WHAT ARE THE TATARS BETTER THAN THE RUSSIANS? OR AGAIN ABOUT THE ASYMMETRIC FEDERATION

Putin, as you know, once again denied the Russian people the right to consider themselves the state-forming nation of the Russian state, citing the risk of dividing peoples into first and second class, which, in his opinion, would entail the collapse of Russia. This time during a meeting with State Duma deputies.
What do I think about this?

Firstly, I believe that there is no such risk, that is, we are dealing with our own phobia, since the peoples inhabiting the Russian expanses are much smarter than our tolerant rulers. It only seems to us ("us" figuratively, not to me personally) that calling Russians the state-forming people will offend and/or offend someone. It is a misconception to think so. Because our neighbors, as a rule (I don’t take the Caucasus into account), are very, very complimentary to the Russians. Otherwise, Russia would have collapsed long ago as it did Soviet Union.
Secondly, the bulk of the non-Russian population a priori considers the Russian people to be state-forming.
Thirdly, the national sovereignty of other peoples has already been realized at the local level, so to speak, at the level of the subject of the federation. By by and large Chechens subconsciously do not consider Chechnya to be Russia, and Tatars do not consider Tatarstan to be Russia.
Fourthly, introducing such an amendment to the preamble of the constitution does not make any nation the first class, and some second, since it does not entail discriminatory legal consequences. No one is saying that someone is better or someone is worse. We are talking about something completely different. The Tatars, by the way, have a similar provision in their constitution. Which he is in no hurry to cancel, despite the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which recognized some provisions of the Tatar Constitution as inconsistent with the provisions of the Russian Constitution. Let me remind you that Russia, in its territorial structure, is a so-called asymmetric federation. That is, in it there are national-territorial entities (Tatarstan, Buryatia, Chechnya and others) and seemingly neutral “simply” territorial entities (such as the Vladimir region and Krasnodar region, For example). “Simply” territorial entities are, as it were, common, non-national, that is, they are not Russian. Like in a communal apartment - a toilet. We generally resemble a communal apartment, in which each room belongs to someone, and the Russians share only in the common property. We can be proud that we are a connective tissue corridor. Small nations in the conditions of such an asymmetric federation, as a result, have a fundamentally greater volume of powers than the Russian people, who are generally deprived of legal personality. Speaking in simple words, the Russian people simply legally do not exist. And all these old Putin songs about the main thing about the backbone, connective tissue and a unique cultural code are the usual pre-election blah-blah-blah in execution of the Russophobic Eurasian government for the Soviets and Russians.
Nevertheless, the position of some national figures is interesting. They very successfully take advantage of the voluntary Russophobic position of the Eurasian-Russophobes from the central government. For example, Farid Mukhametshin, Chairman of the State Council of Tatarstan, in an interview with the official Tatarinform agency, said: “At the proposal of one of the deputies to change the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, replacing the expression “multinational people” with “Russian people and those who have joined them,” "Putin said categorically, very reasonably, that we cannot divide all Russians into first and second class. All Russian citizens must enjoy the same rights and opportunities. We are one all-Russian family. This is very important."
However, it is precisely in the constitution of Tatarstan (former Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) that the following is literally established: “This Constitution expresses the will of the multinational people of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Tatar people.” In general, there is a multinational people of Russia (rootless Rasians), there is a multinational people of the Republic of Tatarstan (rootless Rasians living on the territory of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) and there is a Tatar people. Where are the Russian people here? The answer is simple: nowhere. Russians have neither land nor status. Russians cannot do what Tatars, Chechens, Chuvashs and so on can. Why?

Modern science slaps Hitler and Ukrainian nationalists in the face. The myth that Russians are supposedly some kind of “oriental mixture”, “horde” is not new. It was widely exploited by the Nazis and their Kaiser predecessors. Today it has been adopted by the Ukrainian ultra-right. But the conclusions modern science will greatly upset these “Ordo-worshippers”...

Here is an excerpt from a German school textbook from the late 19th century:

"Russians are half-Asian tribes. Their spirit is not independent, the sense of justice and reality is replaced by blind faith, they lack the passion for research. Servility, corruption and uncleanliness are purely Asian character traits."

And here is from a speech by Heinrich Himmler:

“When you, my friends, fight in the East, you continue the same struggle against the same subhumanity, against the same inferior races that once fought under the name of the Huns, later - 1000 years ago during the time of Kings Henry and Otto I, - under the name of the Hungarians, and subsequently under the name of the Tatars; then they appeared again under the name of Genghis Khan and the Mongols. Today they are called Russians under the political banner of Bolshevism."

Decades later, the same rhetoric was picked up by Ukrainian right-wing radicals and even penetrated into official science and education in Kyiv.

Excerpt from an interview with a militant of the extremist Right Sector, banned in Russia:

“Russians are not Slavs at all, but Tatars and Finno-Ugrians... Voronezh, Kursk, Belgorod region and Kuban are all Ukrainian territories!”

In 2011, the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine awarded the pseudo-historian Vladimir Belinsky for his book “about Russia.” In his creation, which is more reminiscent of recordings of delirium of patients of famous medical institutions, he proves with foam at the mouth that Russians are in fact not Slavs at all.

Belinsky about Russia:

"She has nothing to do with the Slavs. Absolutely. Zero."

But he was awarded by the official state structure, which is informally responsible for the formation of ideology in the country!

Naturally, after this the idea continued to wander. Ideas about the difference in origin of Russians and Ukrainians even found their way into school textbooks. Now thousands of young Ukrainians are foaming at the mouth and proving this nonsense on the Internet:

“Russians are Finno-Ugrians with a mixture of Tatars, why are they clinging to the Slavs?”

At the same time, false libels camouflaged as the results of “anthropological” and “genetic” studies were thrown into the media and on Internet forums, naturally devoid of any specifics and scientific character in principle.

