The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Many of Russia's Republics Are "National" States
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Egor Kholmogorov has noted that Constitution of Bashkortostan, where Bashkirs only make up 36% of the population, proudly announces that Bashkortan is for Bashkirs:

The Bashkir people voluntarily joined Russia in the 16th century… [in 1919] as a result of the realization of the Bashkir people towards self-determination the Bashkir Autonomous Republic was formed as part of the RSFSR… The Republic of Bashkortostan guarantees the preservation and defense of the historic and cultural legacy and the further development of the culture of the Bashkir people and that of other peoples living on the territory of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

On looking it up, I found that the preamble of the Constitution of Tatarstan, where Tatars constitute a bare minority at 53%, has similar phrasing:

This Constitution, expressing the will of the multinational people of the Republic of Tatarstan and of the Tatar people, …

So we have Bashkortostan for the Bashkirs. Tatarstan for the Tatars. Israel for the Jews. Skyrim for the Nords. So why not Russia for Russians?

Why are Russian nationalists supposed to be so evil and demented – if not paid off by the CIA, according to at least one commenter – to want the Constitution of the Russian Federation to actually mention (ethnic) Russians for a change?

Note that the changes that Russian nationalists are tentatively proposing would merely make it into more or less a carbon copy of the Constitutions of the national republics of the two largest non-Slavic minorities in Russia, which make mention of the rights extended to other peoples on their territories:

All Russians [russkie], as well as members of Russia’s other indigenous peoples, independent of their place of birth or residency, have the right to expedited citizenship of the Russian Federation.

Incidentally, even Gennady Zyuganov, the head of the Communist Party, has expressed support for mentioning ethnic Russians as the state-forming people in the Russian Constitution. So I guess that makes him a CIA flunky as well.

In a famous article, Yury Slezkine described the USSR as a communal apartment, where each major nationality had a room to itself except Russians who had to make do with squatting in the common areas. This undermined Russian emotional investment into the Soviet project, and this played at least some role in its eventual collapse. The present day Russia merely recreates that situation in miniature. As of today, what do ethnic Russians formally owe their loyalty to? Some entity called the the RSFSR RF which has no formal obligations to them. Why would anyone want to serve it, at least in a non-mercenary capacity? At least Americans get to pledge loyalty to some abstract ideas of “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.” The Russian Federation doesn’t even have that.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Minorities, Nationalism, Politics, Russia 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. I was told that Russia for Russians would cause RF to break apart somehow. It’s a persistent argument made by foreign “Russophiles”. It implies that various chuchmek ethnicities inhabiting Russia:

    – are genuinely loyal to RF and its Constitution, including multinational political structure…
    – are strong enough to potentially break apart by force, creating landlocked independent Tatarstan….

    • Replies: @216
  3. songbird says:

    I’m not against it by any means, but I’m not sure a weak acknowledgement is in anyway a good bulwark against globohomo.

    IMO, what one really needs is both a well-designed article specifically about immigration, and people actually wargaming immigration on paper. Meaning that they must carefully consider layers of protection, incentives, and disincentives, and have others acting like obnoxious invaders, virtue-signaling SJWs, and traitorous businessmen.

    BTW, aren’t Malaysians shrinking as a percentage of their pop, despite having constitutional acknowledgements?

  4. 216 says: • Website
    @Felix Keverich

    It has been routinely promoted in the US press, and by several “staff officers” I’ve met online; that China is going to carve off Siberia when the time is ripe.

    So if Russia doesn’t cave to the West, it won’t be protected from the Chinese annexation.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  5. @216

    It’s one thing to say that China will invade Russia. I consider it at least remotely possible.

    But what these people are saying is that Russian minorities will simply get up and leave (and take their territories with them), unless appeased. This idea comes from “Russophiles” on this website like AnonFromTN

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-nationalists-and-constitutional-reform/#comment-3682001

  6. Massive colonization of other people’s territory does not, in this day and age, give an imperial ethnicity the right to abolish native culture however small the minority. Australian Aborigines have a case. So, yes, Bashkoristan should support indigenous culture. That is not the same as the racist argument Bashkoristan for the Bashkiris. The issue should be removing such statements from the national states. Only civic nationalism is civilized. Russia or the UK or Australia are fine without some Duginist raving about nation forming ethnicity.

    • Replies: @songbird
    , @4891
  7. AP says:

    OT but when is the Poland article finally coming?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  8. About as possible as US invading Canada.

    War between Russia and China was Western dream for a long time.

    Since the early 90’s there were numerous news pieces about Chinese moving north and coming Chinese annexation of Siberia.

    Hadn’t happened so far, and not going to happen.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-china-no-war/

    • Replies: @neutral
  9. songbird says:
    @Philip Owen

    Civic nationalism is only a synonym for replacement migration.

    • Agree: Rosie
  10. melanf says:

    Many of Russia’s Republics Are “National” States
    Bashkirs only make up 36% of the population, proudly announces that Bashkortan is for Bashkirs…
    On looking it up, I found that the preamble of the Constitution of Tatarstan, where Tatars constitute a bare minority at 53%, has similar phrasing….

    No, these republics are not “national” States. Russian are not oppressed, and there are no conflicts between Russians and Tatars/Bashkirs in these republics, despite these phrases in the Constitution (introduced in the past to appease local nationalists).
    Here is a Russian nationalist writing based on the census –
    https://zemfort1983.livejournal.com/24091.html
    Share of Russian population in these republics is almost unchanged (despite the fact that Russians have a lower birth rate than Tatars and Bashkirs). Migration of the Russian population from the Republic due to the ethnic factor does not exist in principle (but there is an economic migration to Moscow and St. Petersburg ).

    Here is an Orthodox Church in Kazan built in honor of the capture of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible.

    Who can enlighten me – in Scotland there are monuments in honor of the victories of the English over the Scots?

    Bashkortostan, where Bashkirs only make up 36% of the population…Tatarstan, where Tatars constitute a bare minority at 53%

    At the same time, Tatars and Bashkirs are very closely related peoples (according to Tatar nationalists, they are one people) and in both republics they (together) make up a convincing majority (more than 60%). For this reason, the argument “Bashkirs only make up 36% of the population” is a manipulation

  11. 4891 says:
    @Philip Owen

    What does “supporting indigenous culture” mean? Does it mean ensuring the survival and thriving of that indigenous culture? Or does it mean a handful of tax dollars going to “indigenous cultures” until they are surrounded on all sides by non-indigenous peoples? Because the second is a recipe for the extinction of that indigenous culture, just ask the American Indians. If you want the first, how on earth do you expect to keep that culture intact, if people from other cultures multiply and become dominant in your government?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  12. neutral says:
    @another anon

    Tom Clancy was the quintessential cuck, completely oblivious to demographic trends both internationally and domestically. He thought the world was stuck forever in some kind of Reagan golden age, his books are consumed by the sovoks of America (aka patriotards).

  13. @melanf

    “At the same time, Tatars and Bashkirs are very closely related peoples (according to Tatar nationalists, they are one people) and in both republics they (together) make up a convincing majority (more than 60%). For this reason, the argument “Bashkirs only make up 36% of the population” is a manipulation”

    This is a fair point. It does, however, make the wordings of the constitutions somewhat awkward.

    Bashkirs and Tatars are a curious case, in that they integrate into Russian society almost seamlessly, while still maintaining some distinct identity. How much out marriage is there? I know a Russified Bashkir-Tatar couple. They met in Moscow, not the Stans, so I asked if they went looking for co-ethnics to marry. He said no, not exactly, but it helps in mutual understanding, so they seem to have some sense of being different from the Russian majority. But from my superficial, American point of view, they act and look just like everybody else, but with slightly distinctive facial features. Certainly
    d(Bashkir-Tatar,Russian) < d(Americanized Hispanic,WASP).

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Gerad1234
  14. melanf says:
    @melanf

    In order to make it clear what the plans of those who call themselves “Russian nationalists”are.

    A Russian girl Ksenia Kalugina (who lives in Tatarstan) staged a photo session in the ruins of an abandoned Orthodox Church wearing a revealing dress.

    The police of Tatarstan at the request of the ROC began investigating this terrible “crime”, but then the investigation was hushed up, so Ksenia Kalugina avoided prison.

    Russian nationalists, however, became aware of these terrible facts of oppression of the Russian people by tatar. I kid your not – here is the link
    https://acer120.livejournal.com/150315.html

    Because it , according to “russian nationalists”, proves that “on a symbolic, extremely important level the situation of the Russians in Tatarstan is much worse than the situation of the Serbs in Kosovo” Tatars must be punished urgently!
    Then there is a discussion (among “russian nationalists”) of what should be done-to demolish the main Tatar mosque Kul-Sharif? Or urgently build a huge Orthodox Cathedral near Kul-Sharif (it is necessary to be much larger than Kul-Sharif) so that the Tatars know that they live on land belonging to Russian Orthodox people?

    And this Acer120 is still a relatively sane person, compared to the bulk of the so-called Russian nationalists. Therefore, in fact, these people only discredit reasonable things (in particular, migration regulation) that are in their program.

  15. melanf says:
    @The Big Red Scary

    Bashkirs and Tatars are a curious case, in that they integrate into Russian society almost seamlessly, while still maintaining some distinct identity. How much out marriage is there?

    Here are the data for Russia as a whole.
    Russian women (who are married) have in 92% Russian husbands. 1.2% of their husbands are Tatars.
    Tatar women married 69.8% Tatars, 20.6% Russians, 4.7% Bashkirs.
    Bashkir women married 67.6% of Bashkirs, 17.4% Tatars, and 11.5% Russian

    But from my superficial, American point of view, they act and look just like everybody else, but with slightly distinctive facial features.

    Tatars in the absolute majority look like dark-haired and dark-eyed Europeans, it is impossible to distinguish them from Russian of “southern” appearance. Bashkirs have a strong Mongoloid admixture and clearly differ in appearance from the Russians (and from tatar)

    Here’s an example of a Tatar and Bashkir sportswoman

  16. neutral says:
    @melanf

    What law is being broken here?

    • Replies: @melanf
  17. @melanf

    Indeed, I recognize the Bashkir type.

    Whatever else one can say about Bashkirs and Tatars, they are not ugly.

  18. melanf says:
    @neutral

    What law is being broken here?

    If the case went to trial she would be charged with insulting the feelings of believers article 148 of the criminal code (at the same time, based on the letter of the law, the court should have acquitted her). However after the apology the conflict with the Church was settled

    But if Russian nationalists like acer120 came to power in Russia, Ksenia Kalugina would probably be burned at the stake

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  19. melanf says:

    In order for the participants of the discussion can evaluate “Russian nationalists” intellectual level : the intellectual guru of Russian nationalism, Konstantin Krylov, believes that Russia is occupied by” colored people “(headed by Putin) and it would be very good if Russia instead was occupied by the American army – according to Krylov, the American army would immediately protect white people in Russia (that is, Russians) from all non-white

    https://krylov.livejournal.com/2268716.html
    Граждане дорогие. Вы УЖЕ ЖИВЁТЕ в русской резервации, где русские спиываются и вымирают. Под охраной полицаев, кавказцев, азиатцев, и прочих охранителей. И уж если выбирать между кавказским охранником и марином, то стоит предпочесть марина: он хотя бы на голову тебе срать не будет, не будет куражиться, а случае приказа убивать будет чисто, без садизма, и только тех, кого приказали, а не увлекаясь процессом. Да вот не положено нам маринов, нам дикари на голову срут. ЧЕГО УЖ ТЕПЕРЬ-ТО.

    If you judge by Karlin (who is a smart person and says smart things), and think that those who call themselves “Russian nationalists” are normal people like nationalists in other countries – you are deeply mistaken

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  20. I am not Russian so I don’t quite distinguish between “Rossianin” and “Russki”. To me, they are synonyms. I believe, they are translated in English as “Russians” and “Russians in ethnic sense” which implies that the distinction between the two is artificial.

    That Russia is a country of all Russians is implied in the very name of the country, Russian Federation, which means a country created by people who call themselves Russians.

    If that is the case, than the question becomes who or what is a Russian? In my opinion, the answer has to be broad and “generous” enough so that as many people as possible feel “comfortable” with it. Eventually (and voluntarily) many of them will naturally decide to become part of a greater entity called the Russian nation. We often hear “Russia is a state of mind” and that is where the true strength of Russia is.

    I think Russia, although predominantly Slavic, is becoming beyond Slavic and beyond European, and (finally) recognizing itself as a civilization on its own.

    From this perspective, the so called “petty Russian” nationalist are, in my opinion, the greatest danger to Russia. It has been proven many times in history that “petty nationalist” or racist ideas present the greatest danger to the very nation that embraces them. There is no need to give historic examples.

    Time will tell.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    , @Korenchkin
    , @AP
  21. @Felix Keverich

    I consider it at least remotely possible.

    In what world is that remotely possible
    Everything that China could want from Russia (resources, knowledge, technology, etc.) they can buy
    Risking nuclear annihilation over something you can already easily get is utterly idiotic

  22. Beckow says:
    @Simpleguest

    I agree with you up to your last paragraph. “Petty nationalists” are not the problem. What annoys civic people is that they engage in harmless folklore, talk in myths, and can be confrontational with people who are not like them. None of that is dangerous.

    It is natural for a healthy society to have its own myths. When national and religious myths are removed they simply get replaced by other-people myths. Europeans mostly forgot their own myths and substituted others mythology for their own with the adoption of Christianity. Those myths (not the faith itself) are equally unreal and often silly, and in addition they are from a different place, Middle East, different era, and lived by people not like us. Why is that ok and our own deep history or ‘myths’ are dismissed?

    Today a new set of myths is imposed by the new rulers: Hollywood and the anglo-centric mythical views of the world, e.g. the pathetic revisionism about WWII. There is an equal amount of pettiness and it is alien to us with an agenda and an ethnic ideology that harms us.

    We can live with our own petty nationalists. If they go nuts, we can reason together because we share more than divides us and society can handle a broad continuum of authentic views. What destroys nations is a wholesale adoption of other peoples’ myths. Bashkirs and Russians will figure out how to live together, so will Czechs and Germans, and Slovaks and Hungarians. The real danger is that we will all become a warmed-up unauthentic global poseurs talking Pidgin English to each other.

  23. @Simpleguest

    I think Russia, although predominantly Slavic, is becoming beyond Slavic

    Let’s not let it become below average 90IQ

  24. Gerad1234 says:
    @The Big Red Scary

    There is a gigantic amount of intermarriage between Russians and tatars. I know this because Kazan is where I am from!
    I wouldn’t take those official statistics as accurate, because if someone has a tatar babushka they will still probably call themselves Russian.
    President of Tatarstan certainly has more status than governor/mayor in Moscow, SP etc. but it doesn’t infringe on status or authority of VVP.
    Tatars moaning of too much intermarriage tends to be only on fringe section of Internet.
    You may have noted that all ethnic republics were able to come up successfully with the names of patriotic people in the “great name of Russia” Airport name competition. Contrast that with an antidemocratic, fake state like Ukraine, where conducting such a competition would be impossible.

  25. @Felix Keverich

    But what these people are saying is that Russian minorities will simply get up and leave (and take their territories with them), unless appeased.

    You already want the North Caucasus to ‘get up and leave’, why shouldn’t the other Muslim and/or dumb ethnic ‘republics’ leave?

    Try to be at least consistent sometimes.

  26. @reiner Tor

    Don’t do it reiner Tor. It’s a trap !

    • LOL: reiner Tor, songbird
    • Replies: @melanf
  27. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich

    But what these people are saying is that Russian minorities will simply get up and leave (and take their territories with them), unless appeased. This idea comes from “Russophiles” on this website like AnonFromTN

    You can explain to me what the benefits for ethnic Russians , if Russia will be declared tomorrow in the Constitution as “the state of the Russian ethnos”?

    What are the disadvantages of this approach is obvious – to all non-Russian indigenous peoples of Russia will be told that this is not your state, you are in Russia like the Arabs in Israel. But what are the benefits of this approach?

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  28. @melanf

    are normal people like nationalists in other countries

    Ultra Nationalist idiocy is not unique to Russia
    Just take a look at autistic nordicist Germans arguing that they founded the Mayan civilization because a drawing that kinda looks like the Swastika was found in Mexico
    Or the Space Hungarians and Hindu-Atlantis Serbs

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  29. melanf says:
    @Blinky Bill

    Well, the original Magyars came to Hungary from the territory of modern Bashkiria/Tatarstan. These ancestors of the Hungarians must have had a certain genetic affinity with the Tatars and Bashkirs (part of the Magyar Union of tribes were Turks). So Hungarian nationalists should probably feel sympathy for Tatars and Bashkirs.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    , @Blinky Bill
  30. @melanf

    The situation with the Russian woman in the abandoned church and the Albanian one in Kosovo is different. The Russian woman at least looks like a virginal bride while the Albanian ones always look like demonic whores.

    Even though the examples aren’t comparable, Karlin’s original point is correct. What about the rights of ethnic Russians in Russia?

    If Tatars and Bashkirs can have autonomous republics in Russia, shouldn’t the majority RF state ensure the rights of ethnic Russians as well?

    Ethnic Russians should at least try to get some of their own autonomous states in the RF if the current regime is so repulsed by securing their rights on the majority scale. It could also possibly be more likely to work as well.

  31. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Why not just say Russia is for Russians and the 100+ native ethnic groups (list them all out so no one feels excluded)

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
  32. @melanf

    Hungarian nationalists should probably feel sympathy for Tatars and Bashkirs

    Hungarian Nationalist throat singing revival when??

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
  33. @melanf

    You’re been far too rational melanf 😂. If you haven’t noticed, out of all the commentators on this thread your opinion most closely mirrors my own on this issue. My neighbors when growing up were Tartar’s. They are good people, in some ways better than Russians 😅.

    • Agree: melanf
  34. @Korenchkin

    Ideally yes, but if that can’t work, as it doesn’t seem to so far, ethnic Russians demanding their own autonomous republics is always an option …

  35. Dreadilk says:
    @melanf

    Good. A burning here or there is always in order.

  36. @Korenchkin

    Wrong Russian minority. Those are the Tuvans/Mongols.😄

  37. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    The situation with the Russian woman in the abandoned church and the Albanian one in Kosovo is different. The Russian woman at least looks like a virginal bride while the Albanian ones always look like demonic whores.

    watching the video, the church might have been there for the red brick “urban decay” vibe, like no offense intended

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  38. melanf says:
    @Korenchkin

    Why not just say Russia is for Russians and the 100+ native ethnic groups (list them all out so no one feels excluded)

    So this is the official Russian point of view. According to the Constitution, Russia is a state of Russian citizens. What is the difference with “Russia is for Russians and the 100+ native ethnic groups”?

    Of course, there are Russian citizens of non-indigenous origin, but their number is small, and what is the point of excluding them from the Constitution?

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    , @Mitleser
  39. @melanf

    what is the point of excluding them from the Constitution

    Why exclude them then
    Add “Russia for Russians, the 100+ ethnic groups and Russian citizens”

  40. @A. Hipster

    the church might have been there for the red brick “urban decay” vibe

    No. It’s very clear that this is a demonic and deliberately driven degradation and desecration (grafitti + March 2004 pogroms context) of the Serbian Orthodox Church and by extension the very existence of Serb nationhood and culture …

    no offense intended

    Maybe the Albanians should burn some of your churches, desecrate your graves and harvest the organs of your people a bit and then we’ll see how offended you are …

    (English, Russian and some other subs available):

    Anyway,

    Kosovo is Serbia!

  41. Same in the UK. Scotland is for Scots, Wales is for the Welsh, NI is for the Irish, England is for everyone, in fact England isn’t even recognised as a country nor has its own national parliament, while Scotland, Wales and NI all do.

    • Replies: @melanf
  42. melanf says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Even though the examples aren’t comparable, Karlin’s original point is correct. What about the rights of ethnic Russians in Russia?

    According to the Constitution, all Russian citizens are equal (regardless of nationality), and this is quite reasonable. What else is required?

    If Tatars and Bashkirs can have autonomous republics in Russia, shouldn’t the majority RF state ensure the rights of ethnic Russians as well? Ethnic Russians should at least try to get some of their own autonomous states in the RF

    In this case, it is necessary to rename the “Vladimir region” to” Vladimir region of the Russian people”,”Moscow region ” to “Moscow region of the Russian people”, etc. But why do we need to do this? What is the difference between the status of Russians, say in St. Petersburg, and the status of Bashkirs in Bashkiria? Because there is no local law “Petersburg is a city of Russian ethnos”? Well, suppose there is such a law-what will improve in my life?

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  43. AP says:
    @Simpleguest

    I am not Russian so I don’t quite distinguish between “Rossianin” and “Russki”. To me, they are synonyms. I believe, they are translated in English as “Russians” and “Russians in ethnic sense” which implies that the distinction between the two is artificial.

    Roughly, it means “citizen of the Russian state” vs. “ethnic Russian person.”

    As an American this distinction (understandably) may not come naturally to you.

    I once came across a Russian nationalist leader who insisted that even the word Russki was wrong, it should be Rus’ky (like Rus). He complained that he couldn’t put it on his passport and was forced to use Russky. He insisted that Russky, Ukrainian and Belarussian were all fake identities invented by Jews to divide the one Rus people and that Putin was the Jews’ puppet..

  44. melanf says:
    @Europe Europa

    Are there monuments in Scotland or in Wales to commemorate the victories of the English over the Scots and Welsh? I’m really curious

  45. @melanf

    Not as far as I’m aware. Even in England statues of Cromwell are considered controversial because he is seen to have oppressed the Irish.

    Although it’s not surprising because the UK since its establishment in 1707 traditionally didn’t differentiate between English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish (later NI), all were/are “British”, so it wouldn’t make sense to have a monument celebrating a victory of British people over British people. The establishment of national parliaments in Scotland, Wales and NI is a recent thing that was introduced by Tony Blair between 1998-1999.

    • Replies: @melanf
  46. songbird says:
    @melanf

    James VI, King of Scotland, became James I, King of England, when childless spinster Elizabeth I died, so technically England didn’t really conquer Scotland. But it is a complicated history:

    James VI authorised the “Gentleman Adventurers of Fife” to civilise the “most barbarous Isle of Lewis” in 1598. James wrote that the colonists were to act “not by agreement” with the local inhabitants, but “by extirpation of thame”.

    the Statutes of Iona were enacted in 1609, which required clan chiefs to provide support for Protestant ministers to Highland parishes; to outlaw bards; to report regularly to Edinburgh to answer for their actions; and to send their heirs to Lowland Scotland, to be educated in English-speaking Protestant schools. So began a process “specifically aimed at the extirpation of the Gaelic language, the destruction of its traditional culture and the suppression of its bearers.

  47. melanf says:
    @Europe Europa

    Are there monuments in Scotland or in Wales to commemorate the victories of the English over the Scots and Welsh? I’m really curious

    Not as far as I’m aware.

    In this case the English nationalists can with good reason claim
    “on a symbolic, extremely important level the situation of the English in Wells (Scotland) is much worse than the situation of the Russians in Tatarstan” 🙂

  48. Denis says:

    Hi Anatoly,

    What, in your view, would be the ideal arrangement wrt constitutional recognition of the Russian nation? Did you simply want the constitution to declare “Rossiya for the Russkie”? Or did you have something more substantial in mind?

    • Replies: @utu
  49. Mitleser says:
    @melanf

    According to the Constitution, Russia is a state of Russian citizens. What is the difference with “Russia is for Russians and the 100+ native ethnic groups”?

    The difference is that it would include people who are not citizens of the RF, but are tied in other ways to Russia, the country.

    • Replies: @melanf
  50. melanf says:
    @Mitleser

    The difference is that it would include people who are not citizens of the RF, but are tied in other ways to Russia, the country.

    This can be easily resolved without changing the basic principles of the Constitution. Declare that representatives of the indigenous peoples of Russia who found themselves (after the collapse of the USSR) outside of Russia can get Russian citizenship under a simplified (or very simplified) procedure.

  51. utu says:
    @Denis

    I would like to hear what is AK’s vision and solution because this is a very difficult problem for a country like Russia.

    I think that a new preamble to constitution should be written. Possibly it could be based on 1906 constitution which specified that Russian was official language and what was the legal status of “autonomous” non-Russian regions. Also the role of the Russian Orthodox Church was stated.

    Imho, it should be stipulated that the President must belong to Russian Orthodox Church just like Tsar in 1906. It would be much easier to get this through than stipulating his ethnicity. The Russian identity and Russian prominence would come from the special role of their language and their religion being acknowledged as the founding religion of Russia in constitution and in the office of President as the guardian of constitution.

    • Thanks: Denis
    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  52. melanf says:
    @utu

    Possibly it could be based on 1906 constitution which specified that Russian was official language

    Russian is already an official (and not official) language

    Imho, it should be stipulated that the President must belong to Russian Orthodox Church

    This is absolutely unthinkable idiocy, and it is simply impossible.
    In the election of the Governor of St. Petersburg, the candidate from United Russia (Beglov) raised his rating by refusing to give the St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the Church. The candidate from “Fair Russia” (Kustikova) distributed leaflets where it was told how she protects people from building churches, how she managed to disrupt the construction of several churches, etc. you can assess the Love of the population for the ROC yourself

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Gerad1234
  53. utu says:
    @melanf

    If so it means that you are fucked. I was groping for a solution how to square the circle. But apparently it can’t be done.

  54. @utu

    My dream would be to adopt the Hungarian Constitution whole and just rewrite the history sections for the Russian context.

    https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2011.pdf

    WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE HUNGARIAN NATION, at the beginning of the new millennium, with a sense of responsibility for every Hungarian, hereby proclaim the following:
    • We are proud that our king Saint Stephen built the Hungarian State on solid
    ground and made our country a part of Christian Europe one thousand
    years ago.
    • We are proud of our forebears who fought for the survival, freedom and
    independence of our country.
    • We are proud of the outstanding intellectual achievements of the
    Hungarian people.

    We recognise the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood. We value
    the various religious traditions of our country.
    • We promise to preserve the intellectual and spiritual unity of our nation
    torn apart in the storms of the last century. The nationalities living with us
    form part of the Hungarian political community and are constituent parts of
    the State.
    • We commit to promoting and safeguarding our heritage, our unique
    language, Hungarian culture, the languages and cultures of nationalities
    living in Hungary, along with all man-made and natural assets of the
    Carpathian Basin
    . We bear responsibility for our descendants; therefore
    we shall protect the living conditions of future generations by making
    prudent use of our material, intellectual and natural resources.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    , @melanf
  55. Gerad1234 says:
    @melanf

    who can enlighten me – in Scotland there are monuments in honour of the victories of the English over the Scots?

    Unintentionally hilarious :

    “Ukrainians” recently created a 1000 gryvnia note, with the main figure on the note being a guy who was :

    1. Born in Russia
    2. Died in Russia
    3. Educated in Russia
    4. Was Russian
    5. Children and wife regarded themselves as Russian

    Considering how paranoid and deranged the banderatards and “intelligentsia” are over there, one can only assume these idiots were:

    A. Too dumb and uneducated to notice it or him
    B. Have already left the country like millions of others, so didn’t notice
    C. Too poor to have required the need to use the 1000 note ( except for bribes when no dollars available)

    Each explanation being equally plausible and complementary to the other

    But seriously, how can a basket case state like that do such a hapless thing? Answer–for obvious reasons (of non-existence) being unable to come up with any non- Russian world people!

    It must be very rare of this type of thing – maybe Simon bolivar is on the money of different South America states, or Gandhi is on South African rand in addition to the rupee?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  56. @AP

    Hopefully by Feb 4 because I have a podcast partly on that topic with Prosvirnin on Feb 5.

  57. Gerad1234 says:
    @melanf

    I don’t think it would have made much difference to his 70+ percentage election vote if he had done the right thing and given St Isaak’s back. Sure Communists, bandwagon jumping liberast freaks and some creative people would have continued with noisy protests- but nothing too serious.

    After all, legally, the church should have it (as it would in any other country)… and most major cathedrals are church owned and have functioned fine around the world acting as smoothly as a tourist destination as it does as a place of worship and cultural study.
    It was one of those things where if he had just gone ahead with it, then all the protests would have been forgotten and dissipated quickly

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    , @melanf
  58. Aedib says:
    @reiner Tor

    She looks like a South American castiza.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Blinky Bill
  59. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I was also thinking of Hungarian constitution when I was concocting my comment.

  60. @Gerad1234

    melanf is a retarded sovok (boomer, probably) and has literally zero clue as to how the vast majority of Russia lives and what the vast majority of Russians think.

    FYI: outside the tiny philosemitic, cryptosemitic and just-plain-old-semitic city centers of large cities, across the vast land of Russia the Russian Orthodox Church is the only institution that a) actually functions and b) has popular support and respect.

    It’s pointless to speculate why and how that happened, is just is, you all just need to learn to live with this fact.

  61. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    My dream would be to adopt the Hungarian Constitution whole and just rewrite the history sections for the Russian context.

    https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2011.pdf

    I have a much better offer. Prohibit (in the Constitution) officials from doing business abroad and teaching children abroad – for violating this law, life imprisonment with confiscation of property. This will really unite the nation, become the basis for national identity, . etc.

    But empty talk

    “We are proud that our princе Saint Vladimir….”

    in Russia, it will just mocked. Perhaps something similar would be suitable for Ukraine. they love pathos.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  62. melanf says:
    @Gerad1234

    and given St Isaak’s back

    St Isaak has never been the property of the Church. The Church’s claim to St Isaak was categorically denied by Emperor Alexander II (when the Cathedral was built). The Church should thank Beglov for preventing the Church from being discredited (a predatory seizure of the Cathedral against the wishes of the city’s residents would have had just such an effect)

  63. @melanf

    I personally have nothing against it, but the preamble of the constitution was mocked endlessly in intellectual circles. But I think most people are just fine with it.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf
  64. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    I personally have nothing against it, but the preamble of the constitution was mocked endlessly in intellectual circles. But I think most people are just fine with it.

    I am all for popularizing the historical heritage, but it seems to me that movies/books/school history textbooks should do this, but not the Constitution. In Russia, there is an additional complexity in the form of extreme heterogeneity of the country (and in the past, all violently fought with each other), as a result, Putin says that in the battle of Kulikovo, Russians and Tatars fought on both sides (this is of course nonsense, but the Tatars are the second largest ethnic group in Russia, so Putin’s reasons are obvious). The expulsion of poles from Moscow in 1612 was chosen as a state-historical holiday-this is because the opinion of poles does not care. The battle of Kulikovo is not good because it will offend the Tatars, and the defeat of the Livonian knights is also not good because the Germans are the second largest group in the state. top after the Russians. But what the poles think doesn’t matter.

  65. Aedib says:
    @Blinky Bill

    She can perfectly pass like a Carioca beauty.

  66. @melanf

    You can explain to me what the benefits for ethnic Russians , if Russia will be declared tomorrow in the Constitution as “the state of the Russian ethnos”?

    In broad terms, it means that Russian people will get a home. It is good to have a home, but today’s RF is nobody’s home. Current Russian regime exists for the sole purpose of enriching the oligarchs and government officials.

    Obviously, constitutional amendment needs to be accompanied by other legislation to make it work. But in the end, we will no longer have situations when ethnic Russians from ex-USSR have to go through bureaucratic hell and wait for years to obtain a Russian passport. Passport will be issued to them automatically for the privilege of being a Russian. Special law will define a Russian.

    Currently, offering any kind of preferences to ethnic Russians is unconstitutional. It is also against the established bureaucratic practice. Amending the Constitution and accompanying laws will motivate the bureaucracy to be a bit more responsive to Russian people and their needs.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf
  67. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich

    In broad terms, it means that Russian people will get a home. It is good to have a home, but today’s RF is nobody’s home.

    I have a home. And this home will not change from the proclamation of ” Russia as the state of the Russian ethnos”

    Current Russian regime exists for the sole purpose of enriching the oligarchs and government officials.

    And, well, after proclamation of ” Russia as the state of the Russian ethnos” the oligarchs will stop enriching themselves, but will distribute their property to the poor a La Francis of Assisi? Interesting opinion

    But in the end, we will no longer have situations when ethnic Russians from ex-USSR have to go through bureaucratic hell and wait for years to obtain a Russian passport. Passport will be issued to them automatically for the privilege of being a Russian. Special law will define a Russian.

    This is easy to do without any changes to the Constitution. Recently, something similar was done for the citizens of Ukraine-just by a presidential decree

    Currently, offering any kind of preferences to ethnic Russians is unconstitutional.

    With migration in mind, this is easy to do without any changes to the Constitution. If you’re talking about a situation where Russians based on “correct genes” will receive a higher salary than say Tatars or Karelians doing the same job – then such idiotic ideas are even difficult to comment on

  68. @melanf

    With migration in mind, this is easy to do without any changes to the Constitution.

    E-A-S-Y??
    Do you even live in Russia? Is so, are you an idiot?

    1. It took 5 years of war for something to happen in this area, and even now the process is moving agonizingly slow.
    2. Putin is not giving passports to Russians. He is softening naturalization requirements for residents of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine, which theoretically could apply to local Tajiks.
    3. No similar moves are being considered for residents of Belarus, and I have no idea why.
    4. It simply does not occur to Russian bureaucracy that Russians should be welcome in Russia, and Tajiks should not. This is why we need a constitutional amendment to specify that this country is for Russians.
    5. If you feel that amending the constitution will make no difference anyway, you have no particular reason to object to such change.

    I have a home. And this home will not change from the proclamation of ” Russia as the state of the Russian ethnos”

    I know you own an apartment in Saint Petersburg. You might as well buy an apartment in Helsinki – this is so not what I meant.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf
  69. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich

    E-A-S-Y??
    Do you even live in Russia? Is so, are you an idiot?
    1. It took 5 years of war for something to happen in this area, and even now the process is moving agonizingly slow.

    To simplify to a minimum the acquisition of citizenship for residents of Ukraine/Belarus (without any change in the Constitution), Putin could easily have 10 and 15 years ago. The fact that Putin did not do this has nothing to do with the Constitution.
    Similarly, it is very easy to grant Russian citizenship (to anyone who wants it) from among ethnically Russian (as well as Germans, Koreans, etc.) citizens of Central Asian countries without any change in the Constitution

    If you feel that amending the constitution will make no difference anyway, you have no particular reason to object to such change.

    I am against any rewriting of the Constitution that will make no difference anyway, since I am against useless work at all. But the proposals of our “nationalists” are not useless, but simply harmful to the country

    I know you own an apartment in Saint Petersburg. You might as well buy an apartment in Helsinki – this is so not what I meant.

    And what did you mean? Here is Vanya Ivanov from Torzhok/Ufa/Vladivostok/…. Here (imagine) this Vanya learns that under the Constitution Russia is a state of the Russian ethnic group. What will change for Vanya?

  70. To simplify to a minimum the acquisition of citizenship for residents of Ukraine/Belarus (without any change in the Constitution), Putin could easily have 10 and 15 years ago. The fact that Putin did not do this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

    So, what’s it then? You seem to have no understanding of laws and governance and how Constitution relates to the way the country is being run.

    • Replies: @melanf
  71. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich

    To simplify to a minimum the acquisition of citizenship for residents of Ukraine/Belarus (without any change in the Constitution), Putin could easily have 10 and 15 years ago. The fact that Putin did not do this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

    So, what’s it then? You seem to have no understanding of laws and governance and how Constitution relates to the way the country is being run.

    A few months ago Putin has allowed the simplified obtaining of citizenship to citizens of Ukraine. This was done simply by presidential decree, without any changes to the Constitution. That is, in this case, there is no question. If this was done without changing the Constitution, then it could have been done without changing the Constitution. Since the Constitution was exactly the same 15 years ago, it could have been done 15 years ago. Why this was not done-the questions are not for me, I’m not Putin.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  72. @melanf

    I already explained that Putin’s steps are inadequate and we need more.

    Again, your don’t seem to understand how governance works: Putin’s successor can easily revoke his decrees. What we need is an institutional preference for ethnic Russians in our immigration system – amending the Constitution is a necessary first step to creating it.

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Dreadilk
  73. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich

    I already explained that Putin’s steps are inadequate and we need more.

    I completely agree. But these are steps that we need more
    (with regard to migration), can be easily done without changing the Constitution. Just as Putin made it easier for Ukrainian citizens to obtain citizenship, he (or some other President after him) can further simplify/expand this procedure

    Again, your don’t seem to understand how governance works: Putin’s successor can easily revoke his decrees. What we need is an institutional preference for ethnic Russians in our immigration system

    For this reason, it is necessary to adopt a law that representatives of the indigenous peoples of Russia who remained outside of Russia after the collapse of the USSR can obtain citizenship by an over-simplified procedure. And make a list where the Koreans will be the indigenous people of Russia, but the Gypsies will not be such a people.

    But the idiotic idea of adding the article “Russia is a state of ethnic Russians” to the Constitution must be forgotten forever.

  74. Mr. Hack says:
    @Gerad1234

    It seems to me that you only need to look in a mirror to spot somebody totally ignorant of Vladimir Vernadsky’s national orientation. Undoubtedly he held strong feelings towards a Russian imperial paradigm, however, he never lost sight of his Ukrainian national origins:

    Among the many additions and corrections Vladimir Vernadsky personally introduced into this genealogical text, one is particularly remarkable. Its heading, in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians” [emphasis in original]. Vladimir stressed in these notes that both his father and his mother “felt very acutely their distinctiveness from the Russians. [They] knew from legends and books the history of Ukraine. [I ] heard a lot [about it] in my childhood.”53

    His son George Vernadsky, the famous historian, had this to say about his Grandfather Ivan Vernadsky, who passed on these very strong Ukrainian sentiments to his son Vladimir:

    Ivan Vernadsky, George writes in this genealogical memo, “knew Ukrainian very well and loved this language. He was on friendly terms with [Taras] Shevchenko, [Panteleimon] Kulish, [and Mykola] Kostomarov [the leading members of the Ukrainian nationalist movement in the mid-19th century], and his pro-Ukrainian sympathies had likely increased partially under their influence.” George also notes that Ivan, even when he was a young boy, criticized his own father for failing to learn Ukrainian. Later, George adds, Ivan Vasilyevich passed on his Ukrainophile sentiments to his son Vladimir, George’s father. George ends the description of his grandfather with a short but telling outline of his historical-political views: “Ivan Vasilyevich believed that [Hetman] Mazepa was one of the last fighters for Ukraine’s independence. And he had a negative view of Peter the Great because of his [ruthless] Ukrainian policy.

    https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93700/OP302.pdf

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Gerad1234
  75. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. Hack

    in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians”

  76. Gerad1234 says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Cmon Mr Hack – you know Karlin has effectively banned me from commentating in any appropriate manner

    As a response to your argument – thanks, but it is meaningless gossip and flimsy myths. Clearly he’s incompatible with any ukrop “nationalist” vision

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  77. Dreadilk says:
    @melanf

    Nothing. Now suppose when would you be concerned about your status as a Russian. Because I would say it has went too far in the other direction for the English and Americans.

    My preference is to kill before it even appears.

  78. Dreadilk says:
    @Felix Keverich

    To be fair Constitution is not much more of a protection than a decree. It seems w.e is popular at the time tends to win out no matter what system you have. Americans have a great Constitution and their descendants wipe their ass with it as they make laws contrary to what it states.

    What is important is what you get today and what you do to keep it that way in perpetuity.

  79. @melanf

    In lieu of using the “AGREE” button: I’d like to say that you talk sense and wisdom.
    I commend you for that, Sir.

  80. Mr. Hack says:
    @Gerad1234

    Go ahead, try and refute that Vladimir Vernadsky had strong feelings for Ukraine’s uniqueness as a nation, his nation. As you can see (nothing based on flimsy myths) based on what Vernadsky himself wrote, he considered himself a Ukrainian and not a Russian:

    in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians”

    I’m sure that Karlin would appreciate your attempts to debunk what’s clear to the eye to see. Vladimir Vernadsky is one of Karlin’s favorite scholars:

    Say it aint so Hack, say it aint so……

  81. @4891

    I’m Welsh. We’ve managed for 500 years. 19th C industrial immigration from England was a dodgy moment though.

  82. @melanf

    Not in stone. The title “Prince of Wales” is something of a reminder. Wales/Gwynedd needed a Prince to complete the legal system, the obvious heirs having been killed in battle. So Edward 1 of England proposed his oldest son.

    There is a rather druidic standing stone at a place called Cilmeri to commerate where the last Welsh Prince of Wales, give or take a rebellion and the Tudors, died.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Anon comments are not allowed. If you are new to my work, *start here*. If you liked this post, and want me to produce more such content, consider *donating*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS