Back in 1912, the work of a leading theoretician of Russian nationalism was published in St. Petersburg (in my opinion, the writings of this figure are as related to true nationalism as a guinea pig (transl.- sea pig) is to the sea or a pig, but “the mind of Russia does not understand” ) by Pavel Kovalevskyi (1849-1923) “Russian Nationalism and National Education in Russia”. In this work, the author generally laid out the basic principles of the ideology of the Russian great-power xenophobic chauvinism, which are still basic for the followers of this trend, which has become dominant today and forms the basis of the modern policy of the Russian leadership led by dictator Putin.
Ukrainian researchers, in particular, leading figures of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Dmytro Dontsov, Pavlo Shtepa, Vasyl Kosarenko-Kosarevych, Roman Brzeskyi, Zenovii Krasivskyi, Roman Koval and several others in their writings pointed to the traditional Horde-aggressor-chauvinist essence of the Moscow monster but their voice was not heard and for some reason, Russia’s actions of the last few years became “surprises” for many, and some still naively believe in “bad Putin and good Russian people”.
The foundations of Putin’s policy were laid and substantiated a long time ago: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, one-statehood” – the three pillars on which the “Third Rome” stood and still stands (maybe during the times of the USSR, “Orthodoxy” was temporarily replaced by “communism”). At least as early as 1912, Kovalevsky wrote: “Russia is an indivisible and inviolable whole, and only one state is conceivable in it.” And those figures who thought or tried to act differently were always thrown behind bars or thrown to the margins by Russian society.
Below, based on Kovalevsky’s philosophical work, I will try to briefly introduce our readers to the most interesting and significant postulates of the foundations of Russian great-power nationalism, in particular, regarding its conceptual foundations in the field of national and foreign policy.
Petro Struve believes that there are two nationalisms with a diametrically opposite relationship to the surrounding hostile or indifferent environment: aggressive nationalism and defensive nationalism. “What kind of nationalism should the Russian people and the Russian state embody?” Kovalevsky asks. He immediately gives a direct and unequivocal answer: “There can be no doubt: … invasive nationalism is evidence of the strength and health of a great nation … The ideal to which Russian nationality should strive, in my deep conviction, can only be such … organic hegemony…” Russian brutal national hegemony in its internal and external aspects.
However, there is also liberating nationalism, the author cites its signs in the examples of Jews (whom he denies the right to be called a nation), Armenians (Dashnaksyutyun – political party), Finns, Poles and Georgians (who put forward their separate national demands even in the State Duma). As for Ukrainians (in Kovalevsky’s “Little Russians”), the author considers them to be only a “variety” on a par with Belarusians. “These varieties are only shades of life manifestations of one main nation – Russian.” Accordingly, “it is meaningless to talk about the separatism of the Little Russians. This is a delusion of either young people or stupid heads,” while clarifying that “Austrian mercenaries have recently appeared in Little Russia, sowing weak seeds of Little Russian separatism.” (Today it is called the “inquiries” of the USA).
However, as Kovalevsky emphasizes, Russia includes about 150 nations. Based on the population census of 1897, he provides a concise list of nationalities that were part of the Russian Empire. Interesting data. Among them are such nationalities as the Kumandians, Shapsugs, Yuraks, Alchins, Sarts, Dulats, Usyns, Beltyrs, Kazikumukhas, Ostyaks, Kurons, Omoks, Udyns and dozens and dozens of other names of nationalities that today do not mean anything even to an educated person. To the reader, nations suffocated by the strong arms of the “hegemon nation”, melted in the hellish imperial Moscow cauldron. According to Kovalevsky’s recipe: “… they do not have the right to a separate existence and must merge with the Russian nationality and be absorbed by the state-dominant Russian nationality…”. He recommends this recipe not only “for the treatment” of “small” nationalities, but also offers it to Armenians, Georgians, and Germans, after all, everyone “must leave his former nationality outside of Russia, and in Russia, he must become a Russian, otherwise, he has no place in Russia.” After all, “only a one-state nation has the right to absorb uncultured and nationally weak nations subordinate to it.” Since the Russian nation, according to Kovalevsky, is the highest nation in the world, “our literature is the first in the world. Our art is the first in the world, our troops stand at the peak of modern greatness…”, and “Russians should not be ashamed of any sacrifices, expenses, faces and means for the cause of assimilation of small nationalities.”
However, this is not enough for them, because “Slavism in the world sense is us, Russians… In all respects, Russia has the right to say: Slavism is me.” The author believes that “Russia, by its position, stands so high in all respects that the Slavic nations must “seek to her” (I do not find an adequate counterpart to the purely Moscow term in the Ukrainian language), respect and honour her.” Since “our policy should be Slavic only to the extent that our purely national interests require it,” then “national policy, first of all, and most importantly, consists in gathering all nations into one state.”
I remind you, these revelations were made public back in 1912 in St. Petersburg! It may seem that they somehow fell into the hands of a German corporal during the First World War, and it was from this work that he got his diabolical ideas. Here is another example. Attitude to the “Jewish problem”. Each Jew “represents something vile, low, disgusting, despised… This mass, in relation to everything around them, is merciless, endlessly cruel, heartless and contemptuous. Misanthropy, bloodthirstiness and bloodlust towards other people are limitless. As if looking in a mirror.
Accordingly, ways to solve the problem of “cannibals” (the author uses this term about the Jewish nation many times), and”parasitic and criminal” nationality are also proposed. “But what to do with them?” asks Professor Kovalevsky. He offers several ways: “a new exit from Russia”, “assimilation in Russia with the mandatory condition of conversion to Orthodoxy”, and resettling them in Poland and Finland. However, A. Stolypin’s proposal “to find scientific means of extinction of this parasitic and harmful for the world nationality” is not rejected either. No more, no less!
Perhaps the reader will have a suspicion whether the thoughts of one person should be considered conceptual and basic for the entire Russian great-power ideology. But the point is that these are not the opinions of one person! Kovalevsky’s work is abundantly sprinkled with quotations from the works of Tolstoy, Mendeleev, Dostoyevsky, Khomyakov, Struve, Kornilov, Pushkin, Meshchersky, Pestel, Menshikov, Samarin, and other Russian thinkers. These ideas have always had and today have their followers and exemplifiers, which we can once again see for ourselves.
And they build their policy, according to Kovalevsky’s will, “exclusively in the legal field”:
“Our rights to rule … will be – rights of blood.” It is about the fact that “the state-ruling Russian nation reached its state by shedding the blood of its children and losing hundreds of thousands of its compatriots. It acquired this territory and every subjugated nation through persistent struggle…” Then – “rights of historical existence. The Russian people have no right to forget their historical destiny and must defend their position and purpose. Property rights, because Russia spent billions on its construction…, the right to self-preservation of its integrity, its power, its strength, its unity… The right to cultural existence and cultural dominance (“superiority”) over other nations.” And finally “the right of the winner and the right of possession.”
There is something to think about and from which to draw conclusions.
“The main motivations for expanding the borders of the Russian nation’s domination were not the desire for aggressiveness, for the capture of others, but only self-defence and the arrangement of borders that would ensure the integrity and well-being of the state,” Pavlo Kovalevsky said in 1912.
The same propagandistic argumentation is used by the current “protectors-collectors” of “originally Russian lands”.
You see, they only “protect” their “compatriots”, “Russian-speaking”, “brother Slavs”, etc. from the “Bandera junta”, “American imperialism”, etc. And they do all this based on their “holy humanity” and “without benefit”!
“Deception, non-compliance with agreements and expansionism are traditional features of Russian politics. And we have no right to forget about it. We should know: when Moscow talks about peace, we should expect war, when Moscow wants to “renew historical justice”, we should expect new annexations, when Russia declares its unstoppable desire to liberate someone – expect enslavement. When we hear about “fraternal aid”, let’s expect colonial exploitation. Such is the vocabulary of the Moscow conquerors.
Every Russian leader during his reign necessarily declared wars, the victory which was a means of self-assertion. In addition, the wars inevitably caused a wave of chauvinistic patriotism and distracted the masses from internal problems, and therefore contributed to the consolidation and expansion of personal power, which all Moscow rulers aspired to,” Roman Koval emphasizes.
If once upon a time, according to the cynical statement of the same Kovalevsky, “Russia had to conquer the Caucasus to save itself from the attacks and robberies of its border lines by wild predatory inhabitants”, then today, “as it was with the Crimean Tatars, and with the Khiva people, and Siberia, etc.,” the Russians are “only defending themselves” and Moscow “if you can be blamed for something, it is more likely for too much leniency towards conquered nations…”
True, the history of Horde Russia is a history of wars, conquests, occupations, “liberation” campaigns, international blackmail, deception and threats. Heroes for Russians are idolized executioners, tyrants and invaders: Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, Suvorov, Ekaterina II, Lenin, Stalin, Putin… And those who willy-nilly, due to their character or circumstances, did not stay “on the throne” for long liberal concessions – “the turrets were lowered”: Nicholas II, Kerensky, Khrushchev, Gorbachev… Not Pugacheva or Razina, not Sakharova or Novodvorskaya, Moscow monuments are erected, flowers are not brought to their graves. “In Russia, the victims of arbitrariness have no graves,” stated the French traveller Marquis de Coustin.
Naive is the one who is looking for answers to the question “Why?” in the modern political plane. The reason is much deeper.
“The ideas of God’s election and exceptionalism have clouded the consciousness of Russians for more than a century. This faith in the divine purpose of Russia, faith in Russia as the savior of mankind, not only intoxicated Russians but also formed false landmarks and drove them to foreign lands in the hope of fulfilling their “divine purpose” – to unite the nations of the world around Moscow. , – rightly noted Roman Koval in the article “Conquistador messianism” back in 1992.
The reason should be sought “in the spirit of that nation, its psyche, in which the brutality of a predator and the insidious cunning of a fox are combined… They are sure that with all their signs – cruelty, lying, treachery, violence and arrogance – they are the leaders of the “chosen people” … to defeat all the nations of the world under their feet. This idea of theirs is unshakable and unquestionable in them, common to all members of the horde – from the highest khan to the lowest scoundrel” (Dmytro Dontsov “The Soul of a Muscovite and Dragomanism”).
The psychiatrist (psychopathologist!) Kovalevsky, an apologist for Russian “organic hegemony” as a national ideal of Muscovites, expertly felt this and expertly substantiated it in his work “Russian Nationalism and National Education in Russia”.
This “organic hegemony” is what unites and directs Russians throughout the centuries. Any “spiritual scraps”: Orthodox, Pan-Slavic, proletarian-Bolshevik, Eurasian, etc., are only bright paint with which, from time to time, as needed, they camouflage the shackles of imperialism rusted with blood, wanting to keep them on the feet of the already enslaved and throw them on the feet of those whom they intend to enslave.
“Our imperialism, according to our role in the world, should be such that it gives generously, and not predatorily takes away,” sings Nikolai Berdyaev. This is camouflage! “At the same time, it’s time for us to be able to protect our national dignity and not celebrate the defeat of 30-40 Chinese, Persian, etc. settlements”, – openly urges Kovalevskyi. This is the essence!
Describing the Russia of Tsar Nicholas I in the first half of the 19th century, the Frenchman de Coustin noted: “The Russian state system is … a permanent state of war, which has become the normal state of the state… Despotism… is completely consistent with the spirit of the people… The entire Russian people, from children to elders, drunk from slavery to unconsciousness… Despotism is on the throne, but tyranny is everywhere…” As if it was written yesterday…
“The Russian nation is an unusual phenomenon in the history of all mankind. Moreover, the character of the Russian people is not similar to the character of all (!!! – V.R.) modern European people, that Europeans still do not understand it and understand everything about it on the contrary”, – O. Dostoevsky rightly emphasized.
Indeed, with sadness we are forced to state that even now “torn by doubts” the Europeans are not worthy to understand the “mysterious Russian character”, further hoping with a naive policy of appeasement (reassurance, reconciliation, pacification) to stop the predatory aggressive policy of the obsessed Kremlin, forgetting what such a policy led to governments of Great Britain (Chamberlain) and France (Deladier) in relation to Hitler’s Germany in the second half of the thirties of the last century.
What do Kovalevsky, his associates and followers see as the “future greatness of Russia”? In the fact that “By the power of its love, mercy, mutual aid, compassion and self-sacrifice, Russia will unite the tribes subject to it in the future and become a truly great and glorious Russia. It will unite all Slavic tribes and become a united great state. It will unite all the rest of the tribes of Europe and become one great all-nation state. And this unification will be achieved not by weapons, not by physical force, but by the power of its Russian national genius… The seeds of the historical past will bear fruit in the future and create the greatness and glory of United Russia.”
Having not been able to say anything good to the world during her entire existence, the imperial “mother-Rasseya” is a crippled and untidy beggar, even now ready, leaning on the shoulders of the nations enslaved by her, to stand on her rotten bones and hoarsely growl her poor self to the world. Dazzled, with an eternally closed eye, in “shoes” worn in the last century, half-sober, with an empty bag over her shoulders, she points with a dirty finger to the civilized world in which direction to move.
“It is clear that the civilized world does not need the advice of this half-crazy cripple!” Roman Koval wrote sarcastically in the article “We and They” in the summer of 1991, as if in response to Kovalevsky’s ambitious forecasts and threats.
We know that “A good tree cannot bear rotten fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” Therefore, “sharpen the axe well” and cut down the rotten tree, which for centuries “bears fruit” with deadly poison.