Here are a couple of examples.

Why Russians are not Slavs. And not Aryans at all:

“The answer is because the results of genetic analysis speak about this. According to the media, there is no single Eastern Slavic group of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. And there never has been. Russians and Ukrainians are not Slavs. And Belarusians are quite Western Slavs, close relatives Poles. Everything that we were taught, if we talk about blood, in modern terms, genetic, kinship, is nonsense. Who are the Russians then?.. Russians are genetic Finno-Ugrians who adopted and transformed the Slavic language to such an extent that other Slavs they don’t understand him... In the “great and powerful” Russian language, 60-70% of the vocabulary, that is, basic words, is of non-Slavic origin..."

Proof? What for? Those for whom this insanity is intended will swallow it anyway... There are also articles that they try to make “more scientific.” For example, A person of Russian nationality, or the collapse of popular racology:

“It turned out that the Russians are not “Eastern Slavs” at all, but Finns.”

Well, twenty-five again. The main thing is to throw it in, add a couple of smart terms - and your audience is yours...

“The Russians can be called Slavs only with great stretch, since the tribes that originally lived in the area of ​​modern Moscow were not Slavs. It is no secret that the Russian ethnic group, the formation of which took place in the north-eastern part of Europe, was formed mainly on the Finno-Ugric ethnic basis... The Finno-Ugric ethnic groups living in the territory of north-eastern Europe, due to their civilizational backwardness, were subjected to strong foreign ethnic influences during the Middle Ages and Modern times. The most powerful was the Slavic or Russian (actually Ukrainian) influence..."

All these anti-scientific fabrications are an important ideological component of modern Ukrainian neo-fascism, explaining the superiority of Ukrainians (allegedly descendants of the Polans and rulers of Rus') over Russians. But science, including foreign science, is categorically against this kind of fabrication.

Let's start with the basics. The Slavs are an ethnolinguistic community. Indo-Europeans are peoples who speak Indo-European languages. The main classifying feature, so to speak, is language.

Therefore, terms like “Aryan (Indo-European) race”, “Slavic race” are anti-scientific and meaningless in today's realities. Both Belarusians and Bulgarians are Slavs. Both are Caucasians. But within the Caucasian race, both of them have anthropologically closer peoples from other language groups. But in ethnocultural terms, Belarusians will be closer to the Bulgarians than, say, to their Latvian neighbors, since they are related to the Bulgarians by Slavic languages, the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox-Slavic culture in general. So the Slavs, from the point of view of science, are precisely those who speak Slavic languages ​​and identify themselves with the corresponding modern ethnic groups.

But in order to exclude speculation, let's also resolve the issues of genetics, anthropology and ethnogenesis of Russians in general. We suggest starting with blood, since this is what historical “speculators” love to talk about.

A generally accepted statistical marker for understanding the origins of human populations is Y-chromosomal gaps.

logogroups transmitted through the male line, from father to son. Language, culture and ethnicity as such, in the modern sense, do not depend on them. But they make it possible to make extremely accurate mathematical calculations regarding the biological origin of a particular group.

Looking ahead, I will explain that the foreign Europeans, the ancestors of the Proto-Slavs, the Finno-Ugric peoples and the notorious Tatar-Mongols, were characterized by completely different haplogroups. This will allow us, based on the research of biologists, to draw certain “genealogical” conclusions.

So: characteristic of the people who became the distributors of Indo-European languages ​​(the same ones who were called “Aryans” for a long time) is haplogroup R1a. Scientists argue about the place of its initial appearance (most are inclined to Southern Siberia 18 - 20 thousand years ago), but its largest spread, according to the generally accepted version, occurred 3 - 5 thousand years ago from the Black Sea steppes. Having domesticated the horse and made a number of important inventions, our distant ancestors set off to conquer the world in all directions.

And now horrible dream skinheads. R1a is most common among the Pamiris (82.5%), Brahmins of Indian West Bengal (72%), Khotons (64%), Lusatians (63%), residents of a number of nations of Eastern Europe. It turns out that the Pamir Tajiks in terms of “volume of Aryan blood” will give a head start to any European people!

Let's return to the Russian-Ukrainian issue. In different studies, the numbers differ slightly due to statistical sampling error (for the purity of the experiment, you need to take tests from 100% of the population, which, as you understand, is not entirely realistic), but the fluctuations in the results of different studies are minimal. For the sake of truth, we will cite all those present in popular encyclopedic literature.

Here is the data from the article "Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group". Central Russia - 47%, Southern Russia - 56.9%, Russia (Orel region) - 62.7%, Russia (Voronezh region) - 59.4%, Russia (Tver region) - 56.2%, Russia (Kuban Cossacks) - 57.3%, Russia (Novgorod region) - 54.1%, Russia (Arkhangelsk region) - 40%. Ukrainians - according to one sample, 54%, according to another - 41.5%. Belarusians - according to one sample, 51%, according to another - 45.6%.

I’ll make a reservation right away. According to R1a, we cannot distinguish the actual “proto-Slavic” ancestors from their “brotherly” Scythian-Sarmatian ones. Among the carriers of the marker, the Eastern Slavs have descendants in the male line of both the first and second. But we can distinguish those who have Finno-Ugric or Balkan “pre-Indo-European” ancestors quite clearly.

Here is the table data from another article on R1a. Russians - 46%, Ukrainians - 43%, Belarusians - 49%. One more article. Russians in general - 47% (center - 52%, north - 34%, south - 50%), Ukrainians - 54%, Belarusians - 52%. There are also such statistics. Russians - 53%, Ukrainians - 54%, Belarusians - 47%.

It is clear that over time, as research progresses, the data will be refined. But one thing is already clear: there is no fundamental difference in the number of “proto-Slavic” ancestors among all three East Slavic peoples! Their number varies from study to study within the limits of statistical error.

