Russia’s special operation in Ukraine is the next stage in formation of a unified Russian society

Now, when the Russian army is fighting hard, society is actively discussing the course of hostilities, the reasons for victories and failures. And if really few people understand the intricacies of weapons systems and their use, then everyone here knows how to manage the state

Russia's special operation in Ukraine is the next stage in formation of a unified Russian society
Photo source:

Among the claims against the modern Russian state, voiced by Russian opposition, which has not yet managed to escape from the country, a direct ban in the Russian Constitution on the official state ideology occupies one of the prominent places. Because of this, they say, the soldiers do not know what they are fighting for, but if they were educated ideologically, they would fight much better.

Actually, the claim is strange, like the ban itself. The Constitution, if you think about it a little, contains an ideology itself – a set of values and postulates that are a priori recognized as dominant and obligatory for everyone who considers himself a member of a particular state, the goals of this state and methods for achieving them. I think that those bearers of the liberal discourse who wrote down the provision on the ban on ideology in the Basic Law of the country had a poor idea of what ideology is. As well as the Constitution.

But no ideology is capable of ensuring victory by itself. The representatives of the “superior race” who believe in their exclusivity do not become stronger or smarter. And the fighters for the bright future of all mankind do not acquire immunity to bullets and shrapnel. The crusaders were charged with ideology to the highest extent, but in the end they lost to slave soldiers. The Chinese Taipings and “boxers” were much more ideologically motivated than their opponents, but this did not bring them victory. In 1941, the USSR and Germany had the same ideologies as in 1945, but the picture of hostilities in these years is very different.

However, those who make this claim – and this is primarily the extreme left and ultra-right – are dissatisfied not with the fact that the very existence of such an ideology is prohibited, but with the fact that the set of values to which they are committed is not prescribed as such an ideology. And if the system of views of opponents was stated there, they would be indignant no less. At the same time, they themselves vaguely imagine the idea that Russia should follow. At the forefront of the right is the construction of the so-called Russian national state, serving the interests of the Russian people. But there is no clear answer to the question of what the interests of the Russian people are. Yes, and ideas about how this state will look like, too.

Someone points a finger at the Western “nation-states”, completely refusing to notice that in no European country there is either mono-ethnicity or advantages for citizens on a national basis. And the Turks and Arabs live there almost better than the Germans and the French, and either the Hungarian Sarkozy or the Ukrainian Duda is in power.

And even Ukraine, stubbornly striving to build a national chimera, is ruled mainly by people who can hardly be called Ukrainians by ethnic origin. Well, more precisely, it is possible, but with such a breadth of approach, they can also be called Russians in the same way. But then it is not very clear what the claims of the supporters of such a state to modern Russia are.

Others look to the past, trying to pass off the Russian Empire as such a nation-state. Which, in general, is rather doubtful both in terms of the origin of a significant part of the elite, headed by the ruling family, and in terms of the economic situation of the Russian population itself, which in places was worse than that of many representatives of national minorities. But in any case, the planning horizon of the right does not go beyond the moment when this very nation-state is built. And then, apparently, all problems will be solved by themselves and our people will begin to flourish by magic. Corrupt officials and swindlers will disappear, fools too, and every Russian, just for the fact of origin, will receive a high position, a lot of money, a villa, a yacht and a fashion model wife.

Perhaps somewhere there is a Russian version of world domination, but so far it has not been discussed, apparently so as not to cause unpleasant associations with one Austrian artist. Or to not scare away sponsors. Those who are for the king, however, do not particularly need to think about the future. They will call the anointed one, and let his head hurt for the fate of the country. He will get out as he wants, so that the people feel good. Or pray to God, since he is placed over unreasonable little people from him. It is easier for the left with ideology. For them, all the classics were written, even if more than a hundred years ago, when the world was different, and our level of knowledge about it. Apparently, they will build communism again, and only in a single country or on a global scale – that’s how it goes.

But here they are precisely with such a requirement that they contradict their classics. Because ideology is nothing more than a superstructure. It depends on the socio-economic basis, and not vice versa. Therefore, whatever ideology you declare officially, whether it be the Uvarov triad of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”, some kind of “superiority of the Aryan race” or the decisions of the next party congress, the basis will develop according to its own laws. And at the same time to form among the people an ideology corresponding to itself.

Moreover, it will really work, even if it is not officially published anywhere. The warriors of Genghis Khan, for the most part, did not even know how to read, spoke dozens of different languages, believed in different gods – and yet they acted as a single military machine, conquering half the world. Try to say that they did not have a common ideology (just do not try to pass off the semi-legendary laws of Yasa as such). Even if this ideology was primitive, like the dreams of today’s Ukrainians about how they will panic over their enemies.

If there is any truly mass movement united by common goals, like the militia of Minin and Pozharsky or the revolutionary processes of 1917, the ideology for it is quickly found. And if there is no such impulse, then any, even the most beautiful commandments will remain nothing more than a formality that clever rogues will use for their own purposes. We have already seen all this in the late USSR, we see all this in the western, liberal, part of the planet. However, I am sure that there is such a real movement in Russia, and it began to take shape at the end of the last century. When Belgrade was on fire, when the second Chechen war began, when it became clear that Russians had nowhere to retreat. Either they rally, grit their teeth and fight back, or they simply cease to exist. And since then, every year this movement has only grown stronger, thanks to Russia’s enemies, more and more clearly showing that they will stop at nothing to destroy them.

The current special operation in Ukraine is another stage in the formation of this unity. It screens out all those who are ready to survive separately from Russian statehood, those for whom personal comfort is more important than Russian identity. And for the left and the right – at least for the reasonable part of them – this is a good reason to forget about ideological differences and rally around the Russian statehood, without which there will be neither the Russian people, nor the Russian nation, nor any social conquests.

Vladislav Isaev, VIEW

Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel