The nation-forming people and their Führer, or Ukraine and so on down the list

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

The nation-forming people and their Führer,

or Ukraine and so on down the list

 

 

Explanation: "nation-forming people" is a fortunate linguistic find for a federal state, so that there is no doubt who is the most important among the numerous peoples of the Russian Empire.

 

Finally, the Russian people have found a Führer who fully corresponds to their mentality and who is capable of restoring confidence in the future to the Russian Empire and its nation-forming people.

 

 

I considered writing "leader" instead of "Führer"; the words are foreign anyway, but "Führer" is somehow stronger in spirit, which is important for this historical moment. The fact is that after the defeat in the Afghan War and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, the Russian people became somewhat lost as a result of the democratic reforms undertaken by the government (1). A pathological inability to organize and govern, a lack of initiative in political and economic activity, under the open plunder of the country by oligarchs, naturally non-Russian, led the Russian people to impoverishment and, as a consequence, the final collapse of the Russian Empire (2). Considering that the Russian people can only exist within an empire, the collapse of the empire would have threatened the very existence of the Russian people. This would likely have happened if not for the great stroke of luck when the oligarchs Berezovsky and Gusinsky made a grave mistake in finding in Putin a replacement for the utterly degenerate Yeltsin. I would like to point out that because of their mistake, the oligarchs had to flee, and Berezovsky never forgave himself for such a blunder and, in grief, hanged himself in a toilet. As the saying goes, even an old woman can make a mistake.

 

Putin's slogan, "Back to the Empire," reflects great power status as the spiritual essence of the nation-forming people and its eternal, literally painful, desire to be a "protector" of other peoples, who, one after another, have voluntarily expressed a desire to be the younger brothers of the nation-forming people. Perhaps this explains the fact that Russians are constantly searching for goodness and justice, precisely what they chronically lack. In this regard, President Putin aptly captures the well-known saying, "Every nation has the government it deserves." And the Russian people deserve sovereign democracy under the sovereign Putin—that's how President Putin defined his status in the Russian Empire. I think he was being a bit modest here; in an empire, the proper status is that of an emperor. Incidentally, it's no coincidence that coins bearing the profile of Emperor Putin have appeared. During the reign of the Tsar-father, and then under Soviet rule, the constituent peoples of the state settled in Ukraine, Crimea, the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Transnistria, the Baltics, Karelia, and so on down the list, if I've missed anything. Moreover, it sometimes happened that before this, to avoid any misunderstandings, certain peoples—such as the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Crimean Tatars, Circassians (who almost disappeared), Chechens, and so on—were resettled in more "favorable" climates. The only exception, either through forgetfulness or thanks to the long-serving Kremlin ruler Mikoyan, were the Armenians. But I dare say the reason for this is mentality. Armenians prefer to leave Armenia, which is catastrophically depopulating, and settle in resort areas along the Black Sea coast and the North Caucasus, in the hospitable lands of Kuban and Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, Armenians appeared in large numbers in California. Thus, there was no need for the nation-forming people to settle in Armenia in order to expel Armenians. A kind of Armenian cunning. It must be said that the Armenians are associated with an act that is astonishing for a totalitarian state like the former Soviet Union, a kind of nonsense: ethnic cleansing—the expulsion of the Azerbaijani population from Armenia and the creation of homeless refugees, followed by the provocation in Sumgait and the seizure, with the military support of the nation-forming people, of 20% of the territory of neighboring Azerbaijan. Armenia, unlike other fraternal republics in the USSR, became the only mono-ethnic republic, and one that even annexed part of the territory of a neighboring republic. Armenia today is Russia's only strategic ally of all the breakaway republics (3).

 

As I said, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the nation-forming people became somewhat lost, but, thanks to the fatal mistake of the oligarchs, they were found again and, under the leadership of the Fuhrer, they once again began to determine, as is proper for the nation-forming people according to their status.

 

So it was decided: Tajiks would be the janitors, probably because Russian house servants are usually drunk after dinner. Incidentally, even in Tsarist times, janitors were usually Tatars for the same reason, while taxi drivers were usually Caucasians—they don't drink before leaving for work. Uzbeks were entrusted with construction and vegetable gardening. Restaurant workers were to be specially imported Serbs—they weren't pushy. Bankers were to be Jews and Armenians by default.

All would have been fine, if not for the fact that the Russian people, apparently due to their mentality, began to dominate not only their own country but also neighboring Ukraine, where they have lived since the time of Hetman Khmelnytsky, who voluntarily reunited Ukraine with Russia. Since then, the percentage of the Russian population living in Ukraine has steadily increased, fueled by the settlement of Russians in the southeastern part of Ukraine, which had been particularly depopulated as a result of the Holodomor orchestrated by Moscow. In Crimea, for example, the entire indigenous population was evicted and replaced by a state-forming people. And so today, under the leadership of Führer Putin, the gatherer of Russian lands (wherever the state-forming people reside), Ukraine is faced with a dilemma: either voluntarily renounce Crimea and the southeastern territories, or face war, as a result of which the Ukrainian people as a whole risk becoming a "fraternal" people once again. The same fate, apparently, awaits other countries where Russians live, and Russians live in many countries.

 

Alone among others, Russians are, for the most part, quite pleasant people, especially the intelligentsia. True, in numbers equal to three, some imbalance can be observed, but in a certain number, a kind of critical mass, one can expect, as the events in Ukraine demonstrate, something akin to a chain reaction, whereby the Russian people instantly transition to the status of a state-forming people, threatening the world with a nuclear chain reaction.

 

It would be useful to identify a pattern in which such a threat is possible in a given country, depending on the percentage of the state-forming people living there. A kind of mathematical constant, upon reaching which the local population could lose its state:

 

k = R/P

where R is the minimum number of Russians settling there for self-determination, and P is the size of the local population. Knowing this constant, one can always calculate in which country one would expect Russians to form their own state, depending on the resident Russian population.

 

So: R = kP

It must be assumed that each people has its own value for this constant.

 

I propose naming k, following the example of "Planck's constant," "Putin's constant," in honor of the man who first successfully demonstrated the validity of this formula. Admittedly, Hitler came very close to discovering it before him, if we recall the annexation of the Sudetenland, but his experiment was unsuccessful. I can only assume that although Putin and Hitler are both Führers of their respective nations, there is a very significant difference between them: Putin and the Russian people are inseparable. Unlike Hitler, Putin did not have to create a party; his party is the entire Russian people, boundlessly grateful to him for the return of the empire, without which the nation-forming nation has no future.

 

The German people rejected Hitler and the propaganda and punitive methods of fascist ideology imposed on them, while the Russian people, with their inherent Great Russian chauvinism, are hardly ready to reject Führer Putin, who so remarkably successfully reflects the hopes and aspirations of his people.

 

Once again I am convinced that at the most difficult historical moment, a strong personality emerges within the nation, capable of averting disaster. Thus, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent threat of the Turkish people losing their own country, Mustafa Kamal (Atatürk) emerged—a leader whom the people completely trusted and followed into the future. Today, we know Turkey as a democratic and economically developing country, whose policies show no sign of returning to the past. To say that this is solely the work of Atatürk would be inaccurate; it also belongs to the Turkish people, who were forced to make self-sacrifice to defend their homeland in a brutal struggle against numerous enemies, and who also found the strength to renounce much that connected them to the past.

 

Putin is certainly a sought-after figure for the Russian people, but, unfortunately, he is leading them back to empire, which poses a potential threat to the countries where the nation-forming people live.

 

1. "The People's Destiny, or Every Cricket in Its Own Place" http://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/4732.html

2. "When the Donkey Dies" http://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/3702.html

3. "Armenia and the Moscow-Tehran Axis" http://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/1347.html

 

April 25, 2014