But maybe the Russians are at least half Finno-Ugric or Tatar-Mongol? Not again!

Only in the Arkhangelsk region do we have a “significant” result for group N, characteristic of the Finno-Ugric peoples: from 35% to 39% (i.e., a result comparable to the number of Indo-European ancestors). For the rest of Russia it ranges from 0% to 16%. As a result, solely due to the large number of Finno-Ugric ancestors in the Arkhangelsk-Vologda region, we have an estimate for Russians as a whole for group N - from 14 to 20%, or 3 to 4 times less than the “Indo-European” ancestors.

The third most common group among ethnic Russians (thanks to the inhabitants of the South of Russia) is group I2 (or otherwise - I1b), which, apparently, was originally characteristic of the pre-Indo-European population of the Balkans. Its volume in the general population of the Russian ethnic group is estimated from 12 to 16%. In the Arkhangelsk region there are about 5% of its carriers, but among the Kuban Cossacks - about 24%.

Ukrainians have “Balkan” I1b in approximately the same quantity as Russians. In addition, what is especially curious, the Ukrainians seem to have a large number of people with the E3b1 (E1b1b) group, which is believed to have originated in East Africa and is still common today in Africa, Western Asia and Southeast Europe (mostly in Greece). Among the Slavs, the largest number of its bearers are Serbs and Bulgarians. The fourth most common type among Ukrainians is “Middle Eastern” J2.

To understand the issue with the “Indo-European” ancestors, it is probably necessary to point out the prevalence of R1a among some other peoples. Albanians - from 2 to 13% (depending on the region), Andalusians - 0%, Arabs - from 0 to 10%, Austrians - 14%, British - 9.4%, Catalans - 0% , among Croats - 34%, Danes - 16%, Dutch - 3.7%, Estonians - 37.3% (apparently Estonian girls loved their Slavic neighbors...), Finns - 10%, Germans in Germany as a whole - 7-8%, and in the Berlin area - 22.3% (this is explained by the fact that the Berlin area was originally inhabited by the Slavs, who were partially destroyed in the Middle Ages and partially assimilated by the Germans), Greeks (depending on the region) - from 2 to 22%, Icelanders - 24%, Italians - 2-3%, Latvians - almost 40%, Moldovans - from 20 to 35%, Norwegians - from 17 to 30%, Serbs - 16%, Slovenes - 37-38 %, Spaniards - 0-3%, Swedes - 17-24%.

It’s funny, but the peoples that Hitler, Himmler and company at one time classified as “Aryan” have very little relation to real Proto-Indo-Europeans by blood. In Southern, Western and Northern Europe, depending on the region, “pre-Indo-European” haplogroups are common, characteristic of the Celts, inhabitants of Northern Europe, the Balkans, and Africa. But everyone’s languages, except the Basques and Albanians, are Indo-European!

The fighting Proto-Indo-Europeans, settling, conquered them and gave them their language and culture, but did not engage in genocide. In some regions they probably constituted a small percentage of the local military aristocracy. As a result, the closest in blood to the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe, so to speak, are the Eastern and Western Slavs, as well as the Balts. The historical collision is such that the Germans, not being relatives of the Proto-Indo-Europeans by blood, but having largely adopted their language and culture, many centuries later, began a reverse process of conquest, only they were no longer so “merciful” to the vanquished.

So it turns out that, according to haplogroups, Russians and Ukrainians are the heirs of the “Proto-Slavs” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans” - approximately equally (by half, perhaps a little more). Only the Ukrainians and residents of the South of Russia were additionally influenced by people from the Balkans and East Africa, and the residents of the North of Russia were to some extent influenced by the Finno-Ugric peoples. But the residents of the Center and South of Russia have even more “proto-Indo-European” markers than the Ukrainians!

But the research of geneticists “for the benefit of ethnology” is not limited to haplogroups alone. In 2009, according to media reports, the “reading” of the genome of a representative of the Russian ethnic group was completed under the leadership of Academician Konstantin Scriabin.

He told the press literally the following:

“We did not find any noticeable Tatar additions in the Russian genome, which refutes theories about the destructive influence of the Mongol yoke... Siberians are genetically identical to the Old Believers, they have one Russian genome. There are no differences between the genomes of Russians and Ukrainians - one genome. We have differences with the Poles miserable."

Now let's turn to anthropology.

Ukrainian nationalists like to trace their origins to the glades and Rus'. But even here an unpleasant surprise awaits them. According to the research of anthropologists, a Scythian-Sarmatian “Iranian” trace was observed in the body structure of the glades (which indirectly confirms the theory about the founding of the Old Russian state as a result of the symbiosis of the Proto-Slavs and the descendants of the Scythian-Sarmatians). So, this anthropological type is localized on the Left Bank of the Dnieper and in the Upper Oka basin.

Anthropologists did not find any tangible Mongoloid element in the structure of Russian bodies. And the majority of modern Ukrainians, according to the structure of their bodies, are descendants, first of all, of the Drevlyans! Ironically, Ukrainian Nazis love to admire Prince Svyatoslav and his mother Olga, to whom there are numerous monuments in Ukraine. And Olga is known for her very brutal conquest of the Drevlyans. How inconvenient it turns out. The Drevlyans moved into the territory modern Ukraine from the southwest, and they most likely brought with them a lot of genes of Balkan and African origin.

An analysis of early Slavic vocabulary (an abundance of terminology dedicated to lakes, swamps, forests and a much smaller amount of seas, steppes, mountains) will allow scientists to assume with a high degree of probability that the Proto-Slavs specifically developed as an ethnic community on the territory of modern Belarus, Northern Ukraine and Western Russia. Moreover, it was the Proto-Slavic community that, apparently, in language was closest to the original Proto-Indo-European. Whether the ancestors of the majority of Ukrainians - the Drevlyans - were initially part of the Proto-Slavs who migrated “in a circle”, or whether they were another “Indo-European” people who “became glorified” later - it is impossible to say with one hundred percent probability. It is only clear that they were not an autochthonous population in the territories of their later residence, and also that the Russians took them by force and civilized them.

We have already examined the issue of the ethnocultural and ethnopolitical heritage of the Old Russian state in detail in the article “Why do the Kievan Nazis want to “squeeze” Kievan Rus?” In short, it was to the northeast of the former lands of the Old Russian state that, starting from the 13th century, the political, economic and Cultural Center Eastern Slavs. And it was Moscow that ultimately, taking into account its dynastic and spiritual heritage, became in this sense the successor of Rus', against the backdrop of how Kyiv decayed.

So, we finally smash the nationalist myths.

Russians are not any “Finno-Ugric-Mongol-Tatar mixture” either by blood, or by language and culture. In ethno-linguistic terms, Russians are a typical East Slavic people.

There is no significant Mongoloid impurity in the blood of Russians at all. Russians have a noticeable Finno-Ugric admixture only in the Arkhangelsk-Vologda region, in the south and center of Russia - it is minimal.

In general, in terms of the number of “proto-Indo-European” ancestors, Ukrainians and Russians are completely identical. In terms of the number of “proto-Slavic” ancestors, they are either also identical (if the ancestors of the Drevlyans were also proto-Slavs), or the Ukrainians are inferior to the Russians (if the ancestors of the Drevlyans were a “glorified” but different Indo-European people).

The ancestors of the majority of Ukrainians are not the Polyans, as Ukrainian nationalists are trying to prove, but the Drevlyans, who differed in their anthropological type from the autochthonous Slavic population.

And while anthropology can still be discussed, genetics is a more precise science. Of all the peoples of Europe, the descendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans by blood to the greatest extent are the Lusatians, Poles, Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Although, I repeat, this is largely just a statement of a biological fact. Despite the fact that Poles seem to be closer in blood to Russians than, say, Serbs, in ethnocultural terms the connection between Serbs and Russians is an order of magnitude stronger than with the Poles. Ukrainians and Belarusians are almost identical in blood to the residents of the South and Central Russia, as well as in ethnocultural terms, are fundamentally different from the inhabitants of Central and Western Europe. And it is very important to preserve this unity, not allowing it to be torn apart by neo-fascist, possessed opportunists with sick fantasies.

RUSSIAN-TATAR ACCOUNT

...The yoke is not only misfortune, but also a school...

Book Nikolay Trubetskoy

There will be no unipolar world, because it does not exist. The bipolar one does not live long, except perhaps in the context of a world war or due to its inertia. The Americans will not maintain their monopoly. With Japan's strengthening Far East and Germany in Europe, new parallelograms of forces will be created in the 21st century, with their own counterweights and checks. It's impossible to predict now. But it is clear that the future of the Eurasian “space” depends on whether it ends up torn between Europe and Asia or remains intact. And this depends on whether it becomes a “bridge” between the “poles”.

The two pillars of this bridge are Slavs and Turks.

By saying “Slavs,” we introduce a very contradictory and motley concept into the matter. Neither the Western nor the Southern Slavs, nor even some of the Eastern Slavs (Ukrainians) are eager to build this bridge and are inclined to gain a foothold by remaining on the European shore. So for the sake of simplicity and brevity, let’s say that “Russians” are involved in our equation on this side - this will be quite accurate.

“Turks” is also a vague concept: either linguistic or ethnic, but in both senses it is motley and contradictory. Islamic affiliation helps to delineate boundaries here no more than Orthodox affiliation does among the Slavs. Not a single sensible ideologist of Turkism today identifies Turkism with Islam; Islam is known to be supernational; it still needs to be modified so that it becomes a field for Turkic self-awareness; some Islamic values ​​can be introduced into Turkism, but what this Turkism is is also not always clear, although it is perceived as reality. In the sense that it is objective and given to us in sensations. For brevity, we will define it as follows: “Tatars”.

Where do the Tatars come from?

From the Huns, Kipchaks, Nogais, Bulgars, Polovtsy, Horde...

Russians also come from the Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks, Polovtsy, Horde...

In one case there is a shift to the east, in the other - to the west, but the shift is something common.

In order not to delve into fairly intertwined roots, it is better to rely on two distinct cultural and historical communities, linguistic and state, which formed the axis of the Russian “prestressed” structure after the collapse of the USSR. Their interaction now becomes decisive. Russian-Tatar dialogue. Or, let's say, the Russian-Tatar account.

For three hundred years, the Russian position has been hammered into the subconscious of millions of people in school textbooks: Rus' began the construction of the Power - the Horde attacked, kept it under the yoke for two hundred years - did not hold back; Rus' threw off the yoke and returned history to the “correct direction.”

Opponents first of all notice that this concept is not very old, that it was imposed on Russians by Europeans who, starting with Peter and especially under Catherine, took Russia into their hands (in other words, set it on the universal path); under the Rurikovichs, all this looked somewhat different; there was a symbiosis; there was the Kasimov Khanate in the depths of Rus'; and before that there was Rus' in the depths of the Horde; which dynasty is on top: Genghisids or Rurikovichs, it doesn’t matter, they still mixed; where is the capital: in Sarai or in Moscow, is also a second question or even a third: there was a capital in Kyiv, then in Vladimir...

And what about Batu’s bloody campaign?

Yes, there was a hike. Raid. Annexation and pacification of the “territory”. John III pacified Pskov in an equally cruel way - why not call this government the “Moscow yoke”?

Yes, however, that’s what they call her. In Kazan.

The Tatar point of view, unlike the “St. Petersburg-Moscow” one, was not included in school textbooks; it was developed covertly and unofficially. Now she has come out from under the cover. It turns out the following Tatar-Russian account.

First, the beginning. For Russians, the beginning of history is the arrival of the Slavs on the Dnieper, Ilmen and Volga; further - the calling of the Varangians; Novgorod Rus, Kievan Rus, Vladimir Rus...

The Tatars answer: what history are you writing? The history of a tribe that came to the steppe from the Carpathians, then moved “from the steppe to the forest” and joined the tribes that had been living here for a long time? But why this particular tribe? Why not consider the path of any other tribe out of the hundreds that lived and roamed here as the beginning of the history of the country? For example, Bulgars? Or - Khazars? And if you are writing the history of the “space” that is now part of the borders of Russia, then why is the Dnieper better than the Yenisei? People also lived in Siberia. And they lived on the Volga. And in Altai. And they are all “Russians” now.

And if you are writing the history of states that took place in this “space”, then start not with the Varangians, not with Dir and Askold, not with Rurik - Truvor - Sineus, but with the Black Otter, the Syanbi, who created a state among the nomads roaming the steppe north of the Yellow River, and this happened four centuries before the “calling of the Varangians.” Legendary times and events? Oh yes, but if we talk about legends, start with the she-wolf who fed the first Turk (here’s the “second Rome”). If you are writing the history of the Russian State, and nothing more, then stop it for 75 years in 1917, but do not delve into the past further than 1242, because the Russian State is something that matured in the depths of the Horde, was born from the Horde and learned to be a great State is for the Horde. And what existed before 1242 is not yet the Russian State, but some unfulfilled project of who knows what.

The Russians answer: no, we know! It was a project of a prosperous European-style Power, which was thwarted, suppressed and distorted by the Horde.

The Tatars counter: if we discuss the project of a prosperous Power, then it was conceived by Genghis and one way or another implemented by his successors. Without this, who would know Moscow? Moscow, even in the Dzhuchiev ulus, remained an inconspicuous town for a long time; the central government of the Horde did not consider this ulus strategically important; if you look from the Volga, then Batu stood on the outskirts; The meaning of the Empire was precisely to implement world order, and which khan, or kagan, or king, or prince, or king collected yasak (tax) for the general system is not so important. Another thing is important: the history of the Golden Horde was at that moment part of world history, and the history of the fragmented and squabbling Russian principalities was part of Tatar history. Thanks to the Golden Horde, the Russians found themselves involved in world processes; they managed to become the heirs of the Horde; within the same geopolitical boundaries, in the same, as they now say, Containing Landscape - they created a great state, the history of which became the plot of world history, and for the last four centuries the history of the Tatars is already part of the history of Russia, and the history of Russia is part of world history.

The last argument, which I took from the latest Tatar sources, should soften the wounded Russian pride, which is humanly very important and even noble on the part of opponents, but that’s not the point.

The fact is that in the Containing Landscape in question, one can guess the action of a law that is higher, deeper and broader than this or that specific state system. The state lives for centuries, but history has thousand-year cycles, and they, in turn, rely on geopolitical conditions, the lifetime of which is commensurate with geological epochs. Human life in these parameters - a grain of sand; human history trickle. It is all the more important to realize where the shores are. And what kind of bridges are possible?

The Suizhou district, in the bend of the Yellow River, is attacked by a tribe calling itself “Turk” and migrating from Altai. The emperor's adviser, named Yuwen Tai, nicknamed Black Otter, decides what is more profitable: an exterminatory war with aliens or a civilizing union? An alliance has been chosen...

Several generations will pass. Attila, breaking away from the Xiongnu alliance, plows a furrow from Asia to Europe, reaching all the way to Rome, dropping the seeds of the future Hungaria - paving the axis: East - West.

An era later, the Slavs, with the help of the Varangians, are trying to break through another axis in this space - from north to south.

The Mongols, who took the name Tatars, repeated the route of the Huns, burning and rafting together the lands from Karakorum to Kyiv.

The Russians, seizing power from the Tatars, are recreating a great state, pushing it in the opposite direction, “from Kyiv to Karakorum.”

Do you feel that there is a certain community, a certain Whole, a certain Unity, cordoned off by these lumbagos?

Do you know what to call it?

The Tatars are offended by this word: “Eurasianism,” they say, is an ideological roof for old territorial claims; this is the desire of the Russians to restore the USSR, or Russian Empire, while contrasting their culture with both the West and the East; this is Russia’s eternal tossing between Europe and Asia and eternal claims to the affairs of both.”

I give the most extreme, most “anti-Russian” of modern Tatar formulations. If we continue the tug-of-war in the same spirit, we must also quote those Russian Westerners for whom Eurasianism is the same roof for Russia’s departure to the East, and the pan-Turkist concept is the same claim on the affairs of both parts of the world. But what about it? The Horde was not at all focused on the affairs of the “insignificant Russian ulus”; the Tatars found themselves at the gates of Europe and “knocked” on them (with what? swords? - L.A.). But this is if we continue the Turkic-Slavic account at this level.

If we talk about global prospects, then the question is this: either Russia will disintegrate into a heap of national “lands” (and the Russians will finally become a “nation”), but these “lands” will join some other supranational configurations; or Russia will understand that she is only a stage in the history of the grandiose Whole, which existed many centuries before her and will exist after her... or in her person.

I don't know if it can be called Eurasia. Geographically, it is possible. What about cultural and historical? Or, how best to put it in the era of national mania - ethnopsychological?

You can outline this Whole (land plus people plus state) with the words: Tatar-Slavic, Turan-Russian.

Are there psychological grounds for such Unity? Let's talk about it. In the meantime, here are the names of the authors on whom I relied in this part of the article: Rafael Hakim, Sergei Klyashtorny, Damir Iskhakov.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book There was no “Yoke”! Intellectual sabotage of the West author Sarbuchev Mikhail Mikhailovich

Appendix 2 Military confrontation between Moscow and Kazan in the 15th – 16th centuries. (compiled based on materials from V. Pokhlebkin’s book “Tatars and Rus'”) * One of the terms of the agreement was the massive construction of mosques in Russian cities, but there was widespread resistance to this process,

From the book Anticultural Revolution in Russia author Yamshchikov Savva Vasilievich

“OTHER TIMES TATARS AND MONGOLS” Who is to blame How few Jews are left in Russia, How many Jews have divorced... Yunna Moritz It is difficult to live in Russia today for a Russian person who loves the Fatherland, knows history, honors the past of his people and professes Orthodoxy. From morning to

From the author's book

“Tatars and Mongols of another time” Having seen enough eruptions of the monstrous TV box over the years of illness, I now try to press its start button as little as possible. But sometimes, poking into the “treasury of lies and vices” to find out last news or

WHAT BLOOD ARE THE RUSSIAN TSARS, if they were originally - Rurikovichs plus - Tatar origin, plus German?
Rus' held on to the fortress of the ancestral principle longer than any other country.
Having 736 years of successive rulers from the Rurik family and ending it.
Russia is ruled by the blessed Romanov dynasty. related to the Rurik family

“Scratch any Russian, you will find a Tatar,” says a wise French proverb, born after Napoleon Bonaparte’s unsuccessful military campaign in Russia.
Paradoxically, the French turned out to be right.
Tatar roots can be traced in the pedigree of almost every fifth Russian, not to mention the fact that the Russian throne until the mid-17th century was occupied with enviable consistency by tsars in whose veins pure Tatar blood flowed.

Russian tsars of Tatar origin

John IV was the eldest son of Grand Duke Vasily and his second wife Elena Glinskaya. But it is a stretch to say that he was a Russian Tsar.

His paternal grandmother was the Byzantine princess Sophia Paleologus,

And the mother is Elena Glinskaya (who was unfairly attributed Lithuanian origin), a purebred Tatar,

She was the granddaughter of Mansur-Kiyat through the male line,

The eldest son of the powerful emir of the Golden Horde, governor of the Crimean ulus-yurt Mamai.

By the way, Mansur-Kiyat is the founder of the Crimean Tatar bey family of the Mansurs.

Unfortunately, the chronicles do not preserve the real name of Queen Elena, who was baptized, replacing her predecessor on the Moscow throne, also a Tatar, but from the Golden Horde family, Murza Atun Solomonia Saburova.

But the same chronicles eloquently tell about the years of the regency of the young Crimean Tatar princess with her young son John.

After the death of her husband, Elena becomes the de facto ruler of the Moscow state. However, the boyars, fearing that the educated, intelligent, young queen. Instead of living a secluded life away from the bustle of the world, she would completely take the reins of power into her own hands, and they hastened to poison her.
As for John himself, no matter how much the boyars sought to influence the young tsar from a young age, Tatar blood and the upbringing laid down by his mother affected his friendly relations with the Crimean Khan.

A lot of information has been preserved (the main source is letters to the Crimean Khan) that he spoke fluently in his native Tatar language and considered himself a direct descendant of the Temnik Mamai.
As for his appearance, there is no doubt that he belongs to the Mansurs; in the surviving portraits of Ivan the Terrible and his son Theodore one can see a face with clearly Asian features.

During the era of Grozny, the Tatar elite of Muscovy strengthened even more. For example, during the Kazan campaign (1552), which in history was presented as the conquest and annexation of the Kazan Khanate to the Moscow state, the army of Ivan the Terrible included more Tatars than the army of Ediger, the ruler of Kazan.

Among the Moscow military leaders were the “Crimean Tsarevich Taktamysh”,

“Tsarevich Shiban Kudait”, “Kasimovsky Tsar Shigaley”, “Astrakhan Tsarevich Kaibulla”, “Tsarevich Derbysh-Aley”, not to mention tens of thousands of ordinary Tatars under their command.

This is evidenced by another striking episode from the reign of Ivan the Terrible, when in 1575 he retired to the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, leaving in his place in the Kremlin a Tatar - the Golden Horde Chingizid Sain-Bulat (known as Simeon Bekbulatovich), descended from the same Crimean bey Mansura, but only in the male line.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the “Russian” royal house finally became related to the Tatars. The fact is that Grozny's father Vasily

He gave his sister Evdokia in marriage to the brother of the Kazan Khan Muhammad-Emin, the son of Nur-Sultan, the second wife of the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray, Prince Kaidulu,

From this marriage they had a daughter, known as Anastasia, who was married to the head of the boyar government, Prince Vasily Shuisky.

The Shuiskys became related to Ivan the Terrible, since Princess Anastasia was the young Tsar’s cousin. In turn, in this marriage a daughter, Marfa, was born, who later became the wife of the boyar Ivan Belsky, who came from a Golden Horde Tatar family.

In continuation of traditions, Ivan the Terrible married his sons to Tatar women - the eldest Ivan to Evdokia Saburova, and the younger Theodore

On Irina Godunova.

Through the marriage of his sister and Tsarevich Theodore, Cheta-Murza, better known as Boris Godunov, became related to the Tsar.

The last of the Rurikovichs, Tsar Theodore, reigned for 14 years and died in 1598, leaving no heir. Power was completely transferred to the Tatar Tsar Boris Godunov, who had actually already ruled since 15887.

According to the will of Tsar Boris Godunov, the Moscow throne passed to his son, Tatar Feodor Godunov. However, the young tsar was unable to retain power in his hands and was killed by a boyar group.

Peter I Murza Narysh

After a three-year interregnum, a new dynasty came to power - the Romanovs. At the time of the accession of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov

His cousin was married to Prince Ismail (Semyon) Urusov, whose children were second cousins ​​of his son, the future Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who in turn married Natalya Naryshkina for the second time.

This is where the fun begins. To begin with, it must be said that Natalya Naryshkina, the mother of Peter the Great, known to Russian history, was a purebred Crimean Tatar.

It is quite natural that by the time of her birth, Russian historians tried to make her a Russian with distant Turkic roots. It couldn’t have been otherwise; would it have been nice for Russia to promote the greatest “Russian” tsar, in whose gene pool the Crimean Tatars were?

Natalya Naryshkina (unfortunately, whose Tatar name has not reached us) came from the Crimean Tatar family of Murza Ismail Narysh (Narysh in Turkic means pomegranate).

Her father in Russian history, known as Murza Kirill Naryshkin, married the daughter of the Golden Horde, Murza Abatur.

In 1669, Naryshkina married the widowed Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and gave him three healthy children, son Peter and two daughters. It was the elder Peter who was radically different from his half-brothers from the tsar’s first marriage to Miloslavskaya, who were frail, weak and sick.

One by one they passed away without outliving their father. Only Feodor Alekseevich remained, whom they hastened to marry the Tatar Marfa Apraksina, whose family went back to the Turkic Murza Salikhmir, and Tsarevich Ivan. But, having inherited his father's throne, Theodore died childless at the age of 21. The second brother, Ivan, a little older than Peter himself, lived to be 30 years old, however last years life did not take any part in government affairs.

Natalya Naryshkina, a woman of modern times, educated, intelligent and powerful, took the reins of government until her son Peter came of age.
It was from this time that the progressive Crimean Tatar clan of the Naryshkins became the head of the state.

Peter the First Alekseevich was very attached to his Tatar relatives. He entrusted his uncle Lev Kirillovich Naryshkin during his European voyages
governance of Russia.

And in general, Peter’s Tatar genes attracted him to his fellow tribesmen, as evidenced by his strong friendship with the Tatar Fyodor Apraksin, the brother of Queen Martha, wife of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, as well as with Mikhail Matyushkin from the Turkic family of Murza Albaushu, whose brother Ivan Matyushkin was married on the sister of Peter's first wife Lopukhina.

Peter the Great did not leave behind a male heir, but ten years after his death, the throne was returned to his daughter Elizabeth, who in her character and manners resembled her Crimean Tatar grandmother Natalya Naryshkina.

According to her will, she left her throne to her nephew Peter III, the son of her sister Anna, in whom Tatar and German blood was already mixed.

Look

So, on the Russian throne, three great Russian tsars - Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov and Peter the Great - were of Tatar origin.

Therefore, we can safely say that Russia was ruled by the Tatars, who were replaced by the Germans, so that the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II could be called Russian with great reservation.

P.S. Of course it's not Scientific research, all this is debatable, but much can happen.

INTRODUCING A PRIMARY PARTICIPANT IN THE ELECTION OF DEPUTIES TO THE MOSCOW REGIONAL DUMA

Our correspondent met with F.M. the day before. IBYATOV and interviewed him.

Fail Muzhipovich, it is customary to evaluate the first results of activities in a new field after the first hundred days. What are these results for you, since much more time has passed since the beginning of your parliamentary activities?

It is difficult for me, of course, to judge myself, but what I can say firmly is that we managed to do something very important - to stir up people, to make them believe that we can make our life in a relatively small village better. The initial skepticism and some wariness of people towards my status as a deputy gave way to interested attention and trust. And this is already a lot. I think it is very important to overcome this invisible barrier between a person in power - even at the municipal level - and an ordinary resident. People in my constituency know that I will not complain about difficulties, but gradually, step by step, I will overcome them.

Perhaps you are right, I also often have to deal with this phenomenon: no matter what I ask people about, everything is bad, everything is wrong. We can say that “social whining” is becoming almost distinctive feature. To be honest, I don’t know how to cure us from this disease...

The recipe is simple - we need to remove the tentacles of incompetent, and sometimes downright incompetent administration from the throats of our people, learn to respect people's opinion, listen to it. Finally, pay the people real money they have earned. It seems that this is already beginning to be understood at the very top of the government pyramid. This is evidenced by measures to increase material incentives for the military, employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and employees of the education system. Slowly, but the cart moved.

If we compare salaries in Russia with the level of salaries specifically in Western Europe or USA? Then, probably, we will not have to talk about “unprecedentedly low” salaries, but about “criminally low” salaries, about pseudo-salaries, about false salaries that are actually killing people.

It's no secret that a good teacher in the Moscow region, giving 4-5 lessons a day, working on Saturdays, providing class management, ends up earning 15-20 thousand rubles! The same teacher in France, and with a much smaller workload, receives 10-12 thousand euros! There is a difference? This is how our education is being killed, and this is how the future of our children is being killed. The people are literally being killed, forced to fight with all their strength, turned into semi-serf slaves! Where will optimism come from in the soul of our people in such a life, where will the feeling of joy come from?

These are serious things that require serious conversation. After all, there have been more in Russia hard times... But let's return to Malakhovka. What did we manage to do?

to pay a specific village deputy Fail Ibyatov for the first “three hundred days” of his deputy?

I will not list all the little things that make up the activity of, as you noticed, a “village deputy.” I'll focus on the main thing.

Firstly, it seemed to me necessary and important to somehow brighten up the lives of Malakhovsky pensioners. I held several public tea parties with the elderly people of our village, organized four concert programs. The old New Year's celebrations at the OGO restaurant were especially successful. Malakhovka village. A table was set for the pensioners and music was playing. Using my connections in the Tatar diaspora in Moscow, I invited famous Tatar singers Alfina Akhmetdzhan and Ilnara Latypova to perform. It was impossible to sit still to the dance music, and I watched with pleasure how our elderly women, despite their age, like young women, went to dance with enthusiasm.

Of course, I was not only involved in organizing tea parties and creative evenings during these “three hundred days.”

