Morrison
Zhirinovskiy appears to have both drawn upon and helped stimulate an increasing nationalistic sentiment in Russia. He has appealed to this sentiment in his campaigns and in his post-election statements and activities (see Chapter 4 and the Appendix of this paper). In turn, his campaigning and the relative success of his Liberal Democratic Party in the parliamentary elections appear to have helped stimulate other political leaders and the Russian government to pay increased attention to this issue and in some cases adopt positions that are more nationalistic than in recent years.
Using a broad definition, one could say that expressions of Russian nationalism range from the patriotism one might expect of a citizen of the newly independent and sovereign Russian Federation to the views of Zhirinovskiy and other ultra-nationalists. A narrower definition of Russian nationalism and Russian nationalists might focus on people sometimes described as traditionalists, who advocate hardline, anti-reform policies and positions, perhaps excluding Communists who at least philosophically would not espouse nationalism. An even narrower definition would focus on Zhirinovskiy, members of his Liberal Democratic Party, and other such groups, but the term "ultra-nationalist" seems appropriate for these people.
Without addressing the more historic Russian nationalism and its many facets, one can point to a few salient features that characterize the new, revived Russian nationalism.
Beyond affinity and support for Russia per se, the most important factors and common threads that run throughout the range of expressions of Russian nationalism are:
To illustrate the range of nationalistic sentiment, at the far extreme are ultra-nationalists such as Zhirinovskiy who envision a Russia led by Russians that includes all the territory and people encompassed in the former Soviet Union, without ethnic or nationally-based republics. These ultra-nationalists deprecate smaller nationalities and minority groups, especially Jews. Zhirinovskiy has referred to Serbs and other Slavic elements outside Russia as "our brothers," has said that "great Russia will be the protector of all Serbs," threatened that air attacks on Serbs would result in war with Russia, and has called for "creation of a joint Slav state from Vladivostok to Knin."1 He appears extremely suspicious of the U.S. He calls for rejecting U.S. and perhaps other Western offers of assistance and advice to Russia. At the same time, he advocates close relations with Germany and has developed contacts with right-wing politicians and with businessmen in Western Europe. Opposing defense conversion, he has expressed the view that the U.S. has tried to cut Russia out of arms sales abroad.
At the other end of the spectrum, one can increasingly find statements of reformers that speak about protecting and promoting the interests not only of Russia per se but also ethnic Russians abroad and about retaining some Russian forces outside Russia. They appear to want to maintain close relations with the West and to receive extensive assistance, but at the same time they imply criticism of the West for not providing enough assistance, for not sufficiently relaxing restrictions on assistance and technology, and for attempting to impose severe economic measures in the name of economic reform. They also caution against attacks on Serbs.
The rise of Russian nationalism per se is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, many in the USSR--including in the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic--identified with being part of a "Soviet" nation. Developments in 1991 changed this. In June 1991, Boris Yeltsin was elected president of the Russian Republic, becoming the first popularly elected leader in some 1000 years of Russian history. Russian nationalism received another boost when Yeltsin stood up against the coup plotters outside the Russian parliament's White House in August 1991 and when, in the aftermath of the coup attempt, he presented himself as a more authoritative leader than the weakened USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev. When the USSR was officially dissolved in December 1991 and new independent states of the former Soviet Union were established and recognized internationally, there was no longer any basis for a "Soviet" nationalism. The establishment of fifteen new independent states provided a basis for fifteen new, highest order nationalisms backed by sovereign state governments.
Establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States does not appear to have been accompanied by the rise of any popular "Commonwealth" nationalism.
There is in Russia a relatively solid basis for strong nationalism of the leading ethnic group. Ethnic Russians constitute 82% of the population in Russia, with the next most populous ethnic group being Tatars, who comprise 4% of the population, followed by Ukrainians at 3% and other nationality groups each at 1% or less.
The policy of Soviet leaders was to ensure that there were sizeable ethnic Russian elements in the populations of all the non-Russian republics. In large part because of this policy and the way borders were established between the various republics of the former Soviet Union, there are today an estimated 25 million ethnic Russians living outside Russia in former republics of the USSR, not counting the many ethnic Russians who have migrated back to Russia. In these former republics, according to figures for 1990, Russians as a percentage of the population accounted for 38% in Kazakhstan, 34% in Latvia, 30% in Estonia, 22% in Ukraine, 21% in Kyrgyzstan, 14% in Moldova, 13% in Belarus, 9% in Lithuania, and at least 6% in all other republics, except Armenia where Russians accounted for only 2%. (In referring to former republics, it should be noted that the U.S. Government did not recognize the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR.)
Many in Russia have expressed dismay at the loss of prestige stemming from the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Many have also vocally called for support of ethnic Russians living outside Russia, particularly those in the Baltic states, Moldova, and Ukraine--especially in the Crimea.
Protection of the rights of these Russians in other former republics of the Soviet Union, particularly in the Baltic states, has become an increasingly important issue in Russia and a major element in the Russian government's foreign policy.
Zhirinovskiy has appealed to both these sentiments of national prestige and protection of Russians. This may well have been a major factor in the relatively strong showing of his party in the December parliamentary elections, although there were other important factors, such as protesting against poor economic conditions and against crime, and Zhirinovskiy's skills in addressing the public. In the 1991 election for president of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic--before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Zhirinovskiy received just over 6 million votes. In the December 1993 parliamentary elections, in the voting for 225 of 450 State Duma seats chosen by nation-wide total voting by party list, Zhirinovskiy's party received more than 12 million votes, or nearly 23% of the votes, compared to the second place "Russia's Choice" coalition which received about 8 million votes or 15% of the votes.
The 30 January 1994 election for president in the Crimea, won by a Russian nationalist, Yuri Meshkov, has several important aspects. Some view this, similar to the relative success of Zhirinovskiy's party in the December Russian parliamentary election, as an indication of rising Russian nationalism--but in a region of Ukraine. Others, such as Vyacheslav Chornovil, leader of Ukraine's nationalist movement "Rukh," regard Meshkov's election as a protest vote, saying: "It doesn't mean the majority of the population is striving for independence or reunification withRussia. . . . They wanted change."2
Regarding the possibility that Meshkov could move ahead with holding a referendum on Crimean independence, Deputy Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk is reported to have opined that he thinks "political wisdom will prevail in Crimea," but Ukrainian officials are said to admit that such a referendum would lead to a confrontation. While Ukrainian officials are also reported to believe that the Russian government has shown moderation on this issue to date, there are reports of a growing concern that Moscow might, perhaps responding to pressure from Russian nationalists in Russia such as Zhirinovskiy, intervene. Any such intervention could lead Ukraine to reconsider recent nuclear agreements with the U.S. and Russia.3
Officials in Ukraine and other of the new independent states of the former Soviet Union could be concerned that the vote in Crimea could be a bellwether stimulating Russian nationalism among other Russian speaking populations on their territory.
Zhirinovskiy reportedly has called for the Crimea to be reintegrated into the Russian Federation, saying that people in the Crimea no longer want to be part of Ukraine.4
Following his visit to the former Yugoslavia, Zhirinovskiy in early February 1994 began emphasizing pan-Slavism and Orthodox Christianity. He has spoken of 300 million people living together in an "Eastern European Slavic community" that does not serve the West, and he announced that he and others (unidentified) were organizing for 2 and 3 April in Moscow a world congress of Slavic and Orthodox peoples.5 In announcing this in an interview for a Czech newspaper, Zhirinovskiy said that politicians and deputies from the Czech lands would be invited to this "World Slavic Congress," since "After all, we are one people, one culture. . . ." In another interview probably in February, he stated that: "I am for solidarity between Slav countries: We are neighbors and we have the same economic and cultural background. But I want a union without military interference and without one country dominating the others. The government should not be exercised from Moscow. The center can be located in Prague, Sofia, or Warsaw."6
Key Russian government leaders have recently made or released statements on issues related to Russian nationalism. There are references to reviving Russia's "greatness," to a priority ("first among equals") for Russia in relations within the CIS, and to protection of Russians outside Russia. Some of these references appear to be responding to statements by Zhirinovskiy and the relative success of Zhirinovskiy's party in the December 1993 parliamentary elections.
President Yeltsin. President Yeltsin in early 1994 spoke of reviving Russia's greatness, but he also downplayed the threat of "neo-imperialism." He has been a leading proponent of the Commonwealth of Independent States, where Russia is only one of many states, but he has spoken of Russia as "first among equals" in the Commonwealth. In his 24 February speech to parliament, he emphasized that Russia should play a strong role in relations with other republics of the former Soviet Union.
In his opening address to the new upper-house Federation Council on 11 January 1994, Yeltsin spoke of Russia's greatness and returning to its roots. He stated that: ". . . Russia is returning to its roots, is restoring lost traditions. It cannot acquire its true character . . . go forward . . . take a worthy place in the contemporary world without that."7
Speaking of Russia's culture and greatness, Yeltsin said that: ". . . material prosperity alone will not make the country happy nor revive in citizens of Russia a sense of their own dignity. . . ." He went on to say that: in ". . . transformations in the Russian Federation, only a very little of the mighty potential of the multinational culture of the fatherland has so far been activated. This culture has been left on the sidelines of the reforms, and it is perhaps this that is the reason for many difficulties and failures. It is our common task to align the market and culture to the greatest possible degree. Unless we do so, the market will not become civilized; unless we do so, the market will not emerge from crisis, there will be no revival of spirituality, there will be no revival of Russia's greatness."8
Later in his remarks, Yeltsin addressed Russia's role in the world, saying that: ". . . Russia is a great power and it will never agree to be on the sidelines of world civilization. The time has ended when our country felt itself to be a besieged fortress and was in confrontation with the rest of the world. Our task today is to activate truly wide and equal cooperation with the world community. It is not by military might alone that a worthy place in the world is defined. Our country and people have a great resource of vital energy, and it is up to us to help our fatherland to gather its forces, to revive those powerful stimuli which would resurrect its greatness. International law is our fundamental guideline in the world. Russia will strictly abide by its norms and principles, convinced that this is the most efficient way of protecting national interests. However, . . . all states must also strictly abide by norms of the international law in their relations with Russia. No double standards will be tolerated here. . . ."9
In his address, Yeltsin also spoke of Russia's relations with other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States, suggesting that this is "a most crucial moment of the existence of the Commonwealth of Independent States," and stating that: "Each of the states is increasingly coming to understand that alone they cannot cope with most difficult problems, and that they cannot survive alone. Our countries are already being linked together, and in this process it is Russia's vocation to be the first among equals."10
He went on to discuss correct relations among CIS states, saying: "Our compatriots, those in the former Soviet republics, first and foremost, rely on the fact that voluntary, free, and peaceful integration will grow from strength to strength. They hope that their lawful interests will be protected. And our duty is to live up to these expectations." He went on to say that "The election of the Russian president to the post of CIS chairman provides an exclusively favorable opportunity to implement these aims. . . . The richer, the more comprehensive, and the closer the relations between our states are, the better. . . ."11
In a statement made at a joint press conference with President Clinton in Moscow on 14 January 1994, Yeltsin indicated that he had briefed President Clinton on "the integrationary processes that have got under way on the territory of the former Soviet Union" and on CIS meetings. He stated that: "There need be no fear of any neo-imperialist lust here--Russia's only interest is in stability. It is undertaking honest mediatory efforts to extinguish the hotbeds of conflicts on the perimeters of its new borders. We are ready to cooperate widely and even to coordinate our actions here with the United Nations, the CSCE, and with the entire international community. Unfortunately, the international community itself has not as yet shown a great deal of enthusiasm. There has been a wary reaction to our specific proposals, whether in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, or in Tajikistan."12
Yeltsin also indicated that he raised with President Clinton the "question of human rights violations among national minorities, especially in the Baltic area," and stated that "There should be no double standards here, whether it is taking place in Haiti or in the Baltic area." Yeltsin indicated that he and President Clinton had adopted a statement on this and that President Clinton would adopt corresponding measures on contacts with the Baltic countries "so that discrimination against the Russian-speaking population there will ultimately be abandoned."13 In a major address to the Russian parliament on 24 February, entitled "On Strengthening the State of Russia," Yeltsin spoke of a strong role for Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union: "A strong Russia is the most reliable and real guarantor of stability on the entire territory of the former Soviet Union." He said Russia would pay "close attention" to the problems of ethnic Russians in this area who are "victims of discrimination," and that: "When it comes to violations of the lawful rights of Russian people, this is not an exclusive internal affair for some country, but also our national affair, an affair of our state." He also called for ending "the misguided practice of making unilateral concessions" and promised to protect Russia's defense budget and arms sales abroad. He said that "Russia is not a guest in Europe, it is a full-fledged participant," and opined that any expansion of NATO not including Russia would be a "path to new threats to Europe and the world."14
