Russian Federation Must Be Transformed into a Federation of the Peoples of Russia, Inozemtsev Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Oct. 10 – If Russia is to avoid a further intensification of ethnic conflicts, Vladislav Inozemtsev says, “the Russian Federation must be transformed into a Federation of the Peoples of Russia in which the last word would have a geographical rather than an ethnic meaning.

            But tragically, the Russian commentator says, “even the opponents of Putinism are in no hurry to acknowledge this need.” For them, the sacredness of the borders of the Russian Federation is every bit as great as it is for Putin and they are “in no hurry to acknowledge” what this means (moscowtimes.ru/2023/10/10/kak-borotsya-s-rossiiskoi-imperskostyu-a109526).

            According to Inozemtsev, “the times when the greatness of one people was established by its oppression of others are over. While many Russians are beginning to realize this as the war in Ukraine continues, almost none of them is extending this understanding to the situation within Russia itself.”

            “Some zealous oppositionist dream of the collapse of Russia,” he continues, but adds that he “sees a much more ambitious task in mobilizing peoples and regions to fight the Kremlin for the sake of a common future in a fair and successful country” based on repentance by the state for its crimes against minorities and the majority.

            Inozemtsev says: “In the 21^st century, Russia will continue to be faced with a plethora of problems; but neither bureaucracy, nor corruption, nor disregard for the rule of law will compare with the destructiveness brought about by the infection of the Russian people with imperialism, something any authoritarian power can skillfully use to promote its own interests.”

            These conclusions are prompted by the 30^th anniversary of Yeltsin’s use of force against the country’s parliament. What was most remarkable about such commentaries, he argues, is that “supporters of the then-reformers did not so much defend the forefathers of Putinism from a position of rightness but rather repeat that their opponents were even more authoritarian.”

            That shows that “the potential for democratic development, promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev, had been completely exhausted by 1993,” an exhaustion that meant there has not been “even a hint of decolonization in the history of the Russian Federation” and that its superficial multiplicity is being destroyed by a commitment to forming a Russian nation state.

            Instead of building on the nominal complexity put in place after 1991 with so many autonomies, Moscow with the support of all sides focused on the need to “’preserve the integrity of Russia’ via a fight against terrorism,” a commitment that led directly to “expanding the boundaries of ‘the Russian world’” abroad and the destruction of complexity at home.