Forty years have passed since that interview.

Russia attacked Ukraine, they talked about Russian fascism.

And Bykov's definition, seemingly simple, hits the spot.

Russians are not one of many, not one of many, not like everyone else.

They are a super-nation, which means they are not a nation in the usual sense of the word.

But who are they?

And in general, who is a Russian?

Probably, it all started a long time ago, when Muscovites, Muscovites, Muscovites began to call themselves Russians.

In fact, they took away, appropriated someone else's nickname, distorting its meaning.

And the confusion began.

This new Russian rose above all kinds of "Jews", "Kakhls", "Bulbashes", "Psheks", "Labuses"... Ancient Russians (it was only an adjective, the noun - Ruthenians), that is, not Muscovites at all, but Slavic-speaking middle Europeans, were called by other names and managed to create themselves as nations in the sense of one of the nations.

And the newly proclaimed Russians (yesterday's Muscovites, Muscovites, Muscovites), not becoming one of the nations, but imagining themselves as a super-nation, essentially became a non-donation.

At the same time, they took with them their "lesser brothers" (real Russians) - Little Russians and Belarusians, who did not become one of the nations either, but did not become a super-nation either, that is, they became non-donations.



Of course, we tried with all our might to be like everyone else - from "Letters from the Gallows" by Kalinowski and "Foreword" by Bogushevich declared themselves in a number of others - to today's inscription on the banner "Belarus is not Russia".

In the meantime, the new Russians Russified us, leading to the fact that one Belarusian said to another "chto ty kak nerusskyi"?

After all, for the new Russians, our "like everyone else" is neo-Nazism, which deserves the physical extermination of nations.

And it is impossible to understand this "racism" until there is an answer to the key question - who is a Russian?



It seems that colleague Andrey Skurko behind bars is thinking about the same thing - about Maksim Horetsky's story "Rusky":

"The "Russian" killed the "Austrian" also out of fear of being laughed at by his comrades, condemned by his superiors: "what a warrior I am."

And the realization that the pursuit of false, imposed values ​​made him make an irreparable life mistake broke him.

Understanding came when the "Austrian" spoke about children.

"Russian" even tried to continue the "secular conversation": "And how many of them do you have?" - as if he wanted it all to be "fancy", not really.



It is also interesting: the "Austrian" always calls the "Russian" one word (Russian), and after the shot - another (maskal).

And he was ready to associate himself with the first word: "Take me to Russia."

Does Goretsky here use the word "Russian" in the sense of our 16th-18th centuries?"

If anyone does not know, "Russian" in Horetsky is a Belarusian fighting on the side of the Russian army, and "Austrian" is a Ukrainian on the opposite side.

How many meanings are there in this brilliant little story!

And here is this "undressing" of the Russian language in the Muscovy... One is reminded of the



usual a bit of confusion when you think that Skorin's book is called "Russian Bible".

And here - Russian fascism.

What do they have in common?

Isn't the hemp wick of the "third world" hidden here?



Who is Russian?

The opinions expressed in the blogs represent the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position.

  • Siarhei Dubovets

    dubaviecs@gmail.com

    Subscribe