The voters themselves suggested issues that needed to be addressed. Most of the appeals concerned housing and communal services and landscaping. There is nothing to be done; throughout the district, throughout the region, these issues remain the most pressing. What is done? At houses No. 15 on Mikhnevskoye Highway (four buildings in total), with my participation, new lamps were purchased and installed, and in some entrances I organized renovation work: in some places the doors have been fixed, in others the porch has been replaced or repaired. We cleared the forest of debris along Republican Street. Of course, this is just the beginning - I intend to continue to be actively involved in the state of the housing stock of my constituency. Over the summer I helped Malakhovsky children

You mentioned the performance of Tatar pop artists in front of elderly residents of the village of Malakhovka. This initiative is very important: nothing can bring together the different peoples of our Fatherland as much as high culture, understandable and close to everyone, having universal significance.

You are certainly right. Organizing a constructive interethnic dialogue is a very significant priority in my parliamentary activities. At the beginning of February, I became a member of the organizing committee of the II Forum of Peoples of the Lyubertsy District, which took place in the city of Lyubertsy. As an expert in the field of interethnic relations, I spoke at the " round table"on the topic "The role of national-cultural autonomies and religious communities in the development of interethnic relations in the Lyubertsy region."

Well, what is this role?

Not everything here is as simple as officials and the liberal press sometimes like to imagine. It's no secret that the cover of national-cultural autonomies is often used by various kinds of extremists: from nationalist to religious. Take the same Wahhabis - the press has repeatedly mentioned their penetration into some autonomies of peoples professing Islam...

Of course, everything is not so simple here. Interethnic relations in Russia today are extremely tense, it is literally like a forest fire that is breaking out before our eyes. Some of the blame for this situation lies with representatives of the “fourth estate” - the media.

The liberal press implements the tactics of double standards: first they openly incite hatred towards “persons of Caucasian nationality”, then with the same ease they defame ordinary Russian guys, who are de facto all fascists and chauvinists. If a Tajik girl was offended on the train, then this is immediately horror and “Russian fascists are advancing,” and if guest workers killed or raped a Russian, then this is mentioned very casually, if it is mentioned. There is no need, they say, to walk alone in the evenings...

In general, I am categorically against attaching any labels. There should be one principle: if you have committed a crime - regardless of nationality, the size of your wallet or past merits - you will receive a well-deserved severe punishment!

Demonization of anything is always very dangerous; it inevitably causes the arrival of not mythical, but genuine demons, and from the side from which they are not expected. For example, our liberal press criticized the slogan “Russia is for Russians.” But, if you look at it, what’s wrong with this slogan? It seems to me that only a very narrow-minded or psychologically broken person could see something unhealthy in him. This is about the same as seeing something unhealthy or fascist in the slogans: “The Ibyatov House is for the Ibyatov Family” or “The Ivanov House is for the Ivanov Family.”

For whom should Russia really exist, if not for the Russians, who created the state with their labor and victories? Yes, there is a difference between the Tatar, Udmurt, Nogai, Chechen and two dozen other peoples with different worldviews and the Russian worldview. But what will happen to Russia if other nations try to take their private worldviews outside the doors of their own national apartments?

It seems to me that another path is much more promising: to realize one’s national independence, to fully develop one’s national perception of the world within one’s own national community, within one’s own people. There is no need to give your narrow national problems a truly universal scale. Tatars, Udmurts, Nogais, Kalmyks and so on - we are all called by our national names only within Russia, and outside the borders of our country, we are all only Russians... This should never be forgotten. I defended this point of view at the interethnic Forum held in Lyubertsy.

Yes, the situation is not easy... And it’s a pity that such truly hard-won thoughts are not so often heard from the television screen and from representatives of national autonomies...

I categorically disagree with you about autonomy. All literate, progressive people, regardless of nationality, understand well: 80% of Russians live in Russia. People with truly progressive views are clearly aware of this. For example, at the II Forum of the Peoples of the Lyubertsy region, a representative of the Armenian diaspora Valery Voskanyan openly declared to those present: “... for some reason everyone is afraid to admit that we are in Russia. And the dominant thing here should be Russian: culture and everything else. We must adapt, integrate into Russian. Let's look at this frankly." This was said publicly by a 100% ethnic Armenian. And I, a 100% ethnic Tatar, sincerely support him in this thought.

Are you participating in the preliminaries?

personal elections (primaries) of candidates for deputies of the Moscow Regional Duma. Who nominated you and what plans are you going into this primary?

I was nominated by the Regional Tatar National-Cultural Autonomy of the Moscow Region. I believe that not only political parties, but also public organizations, including national and cultural autonomies, should be represented in the regional Duma.

And there are many plans. Most of them are related to protecting the interests of the most socially vulnerable, defenseless sections of our people - children and pensioners. In the Moscow region, a lot is being done for them, but we understand that we are still far from perfect. We cannot yet say that every veteran is happy and every child is well-fed.

I'll study social policy. I believe that I have both experience and knowledge for this. And most importantly, I have support public organization, which is well known in the Moscow region for its specific cases.

I really believe that the party " United Russia" and All-Russian popular front will become the platform from which they will hear both me and other representatives of many nationalities living in our native Lyubertsy region and the Moscow region.

Following you, I believe that you will succeed!

The conversation was moderated by Emma BORISOVA

From the personal file:

F.M. Ibyatov - deputy of the Council of Deputies of the city settlement. Malakhovka. Member of the Commission of the Central Council of Supporters of the United Russia Party on Interethnic Relations. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the regional Tatar national-cultural autonomy of the Moscow region. Secretary of the Advisory Council for National-Cultural Autonomies and Issues in the Sphere of Interethnic Relations of the Lyubertsy District.

Candidate of Historical Sciences. Assistant professor. Teaches at State University management, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.

Lives with his family in the town. Malakhovka, Lyubertsy district.