by Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by N_V
Political columnist of “Russia Today” Rostislav Ishchenko talks about the attractiveness of the Donbass for modern Russia, the possibility of increasing Russian population of the Russian Federation, and about how the historic reunification of the Russian people promises the Russian World all the advantages.
The Russian state was built as multinational since the days of ancient (pre-Mongol) Rus. However, with the total equality of peoples, nationalities and ethnic groups inhabiting the territory of modern Russia, state-forming was the triune Russian nation (composed of the Great Russians, Malorussians, a.k.a. Ukrainians, and Belarusians).
Now the territory inhabited by Malorussians and Belarusians have disconnected from the main body of Russian territories. Local elites, having gotten their hands on the newly emerged states, started the formation of the respective nations and even achieved some success in this effort. However, a considerable number of Belarusians and Ukrainians do not want to become Litvin (the historic term applied to the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania regardless of the ethnicity – translator’s note) or Ukrainians, but still maintain their Russian identity. Besides, on the territory of modern Ukraine have lived and still live millions of Russians exposed to forced Ukrainization.
On the other hand, the percentage of the Russian population in Russia itself has been steadily declining. While this reduction is not critical, in twenty years the issue of ethnic character, religion and cultural traditions of the Russian state might turn out to be no longer trivial. And we are not talking about changing identity of state-forming people, as, for example, in 988 when the pagan Rus became Orthodox. The threat is that the state-forming people may become a minority in their own state.
And it already threatens both the stability and the very existence of the Russian Federation. There are two problems:
1. While the state-forming people become a minority, the state for a long time, by inertia, relies on their culture and traditions. It evokes the feeling of injustice among representatives of other nations. There is a logical question: “If we are the majority, and we live on our own land, why do we have to follow other people’s tradition?” By the way, this contradiction has made irreparable rift between western and eastern Ukraine. At the time, as the minority population of Galicians tried to impose on the whole Ukraine Galician culture, history and tradition, Russian people of the south-east and the Malorussians of the central Ukraine could not understand why, while they make up the majority of the population, they should obey the traditions of strangers, just because suddenly the province of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union has become a Ukrainian state, as a result of some terrible geopolitical mistakes. At a time when the non-Russian and non-Orthodox peoples would make up a clear majority of the population of the Russian Federation, they would absolutely objectively perceive the situation as it is perceived by Russians in Ukraine. Naturally, Russians will be outraged by the fact that representatives of the people, for whom the Russian state for centuries was a safe haven, protecting them from extinction or assimilation, claim the right to change the cultural code of the State according to their will. The reason for the mutual insults and devastating internal conflict is ready. And each side will be convinced it is right.
2. I have already had occasions to write that only Russia was able to create an imperial state based not on suppression of small nations and their assimilation, but on their convergence or integration into the common space where all live comfortably. But it was the overwhelming majority of the Russian people in the Russian state that guaranteed such ethnic idyll. It is enough to look around the former lands of the Russian Empire, separated from the Soviet Union, to see what happens to those territories where the Russian people are losing state-status. Remember the civil and interstate war in the Caucasus. Civil war in Moldova (Transnistria), Ukraine, Tajikistan (relatively hushed), civil conflict in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Endangered Baltic ethnocracy. Only Kazakhstan and Belarus, which preserve and develop the strongest integration ties with Russia, thus avoided major trouble. Now, with all the difficulties and problems, despite incompleteness and imperfection of the post-Soviet system of power in Russia, the Russian people by default regarded as the arbiter and guarantor of the existing ethnic balance. Meanwhile, in the XVII century, when the whole of Siberia up to the Pacific Ocean was already covered with towns and forts populated by Russian servicemen, indigenous people and tribes were fighting wars of all against everyone. Weak were driven out further north, the strongest fought their way south. An example of the North Caucasian republics, the territories that are parts of the Russian Federation, shows convincingly how the critical reduction in the number of Russians (Russian population in Chechnya – 2%, in Ingushetia – 1% and in Dagestan – 4%) leads to the reappearance of the old and the emergence of new international, tribal and clan conflicts.
Thus, the numerical decline of the Russian people below the critical limit will lead to destabilization and destruction of the Russian Federation, contrary to the objective interests of all the peoples living in it. Many nations in this process could simply become extinct.
To understand the overall dynamics of the Russian population, let us recall the data from the relatively successful year of 2012. It was the third year of the population growth, which began in 2010. The lowest mark since 1985 was reached in 2009, when the population of the Russian Federation dropped to 141,903,979 people. In 2012, Russia had a population of 143,056,383 people (roughly a million more than in 2009). By 2013, Russia’s population has increased by almost 300 thousand people. Most of the growth was provided by a positive migration balance, but a miniscule (20,000) excess of births over deaths was also noted, that is, in 2012, Russia’s population for the first time has increased, and not only due to migration. But where did these 20 thousand come from? The number of Russians decreased by 88 000 people, while the population of other nationalities has increased by 108 000 people. The negative balance of 196 thousand is not for the benefit of the Russian people.
