EAST EUROPEAN NATIONALITIES AND EUROPE

Nationalities in Russia: an Excellent Example of a European  Problem.

Народность в России: необыкной Премьерn всеевропейского вопрос

Les nationalités en Russie: un exemple excellent d'un problème européen. 

Nationalitaeten in Russland ein ausgezeichnetes Beispiel einer europaeischen Probleme.

1.     Nationalities in the Empire

Hostile propaganda, starting from XIX Century, described Russia (not differently, from this point of view from Austria and Turkey) as a “Prison for the Peoples”. This negative stereotype was never been abandoned, either during the Sovietic Period, nor even today, albeit both the Bolsheviks and Elcin’s Russia had made, in fact, remarkable efforts for solving the “National Question”, in a way which cannot be described as prejudicially inconvenient for minority peoples, both the ones of Eastern Europe and of Northern Asia. On the contrary, one could even object that the choice of both the USSR and of the Elcin period was the one to foster and emphasize the role of “Republics”, from one side consolidating “Nationalities” which were, originally, just at their beginning, and, from another, privileging the “secession right” to the geopolitic interest for unity. Many people, not just in Russia, but all over the world, have found that this overwhelming role given to smaller nationalities has fostered disputes, and even wars, like the ones in Caucasus. 

Present-days Russia’s Constitution has included multiculturalism into its foundations. Russia's constitution is one of the few constitutions in the world expressly mentioning multiculturalism. Multiculturality has been a standing characteristic of Russia since the first phase of its history, the “Kievskaya Rus’”. Already at the times of the largest extension of the latter, the States of the Velikij Knjaz included Variags, Slavs, Finns, Turks (Qipqaq, Khazars, Cumans, Pechenegs).Even the "Slovo o Polku Igorevo", Russia's national epic, is filled with references to the Turkic Polovesian People.

Starting from the conquest of the Kazan Khanate in 1522, Russia had always had the problem to arrange the government of minority peoples annexed to the Empire, starting from the Tatars, which were the first ones to be subdued. Already the policy of the Tsar towards such minority nationalities was characterized by a large amount of ambiguity. Certain moments of decentralization, such as, for instance, the ones at the creation of the Tatar Khanate of the Kerimov, or of the autonomy of the Zaporozhie Cossaks and the Khanate of Crimea, and, finally, the policy of Catherine II at the occasion of the Legislative Commission, coupled with excesses of centralization, like the case of the Oprichnina, of the forcced conversion of Tatars, of the russification campaigns in Ukraine, Poland and Georgia.The recent disputes with Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnia, find all their far away roots in ancient events, such as the Rebellions of Razin, Mazepa and Pugachev, or the wars of Chamil.

Apart from Poland, which fought during the whole XIX Century for its independence, it is with the 1905 Revolution that the national movements of the different ethnic minority really started to enter into contact with the idea of the auto-determination of nationalities, as preached by the Austro-Marxists of Bruno Bauer, and which had been the basis of the decentralization of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

During World War I, the conquests of the German Armies, an, later on, of the White Armies and of the Allied Forces, permitted to nationalist governments to be set up in Finland, in the Baltic States, in Bielorussia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Urals and Central Asia.

In reality, the problematics of historical Russian “Nationality Policy” does not differ very much from the one of the others historical  empires (such as the Sacred Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire), which collided with the new idea of independent “national” States based essentially on a common popular language.

So, also there we experience the emergence of new, ethnic and religious nationalisms, such as the ones of Bohemia, of the Netherlands, of Italy, Hungary, Croatia, of Greece, of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Albania, of Arabia,of Tibet, of Xin Jiang and of Mongolia. Also here, we can see the progressive emergence of a “core nationality”, which does not include just the former “core folk”, but was the result of a beginning of “Melting pot”. From another point of view, the dialectics between the “core” melting pot and its peripheries is vivid in several European “Nation-States”, what show a degree of ethnical differentiation, not dissimilar from the one of some “empires” (as, for instance, in Spain, Great Britain, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Baltic States  and Georgia, where "minorities" amount to very high percentages of the poplulation, even surpassing 50%).

2.     The Sovietic Nationalities Policy

The Sovietic Nationalities Policy was influenced by Austro-Marxism and by Panturkism, and in its turn, influenced Yugoslav federalism (Alexandre Marc, Jovan Djordjevich), and even the “autonomies movents” in Western Europe (such as, e.g., the “Carta di Chivasso” and the concept of the “Autonomous Regions” and “autonomous Provinces” in the Italian Constitution, and, hence, the one of "Comunidades Autònomas" in the Spanish one. The Baku Congress, of 1^st September 1920, marked a turning point in the Sovietic politics of nationalities, because it persuaded the Bolsheviks that national minorities were an essential and necessary part of the Leninist Project of “Socialism in a Sole Country”. Moreover, thanks to the “Nationalities Policy”, Soviet Russia hoped to reverse, in its own favor, the traditional risk of destabilization of minorities by foreign powers. In fact, Russia presented itself, at the Baku Congress, as the defender of the oppressed nationalities worldwide, and, especially, in Asia.

During that period, Russia entertained a friendly relationship with the Chinese nationalist party GuoMingDang, forcing the Chinese Communist Party to merge, for a certain period, with that party, and, in any case, to maintain a sort of alliance with it up to the end of World War II.

The nationalities policy, whose supreme expert in the Communist Party was Josef Stalin himself, maintained the same degree of ambiguity which had reigned during the Tsarist period.From one side, the Soviets, for persuading break-off Republics, like Ukraine, Belarus and Caucasus, to join the new Sovietic Union,  went on fostering a policy of autonomy of such Republics, encouraging, i.a., the establishment of specific national ruling classes, of national government bodies and of a national language (which often did not exist  beforeas such and was created expressly); from another side, they went on utilizing Russian (or Russian speaking) political personnel, including, into each republic, important foreign minorities (including ethnic national minorities) and fostering large scale migrations among the different republics.

So, in practice, the life of the Republics remained always “split” between local, fledging, national identities, and a strong presence of the Soviet Communist Party, of the Soviet Centralized State, of many and many minority citizens and “Soviet citizens”, which in “intra-community lives” spoke Russian.

So, a certain degree of conflictuality between Republic and the center never ceased to exist, and it was only the totalitarian rule from the center which guaranteed that Republics could hold together, developing along a consistent political and economic path

TURKS FROM YAKUTIA TO KOSSOVO

The first Turkish State had its center in Altai.

Центр первой турецкой держави находился на Алтае

Il centro del primo Stato turco si trovava nell' Altai

Le centre du premier état Turc se trouvai sur l' Altai

Das Zentrum des ersten tuerkischen Reiches befand sich auf dem Altai

We can consider the Turkish and Mongolian invasions as a last phase of the “Migrations of Peoples”. Both Turks and Mongols have their origin in Greater Mongolia, which stretches from present-days Beijing to the Altai mountains in Russia, from Dunhuang, at the China-Xinjang border, up to the whole Baykal area, in Russian Siberia. The “Sacred Mountains” of both Turks and Mongols (Orhon, Ogodon, Kunlun) lie in the present-days “Buriatian Mongolia” a Republic which is member of the Russian Federation.

The Turks are a very broad group of peoples, where most of the nationalities of present-days Siberia and of the Central Asiatic Republics, more Tatarstan, Gagauzia and Azerbaidjan belong, the Turkmenes living in Iran and Iraq, more, obviously, the Turks living in Turkey and in the Balkans. It seems that some American Indians also speak Turkish languages. According to some sources (the “Continuity Theory”), Turks have never moved from these areas, where they have been present, in a form or in another, since Pre-history, creating a great number of empires (“Blue Turkish” Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Uighur Empire, Magyar Kingdom, Seldjuk Empire, Othoman Empire, Timurid Empire, Mughal Empire, Safawid Empire).

According to Slavophiles, and, especially, Eurasiatists, Turkish tradition constitutes an important part of Russian tradition.

Because of the presence of Turks in the Balkans since the XIV Century, and, especially, for having conquered Constantinople, Turks may be considered also as an integral  part of European Identity.

The history of Turkish peoples started with the “Blue Turk” Empire, in the 6^th Century after Christ, and with the graved inscription of Minister Tonyükük, where the decision of the Turks was clearly expressed to keep out of China, remaining in their northern steppes.

The presence of Turkish peoples (Bolgars, Chazars, Cumans and Pechenegs) in Russia was strong since the Middle-Ages. The “Poem of Prince Igor”, the most well-known Russian Middle Ages epos, is devoted to a battle between the Princes of Kievskaja Rus’ and the Pechenegs Polovcí. Its structure and many details hint to a tight interconnection between the worlds of Kievskaja Rus’ and the one of Pechenegs, which result to have had family ties between each other. In the Balkans, the Pechenegs (Besenjoek) were present (in present-days Romania), fought in Hungary’s Civil war in 1043, and partially settled in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Turkmenes were the first Turks to arrive belonged to the so-called “Emirates” of Western Anatolia in the 13^th Century, a civilization which constituted an exceptional introduction to the Turkish Byzantine cultural synthesis. In that period, Tamerlane destroyed the Seldjuk Empire and defeated also the Ottoman Sultan. Shortly later, the Ottoman power resurrected, and the Turks were able to make conquests in Thracia, as well as to challenge all Christians princes of the Balkans. In the famous battle of Kosovo Polje, the Turks defeated the Christian several princes. From that moment, their advance in Europe was no more containable. At a later stage, they took over the heritage of the Mongol rule in Russia and connected, to their Sultanate, Bessarabia, Ukraine, Crimea, Ciscaucasia  and Caucasus.

The Southern part of Russia, as well as Ukraine and Moldova, were deeply influenced by the presence of the Ottoman Empire, which was an active player in Ukraine’s politics from XV^th to the XVIII^th Century, both through the direct control of Southern Ukraine and Caucasus, and in its satellite Crimean Khan. I.a., the most influential Empress of the Ottoman Empire, Roxolana (Harüm Sultan, who inspired also to Süleiman the Magnificent, the nicest love poetry of Ottoman literature), was an Ukrainian, as it is hinted by her nickname, which, in Latin, indicates the inhabitants of Ukraine (from a name of an ancient Scythian tribe).

The wars of Poles, Austrians and Russians for delivering Europe from the Turkish control constitute an important part of European history, and even of the first projects of European unification. The migrations of the Cossacks between Poland and Russia may be explained to a large part as a direct consequence of the Turkish question. The links between Russia and the Balkans have a strong connection with Turkey: the Crimea War was a part of the “Ottoman Question”. Many of present-days disputes (Bosnia, Kosovo, Crimea, Caucasus) come out from this heritage.