Many Territories within the Borders of the Russian Federation are Much Less Russian than Crimea, Kashin Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 23 – Oleg Kashin, a Russian nationalist who wants to see the creation of a Russian nation state, points out that there are numerous territories within the current borders of the Russian Federation that are significantly less Russian than Crimea, whose annexation Putin justified in terms of defending ethnic Russians.

            Kashin says that “a Russian nation state … is the absolute antonym of an empire” and that both Putin and the liberal opposition are doing everything they can to prevent Russia from becoming a nation state, Putin by reducing the number of Russians living in Russia and the liberal opposition by failing to identify as ethnic Russians (idelreal.org/a/oleg-kashin-russkoe-natsionalnoe-gosudarstvo-eto-absolyutnyy-antonim-imperii/33115913.html)

            Instead of identifying as ethnic Russians and being concerned about the fate of that people, Kashin continues, “when the typical anti-Putin activist is asked ‘who are you?’ he won’t reply ‘I am a Russian.’ That simply doesn’t come into his head;” but for many non-Russians, there is no question that they will identify as members of their nation.

            That pattern, he says, reflects the continuing impact of Soviet times when the communists ruled over all nations. It was never the case that the Russian nation oppressed others. Instead, it was oppressed as they were even though many non-Russians mistakenly identified what Moscow did as what the ethnic Russians wanted.

            Because the Russian Federation retained the same borders as the RSFSR and the same non-Russian autonomies which had more rights than this or that predominantly ethnic Russian oblast or kray, Kashin argues, “this is not my motherland; this is not Russia.” Instead, it remains an empire and that must end.

            “The Soviet Union was an empire in which the ethnic Russian people never was the leading core,” he argues; and “the Russian people have never been the authors of oppression. Instead they were oppressed to the same extent as most but perhaps not all non-Russians some of whom like the Chechens were deported.”

            And unlike the non-Russians who at least had some institutions to protect their languages and cultures, the ethnic Russians in the oblasts and krays did not – and as a nation they have suffered as a result. They may have been Russian speaking but they were Soviet and thus imperial in their identities. That continues.

            Much as he would like to see Russians shed the non-Russians and acquire their own nation state, Kashin is not optimistic at least in the short term. Instead, he expects Putin to be succeeded by a Putinist or even by a member of his own family, neither of whom is likely to promote the end of the empire and the rise of a Russian nation state.