by 2050? I ask you to provide me with data from the PS of the FSB of the Russian Federation on the total entry into the Russian Federation and the total exit from the Russian Federation for each year of the period from 1992 to 2012. (data for 2005-2010 are no longer a secret).
Do you consider the fall in the share of the Russian people below 50% of the total population of the Russian Federation a threat to the territorial integrity of the country? And when exactly do you predict such a shift?” “I received three letters in response. I apologize in advance for the inevitable dryness of the presentation.
The first to respond was the Office of the President of the Russian Federation for working with letters from citizens and organizations (letter dated October 28, 2013 No. A26-01-91772901): “We inform you that your appeal, received in writing addressed to the President of the Russian Federation, in order to ensure your constitutional right to appeal to state bodies and local government bodies sent for consideration to the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, to the Border Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation in accordance with the competence to resolve the issues raised therein (Part 3 of Article 8 of the Federal Law of May 2, 2006 No. 59- F3 “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation.”). – Consultant of the Department of Written Appeals from Citizens and Organizations S. Safyanov.”
Then the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation responded (letter dated November 18, 2013 No. 12-0/3053001-10222). I will quote only the first paragraph: “Dear Andrey Yuryevich! In accordance with the letter of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation for working with letters from citizens and organizations dated October 29, 2013 No. F26-01-91772901, the Department of Demographic Policy and Social Protection of the Population of the Ministry of Labor has considered your appeal within the scope of its competence and informs you as follows. (...) – Deputy Director of the Department of Demographic Policy and Social Protection of the Population E.A.Strakhova.”
The Federal Migration Service (FMS) was the last to respond (letter dated December 17, 2013 No. MS-3/54909). This time I will quote the first and last four paragraphs: “Dear Andrey Yuryevich! In pursuance of the order of the Government Office of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2013 No. P12-53009, the FMS of Russia, together with the Ministry of Labor of Russia, the FSB of Russia and Rosstat, considered your appeal within the scope of their competence, and we inform you as follows. (...)
The position on official statistical recording of long-term migration remains unchanged: only documented cases of long-term migration are subject to statistical recording.
Since 2011, long-term migration includes arriving (departing) citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons upon registration (deregistration) at the place of residence and place of stay for a period of 9 months or more (until 2011 this period was 1 year . – A.P.). This allows us to more fully take into account the number of permanent residents of the country.” – Alas, this practice distorts the population statistics of modern Russia beyond recognition!
“In addition to the information previously sent to you (for 2005-2010 - A.P.), we attach information for the period from 2011 to 2013 (more precisely, until December 13, 2013 - A.P.) on entry, exit and registration of foreign citizens (IG) and stateless persons (LSP) for migration registration on the territory of the Russian Federation, available at the Central Bank for Registration of Foreign Citizens (CBD UIG).
The Federal Migration Service of Russia does not have this information for the period from 2001 to 2004.
Application: for 1 l.
Sincerely, Deputy Head E.A. Radochina.”
The most important thing turned out to be in the appendix on 1 sheet! I suggest studying the following table.
Columns (columns) I, II, III are data from the Border Service (BS) of the FSB of the Russian Federation on entry into and exit from the Russian Federation for 2005-2010, which were attached to the sixth letter from the FMS addressed to the author of these lines ( letter dated 02/08/2011 No.MS-3/2383 to No.SNI-4/4 dated 01/25/2011, which was then signed by the Head of the Organizational and Analytical Department of the FMS, Mrs. E.A. Radochina).
And also (quote): “Information about IG and LDH available in the Central Database of the UIG for 2011-13.12.2013,” which was annexed to the seventh letter from the FMS addressed to the author of these lines (the letter was quoted above). The only thing is that I completed the data for 2013 based on daily averages. Pay attention to them.
Columns (columns) IV, V, VI are official data on “long-term migration” from the Rosstat website www.gks.ru. Data for 2013 are currently not available on the Rosstat website (last updated 12/04/2013).
The difference between the PS FSB and FMS data (I, II, III) and the official Rosstat reports (IV, V, VI) literally hurts the eyes!
Let's ask the obvious question. – What realities of external migration do we all live in? in those that the most honest Rosstat informs us about (IV, V, VI), or in others that record the PS of the FSB and the FMS (I, II, III)?! And to this obvious question there is only one obvious answer! So let’s see what the reality of the population statistics of modern Russia is.
As we see, in 2005-2013. the average annual migration increase exceeds 2 million. This means the migration increase for 1992-2013. amounted to approximately 45 million! According to the official version of Rosstat - no more than 7.5 million. Hence the hidden migration increase, not reflected in Rosstat reports, approximately - 37.5 million!
It turns out that the actual size of the permanent population of the Russian Federation is not 143 million at all, but taking into account the hidden migration increase (37.5 million) it is approximately 180 million! There is no other way!
Today the number of Russian people in the Russian Federation is already less than 110 million! With the actual permanent population of the Russian Federation being approximately 180 million, the share of the Russian people in it today is approximately 60%!
If the achieved rate of natural decline and extinction of Russians is maintained, then by 2050 there will be only 50 million left of the Russian people! And if at the same time the achieved rate of migration growth is maintained (“plus” 2 million per year), then around 2020 the share of the Russian people in the total population of the Russian Federation will fall below 50%! – (see in detail “The missing chapter of “Strategy 2020”” - A.Yu. Pshenitsyn. Russia is dispersing).
Let’s return to the announced survey: “The FSO also plans to find out in which specific areas of life “migration pressure” causes a negative reaction from Russians.” This time I will clarify that, first of all, it is necessary to convey to the citizens of the Russian Federation not only information from the FSB and FMS about the real parameters of external migration, but also the figures for the absolute death of the Russian people for 1991-2013. And only then conduct a survey about “migration pressure.” Things are heading towards the inevitable collapse of the Russian Federation.
And very briefly about the texts of the letters received from the Ministry of Labor and the Federal Migration Service. The fact is that from the 2nd to the 31st paragraphs are the same text! In terms of style, it was clearly born in the depths of Rosstat. There is no need to quote this part of the same text. This is a popular presentation of successes in the fight against the demographic crisis, which shows in absolute and relative terms an increase in the birth rate and a decrease in mortality. This data is regularly reported to us by the media.
However, the PS FSB and FMS data (column III) show the real reason for the increase in the birth rate. Tens of millions of external migrants who freely settle in the Russian Federation; These are people, primarily young and middle-aged. And for them, life in the Russian Federation continues in its natural manifestations. In particular, they give birth to children. And they themselves, due to their young age, almost never die. It's simple.
At the same time, the actual size of the permanent population of the Russian Federation of 180 million, on the one hand, and the declared mortality rate of less than 2 million per year, on the other hand, do not agree at all! In the Russian Federation, life expectancy is 90 years?!
The letter from the Ministry of Labor ended with the 31st paragraph. Apparently, they read more carefully the text sent to him, “The missing chapter of Strategy 2020.” And the FMS decided to continue. The 32nd paragraph of the FMS letter contains unprincipled clarifications of the results of the 2002 and 2010 censuses. I quoted paragraphs 34 to 37 above. At the same time, it makes sense to quote and comment on the lengthy 33rd paragraph of the FMS letter.
“Currently, in the absence of information about nationality in identity documents of a citizen of the Russian Federation, the only source of information about the national composition of the population is the population census.” - Right. I do all my calculations based on the official results of censuses, both in the Russian Federation and in post-Soviet states (“Multi-kulti, kaput”). All calculations show that within the former USSR the natural decline and extinction of the Russian people amounted to at least 25 million, and in the Russian Federation - more than 20 million! And I have not yet encountered even an attempt to refute my calculations, even in six letters of response from Rosstat.
“According to the results of the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, the Russian population is the most numerous (111 million people) and makes up 80.9% of the total population of the country who indicated their nationality. Compared to the data of the 2002 All-Russian Population Census, the number of Russians decreased by 4.9 million people, but their share in the entire population of the country increased by 0.3 percentage points.” – To assure me of such a thing is almost an insult! The authors of this passage seriously believe that I am unaware of this simple statistical hocus-pocus? We look at the official table of the results of the censuses of 1989, 2002 and 2010.
All data in the table are calculated using the same method. But in the indicated passage the counting method has been changed. Those who did not indicate their nationality in the 2010 census were excluded from the calculation (5,629,429 (3.94%)). That's all. At the same time, pay attention to how quickly their numbers and share of the total population grew in the 2002 and 2010 censuses!
Quoting the end of the 33rd paragraph, where the new counting methodology improves the indicators of the “Russian population” in certain regions of the Russian Federation, in my opinion, does not make sense.
As for the following passage: “Compared to the data of the 2002 All-Russian Population Census, the number of Russians decreased by 4.9 million people.” – Actually, “compared to the data of the All-Russian Population Census” of 1989, the number of Russians decreased by 8.8 million people!
At the same time, firstly: after the January 1989 census, the fading natural growth of the Russian people increased its number in the RSFSR to 121 million (when in mid-1991 the falling Russian birth rate and the growing Russian mortality rate became equal for a moment). Secondly: for 1989-2010. The migration increase of the Russian people in the RSFSR-RF amounted to at least 7 million. And thirdly: in the 2002 and 2010 censuses. at least 5 million respondents changed their national self-determination and called themselves Russian.
It turns out that if, from mid-1991, Russian mortality and Russian birth rates were in balance, then the migration increase of the Russian people would be 7 million, and 5 million, which is in the 2002 and 2010 censuses. changed their national self-determination and called themselves Russians, would increase the number of the Russian people from 121 million to 133 million! Instead, the 2010 census recorded a drop in the number of Russian people to 111 million!