Vladimir Shumeyko, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Newly-elected Chairman of Russia's Parliamentary Upper-house Federation Council. Vladimir Shumeyko has recently addressed Russian nationalism and protection of Russian-speaking populations. Responding in an interview sometime after the December parliamentary election to a question about preventing a nationalist from becoming president in two years, Shumeyko observed that: "A president's party must emerge. I see the people advocating the notion of a strong and powerful state. The Russian nation, in a historic-philosophical sense, has always been expansive. Yet Russia has never conquered other states, only absorbed them. The Bolsheviks took over this empire. The people here and in the West always saw Russia in the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lost some of its territory for the first time in history. Russians became a minority in other states. This is a psychological shock for the whole nation. Zhirinovskiy's campaign was focused on this fact, and a presidential party must also focus on it."15 On 13 January, after his election as Chairman of the Federation Council, Shumeyko told a news conference that he agreed with ". . . Foreign Minister Kozyrev, who said quite clearly that the West should stop moralizing and preaching at Russia. Russia is not a state that needs to be told what to do and so on. . . . Another thing is that one of Russia's main priorities should be concern for the interests of what is referred to today as the Russian-speaking population."16
The Russian Military and Military Doctrine.Various Russian military leaders and the new Russian military doctrine have addressed issues related to Russian nationalism.
On 2 November 1993, prior to the December parliamentary election, the Russian Federation Security Council approved a new Russian military doctrine, the basic provisions of which were reported in a "detailed account" in the Russian media on 18 November.17 According to this account, the doctrine contains a provision that suggests that Russian military forces could be used to help ensure the political rights and other interests of Russians living in the "near-abroad" and possibly even beyond. The doctrine lists as one of the "basic existing and potential sources of external danger for the Russian Federation" the "suppression of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of citizens of the Russian Federation in foreign states. . . ."
A description of what the new military doctrine cites as the basic sources of military danger to Russia suggests that "the threat of direct aggression" has declined in contemporary conditions and that "Social, political, territorial, religious, national-ethnic, and other conflicts and the desire of a number of states and political forces to resolve them by means of armed struggle constitute the main reasons for it (the danger of war) and for the emergence of armed conflict and wars. Armed conflicts which arise on the basis of aggressive nationalism and religious intolerance pose a special danger."
The doctrine addresses threats that could come from the "near-abroad" or other foreign states which may directly threaten Russia. This is a theme addressed also by Foreign Minister Kozyrev, as indicated below. In a section of the doctrine that discusses factors that transform a military danger into an immediate threat to the Russian Federation, references are made to troop buildups on the Russian border; attacks on border installations and borders of allies, and the launching of border conflicts and armed provocations; training of armed elements on the territory of other states intended to be transferred to territory of Russia and its allies; and actions by other states hindering support of Russian nuclear forces and command and control including their space component. The doctrine indicates that cooperation with the members of the CIS in resolving problems of collective defense and security and agreeing on military policy and defense organizational development is "the priority" for Russia, above cooperation at the regional level and on a global scale.
The doctrine makes two statements about tasks related to Russian troops outside Russia. On the one hand, it indicates that a task "through 1996" is "the completion of the withdrawal to Russian territory of formations and units stationed outside Russia. On the other hand, it notes under tasks "in the period 1996-2000" for force structure reorganization, that there may be requirements for troops and resources outside Russian territory and mixed troop formations manned by CIS servicemen, generally on a contract basis. It states that Russian troops may be outside Russia within joint or Russian groupings and individual bases. It appears, as indicated below, that Foreign Minister Kozyrev in an article on 14 January emphasized the withdrawal task, without mentioning possible requirements for deploying Russian forces outside Russia; four days later, for unexplained reasons, he emphasized the latter.
The military doctrine also cites internal sources of military threats against which Russian Federation armed forces and other troops may be used. One of these is "illegal activity by nationalist, separatist, or other organizations which is aimed at destabilizing the situation in the Russian Federation or violating its territorial integrity and which is carried out using armed violence."
The military doctrine appears to address protection outside of Russia of only citizens of the Russian Federation. It may be that Russian policy envisions the possible use of armed forces to protect Russian citizens abroad, while employing diplomatic and economic instruments of policy to help protect the interests of people outside Russia who are not citizens of Russia but who are ethnic Russians or Russian speakers. Statements by Foreign Minister Kozyrev, as discussed below, seem to support this conclusion. On the other hand, recent reports on agreements on locating Russian bases and forces in Georgia mention protecting Russian-speaking populations.
On 3 February 1994, President Yeltsin reportedly visited Georgia and signed agreements on military cooperation between Russia and Georgia. Russian Defense Minister Grachev is said to have indicated that one of the main results of the visit was the signing of a protocol of intent to set up three Russian military bases in Georgia by 1 July 1994. Aleksandr Galkin, the head of the Russian delegation to talks with Georgia, reportedly indicated that Georgia wants Russian troops to stay after 1995 when an agreement on their presence expires. Galkin was reported to have said that Russian military presence in Georgia is indispensable for ensuring stabilization of the situation, protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population, and providing assistance to Georgia to establish its own armed forces. It was reported that the agreement on bases is to last for ten years, and that Grachev believes Russia should keep up to 23,000 troops in Transcaucasia, with two-thirds of these in Georgia.18
The Foreign Ministry. Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev has, particularly since the autumn Russian parliamentary campaign, spoken out in more nationalistic terms. In a statement on 14 January, he referred to withdrawing all Russian military units stationed outside Russia back to Russia before 1996, but four days later he appeared to back away from this and emphasize the need to maintain Russian military presence. When some expressed concern that this could be regarded as applying to the Baltic states, the Foreign Ministry indicated it applied only to the CIS area and not the Baltic States.
On 14 January 1994, Kozyrev published an article under the title of "Russia's Interest: Country's Military Doctrine and International Security."19 He began the article referring to a debate abroad in which some observers, citing "irresponsible, profascist statements made during the election campaign," predicted a strengthening of Moscow's "imperial aspirations." Kozyrev argued that such a course was guarded against by the role of the president of Russia, enshrined in the new constitution, and the new Russian military doctrine. Some of the more interesting points in his article follow:
Russian Army Paper on Kozyrev Statements. The Russian Army's newspaper, Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), on 20 January published an article by Vladimir Gavrilenko entitled "Neighboring Foreign Countries Were, Are, and Remain a Zone of Russia's Vital Interests."30 The article apparently referred to Foreign Minister Kozyrev's participation in the 18 January Foreign Ministry conference mentioned above and reported many of the statements cited above which Kozyrev is said to have made at the conference.
This article reported that Kozyrev--while being late in doing so--had stated that "The CIS and Baltic countries are the region where Russia's paramount vital interests are concentrated. It is from there that the main threats to those interests stem."
The article suggested that while this idea was timidly expressed back in 1992 it was drowned out by "the thunder of the collapse of the Soviet empire, the euphoria caused by the acquisition of sovereignty, and the unfeigned and sincere joy of the fledgling Russian democracy at the appearance of a number of sovereign states nearby. Yes, yes, joy, because it had helped in the struggle of those selfsame Baltic republics again the Union center. . . ." It went on to say that 1992 was a crucial year and that: "The many armed conflicts along Russia's borders, the infringement of Russia's state interests in strategically important neighboring regions, and finally the shameless and at times humiliating pressure on our fellow countrymen in neighboring foreign countries has led to the realization that we cannot close our eyes and ears and withdraw into our own Russian backyard."
The article commented that ". . . it seems that Russia's difficult, months-long progress toward an understanding of its own role in neighboring foreign countries is nearing the desired end."
The article concluded that "The feeling that Russia has no specific interests in neighboring foreign countries is being agonizingly replaced by the realization that it has a special role to play in the post-Soviet era."
It also warned that ". . . attempts by anyone anywhere to assume the role of interpreter and organizer of Russian affairs in neighboring foreign countries will now be viewed as unfriendly acts. Russia is ceasing to do that which historically was inappropriate to it--backpedalling. Russia is making it plain that everyone who wants to live with it in love and fond accord should take account of its geopolitical interests. Just as it is prepared to do unto others. With determination, dignity, and honor."
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |