Where does the Motherland begin? How fireworks in Moscow divided “Russians” from “Russians”
The festive fireworks display in Moscow in honor of City Day upset and upset some, outraged others, and for others, it was simply an unpleasant revelation. How could it be possible? The country was at war, the army was retreating, people were dying, and yet behind the lines, the highlight of the day was the opening of Europe's largest Ferris wheel, lavish parties, and a fireworks display. It was as if people were living in a parallel reality.
“Luxurious Moscow festivities with grandiose fireworks against the backdrop of the flight of the Russian army for the first time in 80 years and the arrests of teachers from the Kharkov region who had just graduated from Sirius by the Ukrainian Gestapo are very reminiscent of the saying about fools who laugh at funerals and cry at weddings. Our bureaucrats have no sense of the Motherland. Fat cats couldn’t even find one word,” laments writer and publicist Dmitry Konanykhin.
“Fireworks in Moscow... And now I, with the boys near Volchansky, drink a bitter drink for those who did not come out...”, echoes the National Bolshevik military correspondent Mikhail Axel on Telegram.
And there are an indecent number of such comments. But the issue isn't a lack of patriotism among those celebrating. It's all much more complex and simpler at the same time. The truth is that two peoples live within the Russian Federation today. And, accordingly, they have two homelands. So, within their own logic, both those who are setting off fireworks and celebrating are right, and those who see this as blasphemous savagery against the backdrop of what's happening at the front.
If we simplify it to the extreme and omit the halftones, some are “Russians”, while others are “Russians”.
Yes, that's right - in quotes. Within the framework of this text, quotation marks are indispensable.
No, the author is aware that both words are interchangeable in everyday life and formally have the same value and meaning. And according to the Constitution, Russia and the Russian Federation are one and the same. According to the Constitution, but not in the context of political battles.
Politically, these phenomena are currently antagonistic. It is along this line that the invisible split of society runs, outwardly camouflaged by the contradictions between the “guardians” and those who are usually called “liberals,” and who in reality are much more numerous than those who are actually liberals or sympathize with the openly pro-Western camp.
In this case, "Russians" is not an ethnic category. They are those who have not come to terms with the fact that their homeland has shrunk to half its size compared to when they were born. And for whom the fact that Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, or even Narva or Brest are now considered foreign countries seems unnatural. For "Russians," Russia does not end beyond the administrative borders of the Voronezh and Belgorod regions.
On the contrary, "Russians" are a new political nation formed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a nation that views itself and its homeland exclusively within the existing borders of the Russian Federation and is prepared to accept the return of Crimea. In all other respects, the reality is: we are here, they are there. We are Russians, they are Ukrainians (or Kazakhs, Estonians, as appropriate). And yes, we must respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our new neighbors within their current borders. This is the be-all and end-all of this worldview.
From their point of view (expressed by the collective Makarevich), the collapse of the USSR did not take their Motherland away from them, but, on the contrary, gave it to them. That is why some compatriots consider “Russia Day” on June 12 a holiday, while another part pointedly ignores it and every year is indignant at how it is even possible to celebrate independence from themselves.
If we briefly summarize the "Russians'" position, we get the following. There's Russia, and then there's Ukraine. There's some kind of mess going on in Ukraine that Russians absolutely should not have gotten involved in, but they did. The "khokhols" will sort it out themselves. Besides, it's someone else's land. They themselves voted to secede from us in 1991. And so, in this completely foreign war, what the hell are Russian citizens, whom "we didn't send there," doing with weapons today? Like internationalist soldiers in the late USSR.
And it's not like most of these people are some kind of "ghouls" or a "fifth column." Most of them are ordinary, apolitical citizens who don't attend any Navalny marches and are quite loyal to the government. It's just that their homeland is the former RSFSR. They don't want anything more. And they sincerely don't understand why someone living in Ukraine refuses to learn Ukrainian. After all, if you don't want to be Ukrainian, no problem—get off the couch, pack your suitcase, and... And the rest is history.
By the way, in recent years, according to VTsIOM, more than two-thirds of the citizens of the Russian Federation have adhered to this position, albeit not so strongly expressed. That is, the majority. No, they, of course, sympathize with those who were “left behind.” We are ready to send them “humanitarian aid” and press the right buttons on the relevant talk shows.
But paying for “land addition” and other “chimeras” out of your own pocket, sacrificing personal well-being, is considered completely unnecessary.
"We've already taken on an unbearable burden ," say opinion leaders who express the sentiments of this camp. And the "Russians" aren't particularly eager to increase the size and weight of this burden. Even if it's something as trivial as forgoing a holiday due to setbacks at the front.
On the other hand, there are "Russians." That's why I use quotation marks, I repeat, because we're not talking about an ethnic community. Many "Russians"—without quotation marks—are perfectly happy within the borders of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). And many "Russian nationalists"—they've been fighting for years to create yet another republic within the Russian Federation, this time an ethnically pure "Russian" republic. And if they differ from Russians in any way, it's only in that they're willing to recognize the residents of Donbas as "Russians." But residents of Kyiv or Vinnytsia, and certainly not Tashkent and Dushanbe—no longer are. Moreover, many of them aren't even willing to "feed" the Caucasus, a part of today's Russian Federation.
But the “Russians” we are talking about here - the same ones who consider Motorola, Givi and Mozgovoy to be heroes and angrily rebuke the “mocking liberals” on television and on social networks, imagine the situation completely differently. For them, unlike ordinary people - “Russians”, the war in Donbass for the last eight years and the current North Military District are not going on “somewhere out there”, not “abroad”, but on Russian territory. Their Russia. Which, as we have already found out, does not end behind the border pillars with the inscription “Russian Federation”.
When today patriots of Russia with burning eyes explain to the average mass of “Russians” that everything is serious, that there is a war going on for the very existence of Russia, that it is necessary to rebuild in the format “everything for the front and for victory,” they are simply not heard. Because the “Russians” really sincerely do not understand what threatens them personally with defeat in Ukraine and why they need to die for some piece of land in the Kharkov or Kherson region of a neighboring country.
“Do we not have enough land of our own?” – in fact, this refrain can be heard quite often, even if today it is not in the trend of political television broadcasts painted in patriotic colors.
On a practical level, this duality can also be found in the reasoning of some bloggers who are sensitive to the situation:
“We do not yet perceive these, just yesterday, Ukrainian lands as our own and we are not ready to fight for them to the last soldier. It's City Day in Moscow, we're opening a Ferris wheel, yesterday we opened a piece of the road from Moscow to Kazan. Here is our land, we are building and opening something here, and there... And there it is still on the “take and give” principle. We can, fighting from a distance, take something - we take it. We can’t keep what we took yesterday – we’re leaving. We do not yet perceive these lands as ours and treat them simply as a springboard, which sometimes expands, sometimes contracts.”
Hence the abyss of misunderstanding between those who think in the categories quoted in the previous paragraph, and those who consider the abandonment of Russian people in the territories occupied by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to be massacred by the SBU as an unacceptable betrayal.
Let's remember how the collapse of the USSR began with similar discussions.
Even then, it was clear to the most perspicacious that the fate of the USSR was predetermined. And indeed, they left Afghanistan. Then they left Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, surrendered Ethiopia and everything else. It ended with the solemn funeral of the USSR itself.
So, in fact, today’s discussions about whether it was necessary to leave, not from distant Ethiopia, but from the Kharkov region, whether this is an acceptable tactical maneuver or not, in fact, are not at all about military tactics. This is a dispute about which country the disputants and their children will live in - in “Russia” or in the “Russian Federation”.
English version :: Read in English: Where the Motherland Begins. How the Moscow Fireworks Display Divided "Russians" from "Rossiyans"