It inevitably follows that for 1991-2010. in the Russian Federation, the extinction of the Russian people (the excess of Russian mortality over the Russian birth rate) amounted to approximately 22 million. And taking into account 2011-2013, approximately 23 million Russians died out in the Russian Federation in 1991-2013. (see in detail “The missing chapter of “Strategy 2020””, A.Yu. Pshenitsyn. Russia is dispersing and “Multi-kulti, kaput”).
People sometimes ask me why I research the same topic so often?
– Yes, because I’m Russian!
This is the second part of a series of articles about the genocide of the Russian people.
4. Bleeding Russia by exporting capital to the West
Once a few years ago I read an interview with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who was the president of Kalmykia at that time. He spoke bitterly about the fact that what Russia earns, Kudrin collects like a vacuum cleaner and sends it to the USA. These words sank into my soul.
Really, how can this be?
Why should the wealth created by the Russian people enrich Uncle Sam?
And is this government headed by the president really OURS? Or are the Russian leadership, led by Putin, simply stupidly carrying out the will of the West, sending there a river of wealth that should belong to Russia and the people?
Let's face the facts, let's look at the statistics.
Year outflow/import (billion dollars)
Total -659,5
Statistics show that the scale of capital flight to the West under Putin has only grown and reached truly gigantic proportions.
The withdrawal of capital to Putin’s Western partners reached especially colossal proportions during the years of the beginning of the crises, when the Russian leadership called on the people to tighten their belts...
Particularly unconscionable for Putin’s political strategists is the reference to the fact that the West has taken up arms against Russia (aha! and that’s probably why they are given so much wealth of the Russian people as a gift! And what do they call those who supply their enemies?).
More than $550 billion was exported from Russia from 2000 to 2015 inclusive.
This is the net export of capital according to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Official. Recorded by banking transactions. And how much was exported unofficially, in the form of cash or goods (raw materials), which was sold abroad, but the money for it never arrived in Russia - one can only guess...
And that is not all. Let's see how much Russian money is invested in American securities.
As of August 2016, 90 billion US dollars belonging to Russia were held in American securities.
These are the facts! While Putin’s political strategists and state media are actively brainwashing the people, suggesting that Putin is opposed to the West, is opposed to the United States, it turns out that not only has the flight of capital to the West not been stopped, the Russian leadership led by Putin, it turns out, keeps money in American securities papers, enriching Uncle Sam, like that!
So know: those who say that Putin is opposed to the United States and the West are simply liars who are trying to deceive the people as suckers (I must note that, alas, not without success).
Meanwhile, thanks to Putin and Co., truly golden rivers are flowing towards the USA and the West!
It turns out that for the people of Russia “there is no money, but you hold on,” but for the Pindos (and for Israeli pensioners) there is money! So it’s not for nothing that Putin calls the United States and the West “our Western partners.”
So, the Russian leadership has money for Putin’s partners, but it’s not there for Russia and the people...
The facts indicate that For the Russian leadership led by Putin, the enemies are not the USA and the West(in fact, these are Putin’s partners, whom he enriches at the expense of Russia and the people), and its own people, who act only as a donor for oligarch cronies and Putin’s Western partners.
In response to this, the Olga residents can start their usual record about the fact that China stores much more in the United States than Russia.
I can remind you that China's industry is such that the whole world is filled with Chinese goods. They do not need to restore the destroyed industry.
Because while in the 90s and 2000s the Russian leadership, first led by Yeltsin, and then led by Putin, was destroying our industry, the Chinese were developing their industry.
So China has a completely different situation, and they can afford to invest money in the United States.
And for Russia it is vital to revive industry. Only, alas, for Putin the interests of his Western partners are more important...
5. Power and its heroes. What the monuments will tell us about: about where we are going, about our future.
Who are the heroes? Why do people erect monuments to them?
A hero is a person of exceptional valor, exceptional courage.
A hero is a person who has done something so important, great and useful, for which people respect and honor him, for which the hero is their example, for which people want to be like him.
Monuments are erected to heroes so that people remember the heroes, do not forget about them and learn life from their example.
In other words, heroes, that is, those people whom society recognizes as such, give society the direction of its development.
If the hero is strong and courageous, then the people who follow his example will try to become the same.
If a hero is a great creator, then people who follow his example will try to do more useful things for others and for the Motherland.
If a hero is a warrior who sacrificed himself for the sake of his people, for the sake of the Motherland, then people who follow his example will be ready to stand up for the defense of the Motherland, to protect their loved ones and, if necessary, give their lives for the sake of the happiness of other people.
In any case, it has always been considered important that a hero is someone who has done something very useful for the country, for the people, done something important so that people live better, so that they have a happier future.