Forecast of births until 2030 does not give grounds for optimism. The regions with the highest birth rate with a high probability will remain the Chechen Republic, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Republic of Tyva, Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Altai, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Nenets Autonomous District, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, and the Republic of Kalmykia. At the same time, the region with the lowest birth rate in 2030 will be: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Leningrad, Tula, Voronezh, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tambov regions and the Republic of Mordovia.
So, in the next 15 years, we have very little chance to counteract the situation with a gradual decrease in the number of Russians in Russia solely due to the natural population growth. Meanwhile, only from 1989 to 2010, the Russian population lost 8 million. Also we can deduct another 2 million Ukrainians (i.e., actually, the same Russian).
However, the population is changing not only due to the natural growth, but also due to migration flows, as well as by the addition of new territories. For example, over the same period (1989 to 2010) the number of Uzbeks in Russia doubled, and the number of Tajiks increased 1.5-fold . This change was achieved by migration.
At the same time, along with the Crimea, Russia received 1.9 million people. Of these, there are at least 300 thousand Tatars and 1.4 million Russians (Russian, Ukrainians, Belarussians). One extra million Russians – refugees from the Ukraine (from Donbass, as well as from central and southern regions). Of this number, approximately one fifth has already received Russian citizenship or is in the process of receiving it.
Thus, in just one year the country has received almost 2.5 million additional Russians. Moreover, the potential to fill the demographic losses from this source remains. With the worsening economic situation and increasing Nazi terror, the migration from the central and southern regions of Ukraine will intensify. Of course, not all who disagree with the policy of official Kiev are willing and able to go, but we can safely rely on another million of migrants.
However, it is much more profitable to take the Russian population with the territories. The number of Russian refugees from Ukraine is comparable to the number of Russians, who returned to Russia with Crimea. But what was needed in Crimea was just to change the documents and establish the government control, while refugees were left without livelihoods, and their care became a burden on the federal and local budgets, as well as volunteers collecting and delivering humanitarian aid. And many of refugees are still not settled.
In this connection, I wish to remind you about Donbass. At the beginning of 2014, about 7.5 million people lived in Donetsk and Lugansk regions. In contrast to Crimea, there was no significant Tatar community, that is, the number of Russians in Donbass exceeded the number of Russians in Crimea not only in absolute terms but also in the percentage of the population (if you include Ukrainians on paper). In areas now controlled by DNR/LNR, the population was about 4.5 million people. During the year of war, many became refugees, but the estimated population of the republics even now stands at 3-3.5 millions, and counting the population from the districts of DNR/LNR currently occupied by Kiev it reaches 5 million.
For all intents and purposes, DNR/LNR are already rapidly integrating into Russia. The economy, the finances , the education system, police and administrative structures – all tied to the Russian Federation. Without this, the republics will simply not survive. Also, there is no doubt that the population of the republics will be issued Russian passports in the near future. Otherwise, millions of people will remain without papers, but children will be born, people will marry, die, and, most importantly, cross the border to the Russian Federation. So, the problems that will be created by citizens of DNR/LNR without passports will overwhelm the problems potentially caused by the issue of Russian passports.
Kiev promises to launch a military operation to subdue Donbass, and Zakharchenko promises to liberate the territories of the republics occupied by Kiev. As you can see, the plans are the same. Poroshenko only needs to begin the military actions, and the territory (and the population) of DNR/LNR could increase dramatically.
Well, if the republics are economically, financially and administratively integrated into Russia, if they are inhabited by Russian citizens (after certification), all that is left is to hold a referendum, and the Russian population in Russia will increase by 3.5-5 millions. Together with Crimea and the refugees, it will fully compensate for the loss of eight millionth Russians in the period between 1989-2010 years, and the total population of Russia will increase to 150 million people (one and a half million more than it was at the peak of growth in 1995).
The population of Donbass will have a future (without having to leave their homes), and Russia will receive a few million additional Russian Orthodox citizens.
@ Rostislav Ishchenko + N_V,
Thank the both of you.
“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” – JFK
In reality, the truth seems to be a finish line not too many honest people are able to reach.
The RF from the very beginning proposed and diplomatically forced a federalized nation , composed by all internal provinces, including DNR and LPR.
Not only proposed but fought for it.
The kiev option was different – and the same as washington`s: to subdue donbass entirely and further to BAN the russian local mother language of everybody. Imagine you are prohibited to speak mommy´s language!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Donbass resisted, with russian help and so will do for the future.
So, it is not a matter of truth from Ivshenko, my dear! It´s a matter of refusing to lose the most sa cred values first.
And both you and Ivshenko know that: 1- if Donbass resists Kiev assault as does now it will return to Mother russia later but WITH a war. 2- If donbass and kiev accepts Minsk-2 it will return to mother Russia later, but WITHOUT a war.
It´s useless commentators trying to tech Putin and Lavrov any lessons on their own interests and business.
No culture, language or even nation is statically frozen. Most Russians today would probably not approve of the type of society that was considered “Russian” 500 years ago. They probably would even have a hard time understanding the language that was spoken at that time.
Everything changes steadily and develops in some direction and there is no going back. The objective of a nation (including the government) is to steer the ship into a generally better direction.
I’m also slightly offended by the cynical calculations on how much Russia will benefit from the refugees fleeing from the Ukrainian Nazi Junta. If we spin this thought further we could conclude that it would be great if Putin (secretly) helped Poroschenko to establish concentration camps so that even more Ukrainian-Russians flee and would be absorbed by Russia.
Q; If we spin this thought further we could conclude that it would be great if Putin (secretly) helped Poroschenko to establish concentration camps so that even more Ukrainian-Russians flee and would be absorbed by Russia.
R; When I threw a flat, little pebble, in a perpendicular angle over the wave-less surface of a lake, it bounced as many as 14 times before it finally sank. I was, as you. no doubt, will understand, ecstatic and jubilant, but I failed to see the angry, and, in most cases, frightened faces of the gill-bearing, aquatic, craniate animals below it, whose lives and livelihood I had, albeit involuntarily, very much disrupted and disturbed.
Cultural, language, government, ideology comes and goes only the people remain constant, unless you displace them with massimmigration in which case they are gone forever.
This article does not raise the question of mass immigration of say Arabs or Turks, but about Russians with other ethnicities and adherents to other religions (Muslim) having more children than the Slavic population.
These people are part of Russia for generations and ARE Russians just as any other white orthodox Russian.
Starting to divide the population by declaring that for example Tatars (which are part of Russia for at least 500 years) are not real Russians or some kind of demographic “problem” is precisely what could fuel disintegration in the future.
But I doubt this will ever happen simply because it never happened during this long timespan.
Of course mass immigration of 10 million Arabs would be a “culture shock” and something would have to be done to integrate them or send them back, but this is a whole different issue than Muslims that are Russian for hundreds of years.
I also disagree with the statement in the article that Muslim Russians are more prone to be manipulated by outsiders (Saudi Arabia, USA) for their schemes. Even if there were 100% orthodox Slavs living in Russia, they would find something to divide them.
The Germans did this by encouraging and financing the Soviet revolution. A part of Russian society declared that they are now Soviet men and not Russian anymore and started killing Russians.
What you are experiencing in France is something different. You actually had mass immigration from former slave colonies (people that were never a real part of French society and culture – hence alien to your culture) but that’s not a problem Russia ever had, because we Slavs do not hold slaves!
I will give the writer some space on this. Yes, I can understand why some would be offended. But all of us, in one way or another, prefer our descendents to be “like” us. The only question is do you do anything to achieve this, besides bringing up your children the way you want. It is true that if you bring in immigrants that are very different, especially in large numbers, is unlikely to be helpful. That’s just human nature.
Thus I will just keep it short saying what the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tze said over 2600 years ago:
Do nothing, and everything will be done.
In fact, doing more, like what the West is doing, (bombing, droning, color revolutions, spreading democracy, etc etc), just lead to more things that need to be undone, unless the goal is to increase world misery.
I agree with everything you wrote. The problem is that the article wasn’t about immigration, the author instead divides Russians into Orthodox Slavs and Muslims and raises an issue by comparing the birth rates.
What has to be understood is that these Muslims are part of Russian society since Ivan the IV brought the Tatar Khanates into the Russian empire. So these people are Russian for at least 500 years.
I reject any notion that they are not as Russian as the Orthodox Slav Russians. Tatarstan is 100% Russian, Bashkortostan is 100% Russian and so is Dagestan and Chechnya.
We don’t have to start a campaign of out-breeding them or displacing them by bringing in Russians for Ukraine as this would be aggressive, cause suffering and would by the best way to disintegrate the country by turning your own people against each other.
I’d also like to mention that the US didn’t pick racist scum like Navalny by mere chance to be their poster boy for bringing about regime change in Moscow.
It is very likely that they believe the best shot they’ve got to destroy Russia is to stir hatred between Orthodox and Muslim Russians. And I think this assessment is correct, it really is the best way to bring about a civil war.
Ivan said: It is very likely that they believe the best shot they’ve got to destroy Russia is to stir hatred between Orthodox and Muslim Russians. And I think this assessment is correct, it really is the best way to bring about a civil war.
The article is thus correctly focused on “the best shot” to destroy Russia.
One of the simplest balancing acts is to increase the Russians (and Orthodox) in relation to the Russian Muslims (who generally are well-integrated into the civilization of Russia and society.
Putin has deftly handled the ethnic groups (Tartars in Russia and Crimea) and religious groups (Muslims and Jews) all of whom have high regard for his protection and respect for them.
Russia suffered two catastrophic population losses. WWII and the severance of USSR states from the Russian Federation.
Policies to quickly increase population are valid topics. And speaking about Orthodox and Muslim is not divisive. It is necessary. The integrity of the mixture that makes Russia Russian is minorities remaining minority. The values of the civilization are primarily from Russian Orthodox values, blending in the others. Keeping that ratio is the key.
@ Ivan? Huh? now that last paragraph did not logically follow from anything you said. As if Poroshenko needs encouragement to set up concentration camps by Putin–I actually started laughing when I read that. Maybe we should encourage Putin to ban all birth control and start paying women to have babies? and raise them.? Russian babies, of course. I think that works better than the concentration camp ugliness, don’t you?
Russia indeed is rewarding families for having children financially…..and many Russian’s are more than happy to have larger families. Russia is a federation. The reason these ethnicities are able to survive is due to Russia’s large umbrella. So the survival of Russia is an existential imperative for them. On the other hand, as the country develops so does homogeneity…..everyone wears jeans, has a moto and science is Universal…..the laws of physics are the same for everyone….people become bonded in common cause….globalization does not have to be the predatory process that it has been. And we do need international read global institutions to deal with many of the world’s problems. In the end our common humanity is going to have to overcome these differences if we are going to survive.
The author pits Orthodox Russians vs Muslim Russians and explains how dangerous the higher birthrates of the Muslims are. And then he obviously hopes to “solve” that by absorbing Russians from the Ukraine or artificially out-breeding them. This is in my view a sick line of thought, that would allow a justification for many kinds of atrocities amongst the most fanatic followers of this ideology.
The Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens and all the others are Russians for hundreds of years. They are still mostly on the territory where their ancestors lived 500 years ago.
How can anyone possibly deny them the right to have large families? As long as they follow the social contract and the law of the land and they feel safe in their own country they WILL feel Russians. (same goes for orthodox Russians) As soon as racists like US-sponsored Navalny are successful in painting them as subhumans and cockroaches they WILL revolt and we’ll have a civil war.
Idk I can understand my country language even 1000s of years ago & it was better for whole world to be under their rule back then.
& no Sanskrit was not created by magical white people, their culture comes from Indus.
That’s advantage of resisting cristoislamic conversion.
Anonymous on September 17, 2015 · at
12:13 am UTC
*Idk I can understand my country language
even 1000s of years ago & it was better for
whole world to be under their rule back
& no Sanskrit was not created by magical
white people, their culture comes from
That’s advantage of resisting cristoislamic
* * *
uh-oh, looks like this article is opening a can of worms.
Here we have a Hindu supremacist.
Will we welcoming Yarosh next?
I t seems that the author think the population of Russia are Russians only if they Orthodox citizens. That is a crazy error. I am atheist and I think many people will be so in the future and that is not going against my citizenry, doesn’t matter what country is my country.
Ishchenko: Thanks. This man’s mind slices through a subject like a sharp knife through butter. This formulation of his when ” a state forming people become a minority within their own state” problems arise is important.. Europe could well start to ponder this and not everyone who objects to the side effects of the above is a fascist racist either but rather may well be a cultural environmentalist who wants to save an endangered culture.
A state is formed as a contract between its people based on certain norms and each citizen contributes throughout a lifetime to this community. When a swarm or engulfing outside group appears to demand or even just to need the benefits of this culture without having adhered or contributed to its norms—there are problems both physical, political and social. Unless of course you make a glop culture like in the USA with rival subcultures which are co-opted here and there for some of their more interesting marketable features. And everyone becomes an interchangeable, detachable part subject to “market forces” and now having to worry about their job being outsourced to a robot. ( (but that is another topic)
Well, this IS an interesting concept. He’s come up with an argument for re-integrating Donbass into RF that I haven’t heard anyone voice so far. And it seems quite ingenious.
He argues that regions are served best where Russian ethnicity consists of a minimum percentage, below which destabilization occurs. He’s playing with statistics and demographics, and that’s tricky, especially with the cause and effect he’s trying to demonstrate.
But Ishchenko is always a few hundred meters ahead of the group, testing out a new trail through the marshes, and accepting the risk of drowning. That’s one reason I admire him.
I can accept that he seems coldly calculating, but I don’t think he’s trying to seize any wealth from Donbass, other than to acquire the “Russian nature” of its people to add to the existing stock. He seems much more inclined to encourage them in all ways to grow and keep their wealth where it is.
If his idea catches on – in this migrant age with one remaining vast, empty land in the whole world – then the logic becomes compelling that it’s simpler to move the borders of RF westward than to move several million people eastward.
Minsk 2 is still the path forward, but I wonder if his idea will echo through the Kremlin? This could be exciting.
A “demographic” crisis should not be a cause for concern, if the state is committed to the healthy growth of all its people regardless of their ethnicity. Such a state provides a good education to its young people; a good system of public health including sports and recreation; and full employment; all of which are predicated on the allocation of funds for public infrastructure, industry and agriculture in a mixed economy with a sovereign money system in which new money is created by public spending rather than by lending (with no indebtedness resulting). That may sound idiotically simplistic but at its root all a state needs to do is provide the foundation for its people to grow, and they will grow. And if they find themselves prosperous and at peace, then soon they will care very little about what religion their ancestors were, and they will be grateful to the state for its love for them.
This is not to diminish the problems that the people of DPR and LPR and Russia face, but to say that there is a better future in sight. (Two cents’ worth from a bystander, please forgive.)
The idea of Russia being a multicultural country is a Putinist delusion alongside that “brotherly Ukraine” and “Western partners.” Most non-Slavic areas of Russia require massive subsidies from the federal budget, have driven out their Slavic and “non-titular” populations, consider themselves beyond Russian law, and constantly complain to the West that they are “captive nations” and victims of Putin.
Nor is this likely to improve soon: Putin, despite occasional nationalist rhetoric, refused to substantially reverse the Yeltsin-era policies in which a province’s “titular minority” was encouraged to “take all the sovereignty they can swallow” as well control over local businesses and government agencies. Nor is he willing to stand up to Russian liberals who engage in public hysteria whenever anyone tries to address the mistreatment of ethnic Russians, points out the near-disappearance of the Russian language in parts of Russia, or suggests that the Caucasian republics (e.g., Chechnya) be granted the independence they claim to want. Putin, along with then-President (now PM) Medvedev even capitulated to liberals’ demands for the criminal prosecution (under newly enacted legislation) of Russian nationalists who called for Russia to “stop feeding the Caucuses” and grant them independence.
Ironically, the same Caucasian elites who insist on their right to simultaneously receive massive subsidies and engage in violence against Russian citizens and law enforcement alike have allied themselves with Russian liberals (e.g., Alexei Kudrin) who demand that Russia stop subsidizing and relinquish control of the Kuriles, Crimea, Kaliningrad, and other regions populated by ethnic Russians. Subsidizing the Crimea — a wonderful place populated with an ethnic Russian majority — is widely denounced in Russian liberal and Muslim circles while subsidizing Chechnya and Dagestan is seen as a non-negotiable budget item by liberals ranging from Medvedev to Mikhail Khodorkovsky; that the subsidies for Crimea are much smaller than those for Chechnya and Dagestan is irrelevant.
I’m not sure why you are talking to me, Anonymous, but maybe it’s because I have expressed some admiration for Putin in the past. In spite of your criticisms I still admire him because on the international stage he has spoken truth to the lying murdering thieves and they hate him for it, and he appears willing to kill their proxies and them as well if necessary in defense of Syria, whether for oil or for other strategy or just for the good of the human race, it doesn’t matter. I don’t know enough about Russia to comment on its internal politics. I have read a little of it here and elsewhere, I have the impression of Atlanticists versus Eurasians, the catering to Caucasians, etc. However, I am not a nationalist myself, I was born in England and was in their stupid army, I have Canadian citizenship and live in the US, and I have no love for any of those racist regimes, however you characterize them — Anglo-Zionist, or whatever. The English are a bunch of xenophobic supremacist bastards and their country is a phony postcard. The Canadians are half renegade Englishmen and half renegade Europeans who happily starved their native populations under the heading of social engineering at the same time as Hitler was experimenting. The Americans are half fascists and half halfwits (that would make them quarterwits I suppose). All three are run by arrogant deceitful amoral elites who have devised “democratic” structures such as “free” (joke — bought and paid for) media, etc. as tools for divide-and-conquer battles among themselves. However, their language is probably worth keeping as a common language for the world just as Greek used to be. But I care not the slightest about the great English “literature” because I haven’t found any, I lost interest in even reading their stupid crime stories a long time ago. I hope the Earth will one day be a giant park, empty of cities but full of small towns capable of sustaining themselves through their local industries and agriculture, speaking one of the few (one, two or three maybe at most) universal languages, and that no matter where you go you will be understood; and there will be sports fields everywhere; and there will be no organized religion but shrines and temples peopled by strange priests and priestess who can fly outside their bodies and officiate at marriages, birth and deaths; and there will be full employment for the men at least so they stop causing so much damn trouble for the women, bless their hearts, get back to your knitting; and I don’t care about the local squabbles over whose tribe won the last skirmish, or whose soccer star scored last night. So help me God!
I should just add that there is really no need for serious concern about what the future Russian Federation should look like, IF all the parts that make up RF are treated with equal justice and enjoy peace in the land. The perfect outcome is everyone in RF respect and tolerate the various cultures within it and over time, the Russian culture will evolved peacefully into something special, unique, and could be the envy of all other nations. I am not Russian, but I sincerely mean it!
Ishchenko is an optimist-idealist surely if he thinks Zakharchenko’s prediction of recovering all of the Donbass and possibly more is probable. But what if he’s wrong? What if Russia is forced to send in troops? And NATO and the US respond in kind? As for his general thesis about the stability of the state, it seems to me to be fair enough. But here his stance reverses from ideal to realpolitik and is predicated on how states are, not how they ought to be. If that sounds convoluted it’s because statehood itself is discombobulated. We were never meant to live in states but in small interacting units that are free and independent. So good luck in trying to make states work for long periods. Rome did by cleverness and force. The AZ’s are trying again but they are no Romans who could only control a small part of the world and that with great difficulty. I think the best we can do is to understand the ideal and live with the reality of states. If we can get into a small community that has at least some semblance to our origins in pre-history without succumbing to the lies of history we are fortunate. States are by their nature unhealthy and dangerous even though many people seem to do well enough within states. That might be real but it’s far from ideal and in the end will prove to be a false reality for individuals who have sold their souls to the state.
Thank you N_V for the translation.
Is it possible to give us the link of the previous writing that Rostislav refers to:
I have already had occasions to write that only Russia was able to create an imperial state based not on suppression of small nations and their assimilation, but on their convergence or integration into the common space where all live comfortably. But it was the overwhelming majority of the Russian people in the Russian state that guaranteed such ethnic idyll.
I can then content myself w puzzling out his meaning from the machine translation. Israel Shamir once wrote something related, writing for Global Research.
a very minor point–large numbers of russians working and living outside of Russia -eg my wife from Crimea, and others in my local small town-would they return if for example dollar collapses, if their current economic situation declines, because they feel so emotionally tied to Rus and loyal.Yet are working outside , will raise a family ,maybe retire back to Rus,but the offspring will probably not see Rus as their “home” place so much: how many russians as they see themselves, are outside Russia?
I read recently that the Baltic countries have much greater concerns over their own situations.
I really hope that somebody show this post to Putin!!!!
But i think the Saker don’t agree with this opinion.
A hug, from São Paulo – Brazil.
Foreign Affairs had some time ago a rather pessimistic outlook on Russia’s demographic situation: Moscow’s Baby bust. The tell that Russia’s present equilibrium is temporary as the number of women in child bearing age is falling.
I don’t have good feelings with this Ishchenko article. He seems to me a Machiavellian cynic. Does he really believe that it makes a difference at which side of a border some Russians live?
The main reason the birth rate in some regions is much higher than in others is urbanization. Russia is neglecting its countryside that is depopulating fast towards the neighboring cities. On the other hand it is neglecting regions in the periphery that as a consequence have higher birth rates.
The obvious solution is a shift in development priorities. Unfortunately people like Ishchenko are only drawing the attention away from these issues with their pseudo-solutions.
Never heard of this guy, interesting interview a few weeks ago.
Pravda.Ru conducted an interview with Ukrainian political analyst Yuri Gorodnenko to discuss this and other issues.
The biggest mistake of the United States is the fact that they want to impose the model of consumption society to the rest of the world. Today, America is walking the Bolshevik path. The US elite want to make money. In order to make big money, they do not need to launch a global war – because they will lose all their sales market. This explains the attitude of the US elite to Russia. The Americans want to destroy and strangle Russia, but they realize that they should not do it, because America needs Russia’s resources and sales market.
“The Americans have created a model that allows them to buy and control virtually the entire world. It was enough for them to bribe a few Iraqi ministers, and the US Army entered Baghdad nearly almost without bloodshed.
“Do you believe that there are not such people around President Putin? A part of the Russian elite is always ready to sell their country. The elite that appeared in Russia during Yeltsin’s time has not changed. Therefore, there is still a possibility to destroy Russia.
Sergey Shoigu is one of the most patriotic members of Putins cabinet.
And he is neither ethnically Russian, nor an Orthodox Christian. Funny that, huh?
Multiculturalism is mostly a problem when it happens too much, too fast, to integrate them completely, like right now in Europe, or even to a smaller extent the US.
Most of the non Russians in Russia have been there decades or more.
My understanding is his mother is Russian Slav and that he has said he was Orthodox.But your general point is still correct.You don’t have to be Slav to be a loyal patriotic Russian.History is full of non-Slavs that were loyal to Russia.
I agree both with the article and with much of Ivan’s comments.The Muslim Russians are Russian (World) first,and Muslim second.But that is not true with the importing of foreign immigrants.As an example there are two groups of Tatars in Russia.The one we hear most about are the Crimean Tatars (the smaller group).But the larger group are the “Volga Tatars” from the Kazan area.And in general they are the most “Russian” of the Muslim peoples.They have had maybe a thousand years of interaction with Slavic Russians (good and at times rough interaction).There was a lot of intermarriage between the peoples.And they are (in general) very much integrated into the common Russian culture.They from the start of modernity (again in general) have been leaders in the secular modern movement among Muslim peoples.Because of historical reasons,the so-called Crimean Tatars haven’t been nearly as integrated into the common society.But still compared to some peoples (say immigrants from the ME would be) they are.
What I consider would be the best situation for Russia would be to “in-gather all the Russian Lands” into the RF.That means a new Union treaty with Belarus (they officially did that once.But seen to forget that today) and Ukraine (or with a Ukraine and a Novorossia.That is still unclear) with or without Galicia,also unclear. And with Kazakhstan with its population that is a very Russian World one.With all the peoples there also being resident in Russia as well.
As for the birthrate problem.That is one of the most serious problems all Europe (including Russia) faces.And no one in the West seems to notice it for more than a few minutes.As it stands right now,Europe’s native ethnic peoples are dying out.The questions that should be being asked are “why” is that and “how” to prevent that.I have my own ideas as to the “why”.And high on the list is Westernization and personal,for lack of a better word,”greed”. When given a choice between,the fancier house,a second car,a “fun” social life.Many,many,people in the West choice that life over having children.Children are expensive,and time consuming.They take time and money you could spend on “you” instead.And many in Europe (and North America I might add) are from the “me” generation.They “maybe” are having one child,two at most.While many are having no children.
So then we are left with the “how” to overcome that existential problem facing Europe.Frankly,I don’t know “how”.Its not a “one size fits all” type of solution.If you take human beings “purpose” to the absolute basic position,it is to reproduce ourselves.That is why we exist,its how we exist.So why is it so hard for us to understand that.We are born with reproductive systems intact.There is a reason that God (or nature if you desire) did that.It wasn’t only for a fun social life.It was to assure the survival of the human race ,”us”.I would think the first step has to be to admit the problem.And think of ways for a solution.Does it take financial incentives for families? Surely that will need to be a part of it.The decline of Religion in Europe is sadly for the non-religious one of the problems.Religious doctrine used to be very good at halting some of that (hence the ,”be fruitful and multiple” that is talked about in the Bible).The rise of homosexuality in Europe has also been a problem.And not just about morality.Personally,I have no wish to harm or discriminate against people over sexual choices.But admitting that that bears on this problem is just the truth.Reshaping society in Europe to be more “family friendly” is a must to help solve the problem.
But turning to Russia in particular,along with the ideas I mentioned (and more that may be thought of by others more expert ).There is also immigration to consider (and Russia has started considering it).But what kind of immigration would be best? Certainly not the immigration that in the West is only destroying their societies.There are immigration ideas that Russia could adopt that would not harm them.One is to make it easier for ethnic Slavs from the near abroad countries (minus the ones I talked about reuniting with) to move “home”.There are several millions of those peoples in the former USSR areas that face discrimination and are forced to either assimilate or in many cases they leave for other areas of Europe.They need to be welcomed home.There are also people (many Orthodox) from Slavic (or Russia friendly) areas that now are forced to immigrate to other areas in the EU to make a life for themselves.Those people should be encouraged to move to Russia instead.If Russia does as they need to and re-industrializes,they will need the workers.And for the workers they already have either a kinship with Russians ,or are more culturally inclined to the Russian culture and language.Those are the same reasons that the US had so much German immigration.And that Argentina and Brazil attracted so many Italians.We saw (or most heard about) the Polish press article about Europeans moving to Russia.It may have been premature,but its not an impossible thought.In the days of the Russian Empire almost 3 million Poles moved all over the Empire and became mostly assimilated over the years.How hard would it be for Orthodox Bulgarians,Serbians,Macedonians,to assimilate to Russian society (as well as other Slavs).I suspect not very.We already know that many areas of Novorossia at first had many of those type of immigrants.That today are counted as Russians,Ukrainians,Novorossians.
So while this problem is an existential threat,as bad as any other.It can be solved if people admit the problem and try to solve it.
Lord O on verge on going for broke in Syria:
The United States is considering a major overhaul of its failed efforts to train militants purportedly to fight Daesh Takfiri terrorists in Syria, looking for alternatives to prevent the program from totally collapsing.
Citing US defense officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Pentagon proposed a plan to supplant the $500 million “train-and-equip” program with a more modest effort.
General Lori Robinson, head of the US Air Force in the Pacific, says the rate at which China and Russia are modernizing their military technology is “disconcerting.”
“I get incredibly concerned about the capability gap decreasing [between the US and other nations]. That technology gap continues to get smaller and smaller, and for us that should be very disconcerting,” Robinson said this week, while addressing the Air Force Association conference.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says the Damascus government would ask for the deployment of Russian military forces to the crisis-hit country in case the ongoing foreign-sponsored militancy takes a turn for the worse.
“There is no joint fighting on the ground with Russian troops, but if we felt such a need, we would study it and demand,” Muallem told state-run Syrian television network on Thursday.
“So far the Syrian army is able (on its own) and what we need frankly is more of the ammunition and qualitative weapons to face the type of qualitative weapons of these terrorist groups,” he added.
Israel’s Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has authorized the use of sniper fire by Israeli military forces against Palestinian stone-throwers in al-Quds (Jerusalem).
On Thursday, Weinstein approved Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to change the rules of engagement and declare “war against stone-throwers and firebomb throwers” in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The top Israeli legal official also approved the arrest of minors and children under the age of 10 and 5 who throw stones, in addition to a fine of up to 100,000 Israeli shekels (about US $26,000).
The are no grounds to attack Ishchenko. He is just ruthlessly realistic, no more no less:
* Simple fact No 1: Russia will cease to be a country dominated by European culture and customs if and when it gains an active Muslim majority. Note the word “active” here, as a majority consisting of pensioners does not count. Whoever thinks otherwise may come up with a counterexample. There does not exist any such counterexample. It happened to Kosovo, and it is presently happening to Macedonia. Smaller European countries such as the Netherlands, Austria and Norway are not far behind and a host of other countries are rapidly closing the gap considering the massive influx taking place right now. Muslims, however assimilated, will radicalize as soon as they are given the opportunity to. If you want to take any chances with that, then tough luck. Even the most moderate Russian Muslims are already under the influence of propaganda and money channeled to them from deep-pocketed, Islamic fundamentalist Gulf monarchies. And the Islamic state with its ruthless appeal does its part, too. This influence will only grow as the Orthodox, ethnic Russian dominance fades. A country with an active Muslim majority and a classical European culture is inconceivable, it’s as simple as that.
* Simple fact No. 2: The current influx of ethnic Russians by accession and/or taking refuge is buying Russia some more time.
* Simple fact No. 3: Even with the current influx, in the long run there will be no way around increasing the ethnic Russian birth rate if Russia is to remain Russian. Ishchenko did not mention that in his article and, from that, some seem to draw the conclusion that he is only counting on the current influx and nothing else. This wrongful perception is then used to accuse him of cynicism. But he is surely not stupid. The reservoir of ethnic Russians outside Russia is too small, hence the birth rate must increase in the longer run or Russia is doomed.
That said, there is still absolutely nothing wrong with taking advantage of the current influx.
Living in a culturally Marxist hell in Western Europe, and experiencing the ongoing islamization first hand, I can confirm that many reasonable people adhering to traditional Christian values are looking at Russia with increasing envy. It seems to be a white society that at least tries to evade the spiral of cultural and demographic death the West has gotten itself into. There is surely a great deal of hype around that but the mere contrast between cities such as St. Petersburg or Moscow and, say, modern-day Sodom and Gomorrahs like Amsterdam and London could almost be not more radical. As things are deteriorating so fast in the West, I am sure that Russia could, at some point, actually count on many millions of white refugees to set off its demographic problems, if it just wanted to. In that case it would not even have to increase its ethnic Russian birth rate.
Some of the comments here are bizarrely clueless about the distinction between the Russian world and the Russian ethnic group. Sure, a lot of different peoples are the former, but certainly not the latter, who are the backbone of the state.
The translator should explain the difference between “Rossiyskiy” and “Russkiy” in a note the next time.