And this is understandable.
How can we understand if the authorities erect monuments to Judases, executioners, and Hitler’s henchmen? How can we understand if the authorities erect monuments not to the creators, but to the destroyers and destroyers, who caused the death of many people, sometimes millions of innocent people? What direction of development in this case is given to both the state and society? The direction towards death and destruction is what is important to understand!
Here is Yeltsin. What did he do? He played one of the most important roles in the destruction of the USSR. A sinister role. And a luxurious center was built for him, which was opened by the president himself.
Here is Mannerheim. He destroyed Leningraders in a brutal blockade. During this blockade, more than 600 thousand Leningraders died from hunger alone. How much must one hate Russia, how much one must hate the Russian people, in order to erect a memorial plaque to such an executioner! But the Russian leadership, led by Putin, went for it...
And don’t say that Putin has nothing to do with it: the presence of the Minister of Culture and the head of the presidential administration during the opening ceremony of the board of shame speaks for itself!
And that is not all. Not only does the government make heroes of the destroyers, those who contributed to the destruction of our Motherland - the USSR.
The Russian leadership, led by Putin, is doing everything to slander and smear the true heroes with mud.
Both Putin and Medvedev do not miss a single opportunity to throw mud at Lenin, Stalin and the USSR.
You can see more about this:
In the article “Bestial anti-Sovietism of the Russian government. Putin and Co.: a chronicle of decommunization":
In an article in “Putin on Stalin and the USSR”:
And the historical films that are now being released demonstrate that tendency: they represent a falsification of history, where executioners are praised and heroized (Admiral), and Stalin is either demonized (all those tired of the sun) or he (as well as the USSR) seems to not exist (28 Panfilov's men).
The fact that the authorities demonstrate hatred of everything Soviet can be somehow understood: traitors always hate those whom they betrayed...
But here’s what the Russian heroes did not please the authorities: Ilya Muromets (and after all, they are canonized!), Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich... The very fact that these heroes, these heroes of the Russian land are ridiculed and the authorities turn a blind eye to this says about the Russophobia of the Russian authorities.
And how is the life of these heroes, these defenders of the Russian land presented to children? And through the cartoons “Alyosha Popovich and Tugarin the Serpent”, “Dobrynya Nikitich and the Serpent Gorynych”, “Ilya Muromets and the Nightingale the Robber”, where these heroes look like comic characters, like Mickey Mouse or SpongeBob.
How is this possible, why do they appear on screens in this form? Why is the church silent when a righteous hero, canonized as a Saint, is exposed to public ridicule? Where is the respect for our history, why are our heroes, instead of serving as an example for children and youth, simply ridiculed? Such mockery of our history must be stopped immediately, and such “masterpieces” must be banned from display.
But under the current Russophobic government one cannot even dream of this. The abomination shown on the screen, both regarding the heroes of the Great Patriotic War and the heroes of earlier times, only continues to multiply.
In general, the facts are clear: the enemies of Russia by the current government are exalted, and the heroes, on whose examples the people should be educated, are slandered and ridiculed.
I have already said what the goal of such a policy is - the elimination of all spiritual bonds that bind people into a people, the destruction of the Russian people and the transformation of the people into selfish grains of sand - a population not connected in any way with each other, devoid of any common spiritual bonds.
This is exactly what the Russian leadership, led by Putin, is actively doing.
We’ll talk about other programs of genocide of the Russian people next time, in the next article of this series.
How is the Russian genocide - the Scaffold - different from the Jewish Holocaust and why is it still going on? What is modern Russophobia and how is it related to the Western geopolitical project? What do we need to preserve the national memory and not lose the war? What role did the Crimean Consensus play in the reconciliation of “whites” and “reds”? Journalist Elena Zhosul talks about these topics with Advisor to the Chairman of the State Duma, Doctor of Political Sciences Alexander Shchipkov.
Alexander Vladimirovich, there is a lot of talk about Russophobia today, both in connection with sanctions and in connection with the historical attitude of the West towards Russia. What, in your opinion, are the origins and meaning of this phenomenon?
This is a tragic phenomenon, so the boundaries of the concept cannot be blurred, turning it into some kind of sticker. Russophobia exists both in Russia and abroad. In Russia, this is the position of those who call the people “cattle”, “hereditary slaves”, and consider Russia something like terra nullius - “no man’s land”, as the colonialists once said. External Russophobia is associated with the policies of neoliberal globalist elites. They are not satisfied with the very existence of Russians as a nation. And we are once again, by inertia, trying to come to an agreement with them, missing historical time
- Is Western Russophobia a historically accidental or natural phenomenon?
It is absolutely natural, and therefore it will not disappear by itself, no matter how hard we try to please someone, to appease someone. The last decades have clearly shown this. The West is the only civilization that builds its development on the denial of its own tradition, and then of other people’s traditions. The Russian problem for them is that we have a common past with them: we are also part of the Christian world, the idea of which the West has rejected. But we do not want and cannot reject tradition and turn ourselves into a historical Golem. We hinder them by the very fact of our existence.
- Only we? What about China, the Arab world, the “war of civilizations”?
It is one thing for the Islamic or Confucian world to be rivals of the West in a political sense, but this is not the case for Western identity. They are too different, dissimilar. The Russians, the heirs of the Byzantine project, are a deep, existential threat. For the West, we are an example of an alternative Europe, a kind of historical mirror. The existence of the Eastern Christian, neo-Byzantine civilization splits Western identity and gives rise to their fear of losing themselves. This is described in psychology as the “split self” effect. We are the same for them as for Ukrainians, only in a more general sense. Hence the desire to solve the Russian question radically and forever. And not only Russian, but also Orthodox. Remember the fate of the Serbs, remember what the European Union did to the Greeks.
Russian civil society, despite decades of ideological indoctrination, has not lost the memory of the past, of its sacred historical subjects.
- How does the Soviet period fit into this paradigm of confrontation?
The Soviet project was conceived and began as a new stage of Westernization, but unexpectedly it also revealed signs of tradition. The second trend was not visible at first, but gradually began to strengthen. Therefore, the project was dismantled by its dispatchers and curators. Not immediately, but when there was a leap into the information economy, and the USSR seemed to be no longer needed as an imaginary alternative to capitalism. True, by moving away from bipolarity into unipolarity, the globalist establishment has painted itself into a corner. Sooner or later, we will have to explain ourselves to the whole world for centuries of authoritarian politics and colonization, for wars and coups, for the imposition of our values and cultural hegemony.
- Is Western Russophobia intensifying today?
Intensifying. We are now in a state of hybrid war, but we are afraid to admit this fact. Because of this fear, there is a great risk of losing this war and ending the national history, which, you see, would be a shame. Especially now, when the Western project is losing legitimacy and sliding into crisis. Everything is being done to prolong his agony. Therefore, the outskirts of the world are regularly “set on fire,” which is tantamount to introducing a state of emergency on a global scale. What can we say about Russia? We are a bridge between the West and the East, a historical “crossroads”. To take possession of this bridge, it is necessary to deprive Russians of their subjectivity and identity.
Has the Russian genocide in the 20th and 21st centuries ceased to be a taboo topic? Is there any research being done on this issue?
Our information space is amazingly structured. In the Crimean speech of the President, the Russians were recognized as the largest divided people in the world. Where has this topic gone from the official agenda now? Modern silencing of inconvenient topics is based not on direct prohibitions, but on information discrimination, on the formalization of political discourse, which cuts off attempts at direct expression and at the same time deprives the opponent of the most important resource - linguistic semantic supports.
- Is it possible to completely remove the topic of Russophobia from the public agenda?
No, it won't work anymore. Russian civil society, despite decades of ideological indoctrination, has not lost the memory of the past, of its sacred historical subjects. In particular, the memory of the Russian genocide in the 20th-21st centuries. This genocide today is increasingly called the Scaffold. In a sense, this is an analogue of the Jewish catastrophe - the Holocaust - but, of course, there are many differences. For example, the Jewish catastrophe has already ended, but the Russian catastrophe continues in those territories where the program of de-Russification and national cleansing has been launched.
- How many stages can be identified in the tragedy of the Scaffold?
Usually historians distinguish three stages. The first is Galician. The genocide was organized in 1914 by the Austro-Hungarian regime in Galicia and affected Russian Orthodox Christians - the Ruthenians. In tsarist Russia, the corresponding statistics were kept, so now we know a more or less exact number of those repressed: about a quarter of a million people. I am sure that the names of the Austrian concentration camps for Russians - Thalerhof, Terezin - should be included in school textbooks along with Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau. The second stage of the Block is German. This is 1941. Theorists of the Third Reich themselves defined the war with the USSR as “racial”, and Russians, Jews and some other nationalities and ethnic groups as inferior peoples from whom it was necessary to free “living space” (Lebensraum) in the East. There is information about this in the documents of the Ost plan, in the famous book Untermensch and many related texts. The third stage is the destruction of Russians on the territory of Ukraine, Crimea, DPR, LPR. Starting with the street slogan “Moskalyaku to Gilyaku!”, ending with shelling and blockades of cities. Counts of victims of repression are being carried out.
- How to evaluate the internal processes of the Soviet period?
Not an easy topic. Yes, there were numerous repressions. It is difficult to call them genocide on a national basis, since there was no selective national-ethnic massacre. Although the very fact of the Bolshevik rejection of Russian territories in the first years of Soviet power, including the authoritarian Khrushchev annexation of Crimea in 1954, objectively led to an artificial division of the Russian people and created additional ground for ethnocide.
- How can we reconcile the “reds” and the “whites” today?
We need to realize two basic things. Firstly, that both “whites” and “reds” are Russians. And we cannot sacrifice any half, throw it out of history. Secondly, that reconciliation has already occurred since that Civil War ended. Historically, both sides lost in it, because the split of the nation and the rupture of tradition is a loss for the people as a whole, no matter who wins on the battlefield. And then both parts won. And this happened in 2014, when we returned Crimea. Because the division was put to an end, a part of the divided people returned home. It became clear that Russians could and would resist colonization and genocide. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of both “whites” and “reds” supported this step. This is how the civil Crimean consensus emerged - those same 85%. This consensus marked the true end of the nearly century-long Civil War. The tragic gap that arose in 1917 was overcome. This was largely facilitated by the renewed russocide and the state of war in which the entire Russian people found themselves.
It must be admitted that now there is a war going on in Russia itself, but not at all between the “whites” and the “reds”. Everything is used - calls for violation of territorial integrity, struggle with national history and other symptoms.
- Many people now don’t have the feeling of wartime...
Because the war is hybrid, and rhetoric in the style of “don’t give in to provocations” has a soporific effect. But this is a deadly condition. We were already there once, it was in 1940-1941, and we remember well how it ended. We missed a blow, barely had time to recover, the Lord helped. But we hardly want to find ourselves at the very edge again. It must be admitted that now there is a war going on in Russia itself, but not at all between the “whites” and the “reds”. Everything is used - calls for violation of territorial integrity, struggle with national history and other symptoms. This included a speech in the Bundestag “Koli-s-Urengoya”, and a screening at the Moscow Film Festival of a documentary film glorifying the “Right Sector” banned in Russia, and the installation in St. Petersburg of a memorial plaque to Mannerheim, who bombed besieged Leningrad. Even one of our presidential candidates talks about the illegality of the national choice of Crimea, openly defending the interests of the Kyiv regime.
How do you explain such a stereotype: it is always correct, appropriate and necessary to talk about the Holocaust, it has been well researched, non-recognition is punishable in a number of countries, but it is indecent to recognize the Russian genocide?
These are double standards generated by Russophobia. The taboo topic of the Scaffold is associated with a long-term information campaign against Russians, with the low quality of part of the Russian elite, with comprador ideology. This manifests itself in legal discrimination, social and linguistic aggression (taboos and figures of silence). We must strive to introduce laws in Russia that would protect national memory. Of course, they will not be a copy of the Holocaust laws, but their tasks are similar. This is something without which our national demands lose their deep foundation. To demand, you need to feel like historical masters of your own land. And this means protecting the memory of our dead.
- How can this be done?
Just as we recently defended the memory of the pilot who died in Syria. It also requires long and painstaking work by historians and archivists. Instead of fruitless debates about Soviet-anti-Soviet, about “reds” and “whites”. These disputes do not solve anything at the moment. It’s time to officially recognize the Scaffold and the tragedy of the division of the Russian people, reflecting this in legislation. Without all this, the political mainstream is doomed to decline. We need a nationally oriented policy in the field of history, which I wrote about in detail in my book “History as a Social Contract.” It is necessary to create in Russia an Institute of National History of the 20th-21st centuries.
Are Ukrainians and Belarusians Russian or not? Do those who don’t think so need to be convinced of something? Maybe an Englishman or an Italian who came to raise the Russian village and converted to Orthodoxy is more Russian in spirit than the Svidomo people on the Maidan shouting “We will never be brothers”?
Little Russians and Belarusians were parts of the Russian people, with the exception of the population of the former Austria-Hungary and the polarized part of the Belarusians in western Belarus. Many of them remained Russian, but admitting this in Belarus is not prestigious, and in Ukraine it is simply dangerous. And they are silent. But there are Ukrainians and Belarusians who categorically do not consider themselves Russians. It is not necessary and even harmful to convince them of something. This is their choice. Identity is determined by language, culture and religion, but there is another important factor - self-awareness. A person can have a double identity, sub-identities - for example, Russian and Soviet. Ultimately he decides for himself. The same can be said about the English or Italians you ask about. If they consider themselves Russian, that means they are Russian. Now the question is beginning to gain relevance, since in Russia there is a struggle over the interpretation of the concept “Russian”. There are several interpretations: liberal-democratic, liberal-nationalist, neo-Soviet-modernist, “Russian diaspora”, neo-pagan, anti-globalist, church. Vasily Shchipkov wrote about this in detail in his article “Russian,” which was included in the philosophical collection “In a Different Way.”
After the collapse of the Union, many of our compatriots suddenly found themselves “abroad” and felt abandoned. They are offended by Russia, which does not pursue a clear policy to protect their interests. Has the situation changed in recent years?
Of course, they are offended, and I understand them. A country in which the Russian language and culture, the Russian ethnic group itself, are state-forming, must stand up for its brothers. Russians are the main social base of the state due to their large numbers. How can you simultaneously want to avoid the “Orange” revolution and not stand up for the Russians? Who should you rely on then? If the state does not protect its own, it is not taken seriously. Neither within the country, nor in the world. This is self-destruction.
What does the concept “Russian World” mean? Patriarch Kirill often uses it; his brilliant book “Seven Words about the Russian World” comes to mind. Has the Church taken upon itself the function of the ideological defender of the Russian world?
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill was indeed the first to speak about the Russian world as a geocultural phenomenon a quarter of a century ago. It’s strange that the concept of “Russian World” still raises questions among us. It's very clear. The concept of “Anglo-Saxon world” does not raise any questions for anyone. The Russian world is a territory with a predominance of bearers of Russian identity whose native language is Russian, minus those few who consciously do not accept this definition. There are many such territories outside of Russia. This is the result of the division of the Russian people and the loss of a number of territories. In the book “Seven Words about the Russian World,” Patriarch Kirill briefly and succinctly characterizes this phenomenon.
What is Russian patriotism and how should it be expressed? Stickers on BMW “Thank you to grandfather for the Victory” or “To Berlin” - is this Russian patriotism or a parody of it?
No one has the right to tell the people how they should express their patriotism or judge their legitimacy. “Thank you grandfather for the Victory” is a wonderful slogan. And “To Berlin!”... are we afraid of hurting the feelings of the Germans? But they are not afraid to support the Ukrainian Nazis...
- Many people primarily associate the “Russian March” with Russian patriotism. But among its participants there are many marginalized people. How should we feel about these marches?
There is nothing wrong with the name “Russian March”. What it will be like depends on the self-awareness of its participants. Yes, among the participants in this march there are people who support the Maidan. Of course, they are not patriots at all. But these failures arose due to the fact that official Russian discourse ignores the Russian theme, the theme of Russian national interests. The situation has started. We urgently need to take Russian discourse into our own hands and maintain it at the highest level, then there will be no marginalization. But by and large, there is no point in equating patriotism with marches. Many patriots do not go to these marches, and they are the majority in the country - 85%.
- Is Russian nationalism good or bad? Give positive and negative examples.
Why only Russian? This is a general term. Unfortunately, today we live in conditions where many important terms and concepts are blurred. The word "nationalism" is often used as a synonym for Nazism. This is not true. The difference is fundamental. Nazism is a myth of national superiority, exclusivity, denial of the rights of other nations, and, ultimately, the idea of their colonization or destruction. Nationalism is recognition of the value of one’s nation without superiority over others, that is, de facto recognition of the equality of all nations, despite the desire for isolation. This is not Nazism. When Ukrainians came out of the Russian-Soviet paradigm, it was nationalism, but not Nazism. When in the former multinational Ukrainian SSR they began to build a “single national unitary state”, carrying out purges and shooting those who disagree, this is Nazism. A Nazi is one who deprives another of the right to nationalism. Not all nationalism “transitions” into Nazism - this is a myth. Hindus who fought against British rule are nationalists, but not Nazis. The Scottish and Catalan referendums were organized by nationalists, but not by the Nazis. Currently, we are experiencing the formation of Russian nationalism, which was “frozen” under Soviet rule. At the same time, there are many varieties of nationalism, and not all of them are equally good. For example, I don’t understand ethnonationalists. We are a historically Orthodox country, heirs of Byzantine culture. Therefore, I believe that real Russian nationalism is not compatible with ethnocentrism and neoliberalism.
- “Russian means Orthodox” - for many this is an axiom. Your opinion?
I would expand the definition somewhat: Orthodox or sharing Orthodox values. You can also define Russianness based on the well-known Weberian formula. A little sketchy, but generally true: “Russianness is Orthodox ethics and the spirit of solidarity.”
In May 1999, the State Duma of the Russian Federation considered the issue of early termination of the powers of the president. One of the main grounds for the impeachment of Boris Yeltsin was accusations of genocide of his own people. How justified were they?
The most of the most
“In the entire centuries-old history of Russia, there has never been a time when a leader as despised and hated by the people as you, President Yeltsin, appeared on the state Olympus,” is a statement by Kuibyshev resident A. Volosnikov, which in the late 90s expressed the opinion of many Russians. The default of 1998, after which Yeltsin's popularity confidently slid to zero, was the last straw of the public's patience.
A special State Duma commission created in 1999 under the leadership of Communist Party deputy Vadim Filimonov was tasked with considering the possibility of Yeltsin’s removal from power. According to the current Constitution, impeachment required at least two-thirds of the votes of deputies.
However, the people's representatives did not have a unified opinion on this issue. As a result, on none of the charges - the collapse of the USSR; shooting of the Supreme Soviet building; the outbreak of war in Chechnya; the collapse of the army; genocide of the Russian people - the required number of votes was not obtained. There is an opinion that this was facilitated by the presidential apparatus, which used all means - from administrative pressure to direct bribery of deputies.
However, the results of impeachment are secondary. A much more important question is whether there were grounds for bringing such serious charges against Yeltsin, the most discussed of which was the point about “genocide of the Russian people.” It should be noted that in accusing Yeltsin of such a serious crime, the parliamentary commission resorted not only to unfounded rhetoric, but also used collected figures reflecting the real state of affairs in the country.
"There are more coffins than cradles"
According to the prosecution, it was Yeltsin’s government that was responsible for the results of the economic reforms carried out in the country, which entailed “predatory privatization,” the destruction of the entire economic system and the confiscation of citizens’ bank deposits amounting to several trillion rubles. All this, according to the deputy commission, led to the fact that by 1993, in terms of living standards, Russia dropped from 25th place to 68th.
Many recognize that the measures taken by Yeltsin to change socio-economic relations indirectly affected the demographic situation in the country. According to deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, during the period from 1992 to 1998, the natural population decline amounted to 4.2 million people, while the country’s working-age population decreased by 300 thousand annually. Research by demographers supplements the frightening figure with data on the Russian hinterland: in the first 5 years of Yeltsin’s presidency in Russia alone, over 19 thousand villages were depopulated.
By 1993, Russia had reached a sad figure: the mortality rate was 1.6 times higher than the birth rate. As demographers bitterly noted, “more coffins were needed than cradles.” In 1996, another anti-record was recorded - Russia turned out to be the leader in the highest mortality rate and the lowest birth rate among the CIS countries. During this terrible year, the country's population decreased by almost 1 million people.
At the same time, the commission did not announce data on the outflow of population from the country during Yeltsin’s presidency. Meanwhile, according to the estimates of the non-governmental organization, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, in the first half of the 90s alone, about 80 thousand scientists emigrated from the country, as a result of which the budget lost about $60 billion. In total, from 1991 to 1999, from Russia to far-flung countries At least 3 million citizens left abroad.
Tighten your belts
The catastrophic demographic situation in Russia was a direct consequence of the steady decline in the standard of living of Russians in the nineties. According to the State Statistics Committee, population incomes in conditions of inflation from 1992 to 1998 increased 231 times, but the cost of living did not stand still, increasing 248 times over the same period. This led to the fact that by 1998, in a state of 147 million people, the incomes of 32 million citizens were below the subsistence level.
But even extremely low salaries were paid with a delay. According to the Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation, the total wage arrears as of January 1, 1996 amounted to 13.4 billion rubles; as of December 1, 1998, this figure had already reached 84.9 billion rubles.
The president, of course, cannot be accused of a deliberate policy aimed at impoverishing the population, however, as stated by the Chairman of the Security Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the 2nd convocation, a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Viktor Ilyukhin, “Yeltsin deliberately did not allow even a minimal improvement in the material condition of the dying peoples of Russia.”
The excessively radical nature of Yeltsin’s reforms led to the fact that the average Russian’s daily diet was reduced by 1,000 calories. According to figures announced by the Interdepartmental Commission of the Security Council of the Russian Federation on Economic Security, in 1997, compared to 1990, there was a decrease in meat consumption by 35%, milk - by 41%, eggs - by 31%.
To the mercy of fate
By the mid-90s, the state had actually lost the ability to manage the development of market relations in the country, giving people the opportunity to earn money “as best they can.” And the struggle for survival began, which provoked an uncontrolled rise in prices for essential goods, utilities and transport.
The social sphere was also left to its own devices: the proportion of medical and educational services provided for money in the country sharply increased. The situation in the medical care sector has become especially alarming. According to the Ministry of Health, in the ratio for every 100 thousand inhabitants, the incidence rates of tuberculosis increased from 35 to 73 people, syphilis - from 13 to 277, mental disorders - from 274 to 348.
Teenagers from dysfunctional families found themselves in an extremely difficult situation, many of whom turned to alcohol and drugs. In 1996 alone, the number of drug addicts among children increased 53 times. The fact of early initiation into sexual activity also caused serious concern. In 1997, Russian Health Minister Tatyana Dmitrieva stated that “50 percent of today’s boys who become sexually active at 14 will no longer be able to have children.”
Despite the fact that almost everyone recognizes the colossal damage brought to the population by the era of Yeltsin’s presidency, recently voices have increasingly been heard calling for a balanced assessment of the results of Yeltsin’s rule, taking into account the difficulties that our country experienced after the collapse of the USSR. For example, former Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Andrei Dunaev is confident that the role of Boris Nikolayevich during the formation of Russia as an independent state was rather positive, and he calls his main merit the level of freedoms we acquired, unthinkable in the Soviet era.