‘The millennial desire to humiliate us..’ speaks of the people in Russia whose primary goals are their own personal material wealth and leading a hedonistic lifestyle. The plutocrats who privatized state industry for their own enrichment in the 1990’s and the western-oriented sectors of the urban Russian population today whom Martyanov calls 5th and 6th columnists. These people in a sense hate Russia’s past and do not appreciate the tremendous economic and political strides the USSR made against tremendous obstacles. These people would prefer to obliterate and ridicule any memory of or respect for the struggles of the past and live as if they were denizens of rich Parisian districts or Hollywood. However, says the author, as a sort of dialectical syllogism, instead the SMO creates the possibility that sybaritic selfish lifestyles of this class of people will itself disappear and be forgotten. Mark Sleboda, an ex-patriot American who lives in Moscow, said in a recent pod-cast that while many such people fled Russia at the start of the SMO, many still reside in Moscow and other cities; however they have mostly been forced into silence by prevailing support for the SMO. I think the author also directs his criticism at the oligarchs who perhaps continue to use their influence to shift the outcomes of the SMO to their financial benefit. Considering the readership of the journal this article was published in, it may be that this may be a call to deal with the still powerful who operate in their own interests rather than the nation’s.
One should be aware that the goals and tasks of 1905 were different from those after 1917, and today’s tasks are different from 1917. 1905’s need was to weaken or overthrow the tsar, establish bourgeois democracy so rights could be fought for for workers, peasants and subjugated peoples. 1917’s tasks included industrial and agricultural modernization, electrification, literacy, culture and solving the national question for the many nations and peoples of Russia at that time. Almost all of the posts at this substack address the national and international tasks for the Russian people today—a new national purpose for today’s realities.
I visited the USSR twice, in 1978 and 1979, visiting Lenin’s Tomb both times. I quite agree with the author, it is time to venerate the leadership of the nation from a century ago in a different way. I didn’t think maintaining Lenin’s body as a corpsicle was appropriate even then. But even at that time I could see the seeds of a westernized mindset growing in the youth— a hunger for the material wealth, the consumer goods of the West. There were no blue jeans manufactured in the country then, and not even chewing gum—in part due to sanctions even then! Young people would offer to buy you jeans. Alexander Mercouris of the Duran podcast, while often overly verbose, is sometimes extraordinarily observant. He said a while back that even in recent years, with western style consumer goods available, he felt many Russians carried a sense of inferiority that he detected; with the SMO, that feeling is gone.
"He said a while back that even in recent years, with western style consumer goods available, he felt many Russians carried a sense of inferiority that he detected; with the SMO, that feeling is gone."
Indeed, the bad economical situation due to the failures of planned economy raised in most countries of the warshaw treaty the perception, the west were smarter and their economical and societal principles superior. From afar, they only saw the pretty side. The advantages and in fact in a human respect much better conceived socialist institutions were taken for granted. As a German, I learned this first hand in 1989 ff. The disappointment of the people in the eastern third of our country was fundamental and enduring.
So called Capitalism in the West is no more true to its ideals than was Communism or Socialism behind the Iron Curtain. True competition would require even chances. No trusts, no global economic or governmental monopolies/hegemonies. Strong states ensuring the market serves the people, not the other way round. Companies that have more power than the largest societies they prey upon shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I don't know about ideology. From the perspective of the evolution of species, we have universal principles applying to the survival. Foremost, survival of the best adapted to prevailing circumstances, which may change. And competition. This term also needs to be qualified as applied to human beings. We don't compete as lonely individuals. One man alone is lost. Our strength lies in cooperation. Our minds are constructed to wield altruism as well as egoism for their wellbeing. This concept is universal, exemplified in its scaleability. US hegemonism is nothing but a futile attempt at going it alone. Won't work in the long run.
Looking at religions, they are basically designed as a set of social rules aka "laws" for a group of people living under certain conditions to live by. To ensure abidance, and instill sense of live, powerful deities are staple. Traditions and spiritual elements instill confidence and a sense of community.
To make my point: As I see it, what VVP and his team (nice picture, I love it) is trying to do, is, to set and enforce rules which guarantee a fair competion, to cater and provide for the physical, social and spiritual needs of the Russian people. And, by extension, for the RoW. Quite pragmatic, according to biological necessities and free of any guiding construct that would in any case be incomplete and thus more an impeding shackles than a help, being thought up by imperfect human beings unable to consider every remote aspect.
Thanks for providing your POV. Although not done in person, interpersonal communications like those on these comment fora are critical as they are part of the interaction required for cooperation.
This is very good. Very timely. A very necessary discussion. America has an ideology--a very real and powerful conception of what it is--democracy, individual freedom, a free market system of private property. This ideology exists and has power, though more and more it is revealed to be an illusion, even a lie. This ideology, this system, has been presented to the West, indeed to the world as what should be sought after, what should be aspired to. Post-communist Russia seems to me to be drifting--an oligarchy with a strong state. After the collapse it aspired to buy into, to be excepted into, this Western liberal club. But it was rejected. Because the Empire does not accept the sovereignty of others, only subordination. This rejection and the subsequent SMO which is its ultimate manifestation has forced Russia to find a new definition of itself. You can sense that this is what Putin is struggling with. He has grabbed on to tradition--the church and fundamental family values--to fill the void. Is this enough? I think not. Russia needs to come up with a specific, just, durable, political and economic structure that serves the needs of its people, inspires individual and collective action, and incorporates--and goes beyond--historical tradition and patriotism. Easier said than done, but I sense that it will, in fact, be done. And a new Russia will emerge--a Russia greater than ever.
If you find that the last paragraph doesn't make much sense to you, maybe the following translation makes more sense:
"The Special Military Operation is also about ideology and about what direction we are moving towards, what kind of world we want our descendants to live in. I am deeply convinced that everything that happened before the Special Military Operation was a consequence of the pernicious policy of the 1990s. Which for many people in our country was exactly to their liking, because this policy did not entail the sovereignty of our country’s values and ideals and allowed a small part of our society to make a lot of money. Today, as we find ourselves in a period of great responsibility and importance for our Fatherland, we are totally observing how something is quietly fermenting inside our country ... There is a whole caste of people who are not saying anything bad nor writing anything bad, but this is really a quiet conspiracy of those who expect that everything will go back to the way it was before. It's a very dangerous thing to expect everything to go back to the way it was before... It won't! The special military operation was sent to us by God! So we would finally wake up and try to understand who is who and what is what. So we would in full measure realize that the thousand year old desire to destroy us has come close to the possibility of being realised. The SWO is our rescue and our common cause!"
Assuming that the article specifically addresses the transition from USSR to the Russian Federation, which for the author includes the directive of diminishing the 'ideology' of the preceding regime. I assume he is referring to a sense that the USSR's 'ideology' had 'failed', which is an interpretation that the movers and shakers in North America and Europe promoted as a celebration of its own 'ideology' - that being the loose tenets of 'freedom' and 'opportunity' that we in the 'West' were encouraged to believe in when the USSR existed.
In such a context the 'ideology' of the USSR was diminshed to the status of 'dogma' - perhaps at a certain level of the social structure it had become so - hence the excessive profiteering. It's probable that 'ideology' as a basis for any philosophy-of-life has the possibility of manifesting as 'dogma' or 'convictioons' as opposed to 'ideals', 'beliefs' or 'credo(s)' - which are all synonyms of the word ideology - in the minds of any individual. Consequently, "... the Constitution of 1993 banned the very concept of "ideology."" was probably based on interpreting 'ideology' as 'dogma'. In such a context it is understandable that the author considers the SMO to be a valuable gift in the formation of the Russian Federation's philosophy-of-life going forward and that it shouldn't involve a complete separation from the principles of the USSR.
I wonder whether the sentence "There is a whole caste of people who no one says bad things, no one writes bad things, but this is the kind of conspiracy that expects everything to be like this, like before." relates to the final years of the USSR, as an indictment of dogmatic consensus? If so it also seems very relevant to the situation we are experiencing over here in the Collective Wastelands.
Anyway, Karl, that's my attempt. It's somewhat tortuous compared to Richard V's comment, although I would claim that the Russian Federation is coming "... up with a specific, just, durable, political and economic structure that serves the needs of its people, inspires individual and collective action, and incorporates... ...historical tradition and patriotism." within a multi- polar/nodal world. The question then becomes; is it possible to have nationalism/patriotism without a sense of 'exceptionalism'?
'exceptionalism' as practiced in America is a condition where rules are made but exceptions are also made. The ability to make these exceptions implies great power. American exceptionalism does not mean that America stands out in a moral sense, but that it can make exceptions at any time to the rules it promulgates. [Aaron Good, AMERICAN EXCEPTION]
Thanks. Is it possible to have pride sans ego inflation? IMO, Putin's trying to instill a sense of humility to tame what was once known as Great Russian Chauvinism. The constant iteration of Russia being multiethnic as its source of strength must be seen in that light. The writer's question about how to enforce that provision in the constitution without ideology is excellent. I'd want him to be more articulate, but that's hard to do sometimes in writing when one's thoughts are best expressed orally as is often the case with Russians and others.
Agree. It occurs to me that that the collapse of the USSR and the immediate consequences could be an equivalent of the Cultural Revolution in the PRC. Let's hope that the synergy of V V Putin and Xi Jinping's personal relationship radiates nationally and internationally both at an individual and social level. It seemed to me that perhaps the meeting between Putin and Modi illustrated that possibility.
Trying to get Humanity to ditch looking for differences to exploit instead of embracing what we all share in common seems to be the underlying "ideological" goal of Multipolarity promoters, myself included. That's why the emphasis on people-to-people exchanges/encounters so Otherness can be eliminated as much as possible. The symbolic power of imagery associated with Putin's awarding the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called to Modi was very big as is Russia's whole-hearted embrace of Africa--again. This phenomena will be written about again and often.
The crisis of ideology is omnipresent but you can't just conjure a real ideology out of your hat when you need one. In order to fulfill its role the ideology has to be alive - communism is dead- and it has to be an organic development of the people (why communism died).
Russia has an ideology, although it's not "officially" articulated despite being constantly discussed. It's been on display here at the Gym for the year of its short existence, and I reported about it at my VK site over the three previous years.
I agree with 'mjh's' comment. It's funny, I translated the Russian paragraph into Spanish, which is my natural language, and I understood it perfectly (at least I think so). I visited Moscow in 1990 and I have to say that I fell forever in love with the Russian people (then still Soviet). However, the country was falling apart and the Western neoliberal vultures were casting their gloomy shadow everywhere, something that any attentive observer could confirm. Perfection does not exist, and this also applies to nations, but Russia can and should be proud of its history in all political and cultural spheres. I think it was Vladimir Putin who said that without Russia the world was not worth it. I would add that without Russia the world would not be possible, especially the world that is beginning to light a hopeful dawn to which Russia is contributing decisively.
(Post data: I have also lived in the US and, yes, there are a lot of cars there and they are usually very big, if you know what I mean).
this is a fascinating read karl and yes - he doesn't answer his question either.. but just contemplating this is very important...
it seems to me russia wants to emphasize religion - even if it is a plurality of religions, the orthodox christian ideology is very central from all my readings of your posts and elsewhere.. and this ideology is in direct conflict with the ideology of the west at present which is pushing globalization, lgbtq+ and etc. etc. - thus the conflict in ideology seems very apparent to me... now maybe it is secondary to all else... russia also emphasizes its history militarily too and it forms an important part of its ideology - based off the past, no doubt....
at any rate - a fascinating subject and i think he is wise to bring it up and ask what exactly russias ideology is at present, not that it can be articulated exactly or the same for everyone..
or it could be a recognition that the earlier revolutions +100 yrs ago were about Class and the abuse of power by the wealthy, and that intentions of the USSR were of a good nature that really went off the rails in the 1990s, and that again now the class war is between to days russia (china etc) against the neoliberal world order of the wealthy elites class of the USA in particular seeking to rule over the entire world as One system one ideology of 'rightness' - and the behind this resistance by Russia is an ideological world view too that is founded in morals and ethics and spiritual values .... no less than what arose in the early 20th century that brought down the Tsarists rule as a "class war" . Today is the same, the SMO is no different than the communist revolution (absent the overt political ideology of marxism of those times)
The west pretends they stand of freedom and justice .... Russia (and china etc) is now a representative of a people humans with an 'ideology' (and a love and respect for Human values) that truly does stand of freedom and justice. Doing my best to makes sense out of the issues raised myself. I believe the author is seeking to have Russia put some meat on the bones of their dead great leaders .... and look past the political ideology and errors of the past and declare what they all and today's Russians truly stand for.
eg Stalin is always presented as bad, but gosh, he did well during WW2 and after he was a strong leader who did the right thing for Russia and the whole USSR - yes? And after ww2 the west were very much untrustworthy crazed egotistical ideologues and warmongers who pushed their MIC to the nth degree .... that's not a decent 'national ideology' that's criminal greed and delusion.
My best guess, I have no real idea what the final para means other than what you presented karl.
There are many important ideas raised in Mr. Mikhalkov's essay. Although he doesn't put it this way, here's one of them:
Be very, very careful what you put in your country's constitution. If your constitutional 'reform' is being influenced or - heaven forbid - written by foreigners, be hyper-vigilant.
Russia's constitutional clause forbidding a "state-sponsored ideology" is a trap, one that was likely created by Western influence. The first part of the clause is fine: "The Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity." But then to forbid the state from sponsoring any ideology is both impractical and undesirable. It's impractical because states always sponsor ideologies of one sort or another. It's undesirable because states can't exist without a collective belief in, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially those which form the basis of economic or political theory and policy." To that definition of ideology I would add religious and social policy.
By all means, let different ideologies compete peacefully with one another. However, to deny the government the ability to champion a particular ideology only weakens the government. It takes away sovereignty and hamstrings the government's ability to channel the collective ethos for the good of all.
Suppose we have an ideology that life is sacred. We observe that people in accidents who were not wearing seat belts often died. So, we issue the propaganda, "SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES. BUCKLE UP!" States must have some kind of ideology, one that is flexible, while dogma is inflexible.
Agreed, there are numerous ideologies that every state sponsors. 'Obey the law.' 'Believe in your constitution.' 'Separate church and state.' ' We believe in a free market.' 'Our national religion is _________,' And so on.
Having a clause in your constitution that prohibits state sponsored ideology automatically puts the state in conflict with itself. It must have the ability to promote certain ideologies, which is contrary to the constitution that is the basis of the government. And to the degree that the government refuses to champion any ideology, that government is weakened, emasculated and directionless.
‘The millennial desire to humiliate us..’ speaks of the people in Russia whose primary goals are their own personal material wealth and leading a hedonistic lifestyle. The plutocrats who privatized state industry for their own enrichment in the 1990’s and the western-oriented sectors of the urban Russian population today whom Martyanov calls 5th and 6th columnists. These people in a sense hate Russia’s past and do not appreciate the tremendous economic and political strides the USSR made against tremendous obstacles. These people would prefer to obliterate and ridicule any memory of or respect for the struggles of the past and live as if they were denizens of rich Parisian districts or Hollywood. However, says the author, as a sort of dialectical syllogism, instead the SMO creates the possibility that sybaritic selfish lifestyles of this class of people will itself disappear and be forgotten. Mark Sleboda, an ex-patriot American who lives in Moscow, said in a recent pod-cast that while many such people fled Russia at the start of the SMO, many still reside in Moscow and other cities; however they have mostly been forced into silence by prevailing support for the SMO. I think the author also directs his criticism at the oligarchs who perhaps continue to use their influence to shift the outcomes of the SMO to their financial benefit. Considering the readership of the journal this article was published in, it may be that this may be a call to deal with the still powerful who operate in their own interests rather than the nation’s.
One should be aware that the goals and tasks of 1905 were different from those after 1917, and today’s tasks are different from 1917. 1905’s need was to weaken or overthrow the tsar, establish bourgeois democracy so rights could be fought for for workers, peasants and subjugated peoples. 1917’s tasks included industrial and agricultural modernization, electrification, literacy, culture and solving the national question for the many nations and peoples of Russia at that time. Almost all of the posts at this substack address the national and international tasks for the Russian people today—a new national purpose for today’s realities.
I visited the USSR twice, in 1978 and 1979, visiting Lenin’s Tomb both times. I quite agree with the author, it is time to venerate the leadership of the nation from a century ago in a different way. I didn’t think maintaining Lenin’s body as a corpsicle was appropriate even then. But even at that time I could see the seeds of a westernized mindset growing in the youth— a hunger for the material wealth, the consumer goods of the West. There were no blue jeans manufactured in the country then, and not even chewing gum—in part due to sanctions even then! Young people would offer to buy you jeans. Alexander Mercouris of the Duran podcast, while often overly verbose, is sometimes extraordinarily observant. He said a while back that even in recent years, with western style consumer goods available, he felt many Russians carried a sense of inferiority that he detected; with the SMO, that feeling is gone.
Great comment, thanks!
"He said a while back that even in recent years, with western style consumer goods available, he felt many Russians carried a sense of inferiority that he detected; with the SMO, that feeling is gone."
Indeed, the bad economical situation due to the failures of planned economy raised in most countries of the warshaw treaty the perception, the west were smarter and their economical and societal principles superior. From afar, they only saw the pretty side. The advantages and in fact in a human respect much better conceived socialist institutions were taken for granted. As a German, I learned this first hand in 1989 ff. The disappointment of the people in the eastern third of our country was fundamental and enduring.
So called Capitalism in the West is no more true to its ideals than was Communism or Socialism behind the Iron Curtain. True competition would require even chances. No trusts, no global economic or governmental monopolies/hegemonies. Strong states ensuring the market serves the people, not the other way round. Companies that have more power than the largest societies they prey upon shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I don't know about ideology. From the perspective of the evolution of species, we have universal principles applying to the survival. Foremost, survival of the best adapted to prevailing circumstances, which may change. And competition. This term also needs to be qualified as applied to human beings. We don't compete as lonely individuals. One man alone is lost. Our strength lies in cooperation. Our minds are constructed to wield altruism as well as egoism for their wellbeing. This concept is universal, exemplified in its scaleability. US hegemonism is nothing but a futile attempt at going it alone. Won't work in the long run.
Looking at religions, they are basically designed as a set of social rules aka "laws" for a group of people living under certain conditions to live by. To ensure abidance, and instill sense of live, powerful deities are staple. Traditions and spiritual elements instill confidence and a sense of community.
To make my point: As I see it, what VVP and his team (nice picture, I love it) is trying to do, is, to set and enforce rules which guarantee a fair competion, to cater and provide for the physical, social and spiritual needs of the Russian people. And, by extension, for the RoW. Quite pragmatic, according to biological necessities and free of any guiding construct that would in any case be incomplete and thus more an impeding shackles than a help, being thought up by imperfect human beings unable to consider every remote aspect.
Thanks for providing your POV. Although not done in person, interpersonal communications like those on these comment fora are critical as they are part of the interaction required for cooperation.
“Our strength lies in cooperation”. Indeed, our very survival!
Thanks to mjh for those thoughts.
This is very good. Very timely. A very necessary discussion. America has an ideology--a very real and powerful conception of what it is--democracy, individual freedom, a free market system of private property. This ideology exists and has power, though more and more it is revealed to be an illusion, even a lie. This ideology, this system, has been presented to the West, indeed to the world as what should be sought after, what should be aspired to. Post-communist Russia seems to me to be drifting--an oligarchy with a strong state. After the collapse it aspired to buy into, to be excepted into, this Western liberal club. But it was rejected. Because the Empire does not accept the sovereignty of others, only subordination. This rejection and the subsequent SMO which is its ultimate manifestation has forced Russia to find a new definition of itself. You can sense that this is what Putin is struggling with. He has grabbed on to tradition--the church and fundamental family values--to fill the void. Is this enough? I think not. Russia needs to come up with a specific, just, durable, political and economic structure that serves the needs of its people, inspires individual and collective action, and incorporates--and goes beyond--historical tradition and patriotism. Easier said than done, but I sense that it will, in fact, be done. And a new Russia will emerge--a Russia greater than ever.
If you find that the last paragraph doesn't make much sense to you, maybe the following translation makes more sense:
"The Special Military Operation is also about ideology and about what direction we are moving towards, what kind of world we want our descendants to live in. I am deeply convinced that everything that happened before the Special Military Operation was a consequence of the pernicious policy of the 1990s. Which for many people in our country was exactly to their liking, because this policy did not entail the sovereignty of our country’s values and ideals and allowed a small part of our society to make a lot of money. Today, as we find ourselves in a period of great responsibility and importance for our Fatherland, we are totally observing how something is quietly fermenting inside our country ... There is a whole caste of people who are not saying anything bad nor writing anything bad, but this is really a quiet conspiracy of those who expect that everything will go back to the way it was before. It's a very dangerous thing to expect everything to go back to the way it was before... It won't! The special military operation was sent to us by God! So we would finally wake up and try to understand who is who and what is what. So we would in full measure realize that the thousand year old desire to destroy us has come close to the possibility of being realised. The SWO is our rescue and our common cause!"
Great! Thanks very much! I hope readers will take the time to read the great comments, particularly yours!
Assuming that the article specifically addresses the transition from USSR to the Russian Federation, which for the author includes the directive of diminishing the 'ideology' of the preceding regime. I assume he is referring to a sense that the USSR's 'ideology' had 'failed', which is an interpretation that the movers and shakers in North America and Europe promoted as a celebration of its own 'ideology' - that being the loose tenets of 'freedom' and 'opportunity' that we in the 'West' were encouraged to believe in when the USSR existed.
In such a context the 'ideology' of the USSR was diminshed to the status of 'dogma' - perhaps at a certain level of the social structure it had become so - hence the excessive profiteering. It's probable that 'ideology' as a basis for any philosophy-of-life has the possibility of manifesting as 'dogma' or 'convictioons' as opposed to 'ideals', 'beliefs' or 'credo(s)' - which are all synonyms of the word ideology - in the minds of any individual. Consequently, "... the Constitution of 1993 banned the very concept of "ideology."" was probably based on interpreting 'ideology' as 'dogma'. In such a context it is understandable that the author considers the SMO to be a valuable gift in the formation of the Russian Federation's philosophy-of-life going forward and that it shouldn't involve a complete separation from the principles of the USSR.
I wonder whether the sentence "There is a whole caste of people who no one says bad things, no one writes bad things, but this is the kind of conspiracy that expects everything to be like this, like before." relates to the final years of the USSR, as an indictment of dogmatic consensus? If so it also seems very relevant to the situation we are experiencing over here in the Collective Wastelands.
Anyway, Karl, that's my attempt. It's somewhat tortuous compared to Richard V's comment, although I would claim that the Russian Federation is coming "... up with a specific, just, durable, political and economic structure that serves the needs of its people, inspires individual and collective action, and incorporates... ...historical tradition and patriotism." within a multi- polar/nodal world. The question then becomes; is it possible to have nationalism/patriotism without a sense of 'exceptionalism'?
'exceptionalism' as practiced in America is a condition where rules are made but exceptions are also made. The ability to make these exceptions implies great power. American exceptionalism does not mean that America stands out in a moral sense, but that it can make exceptions at any time to the rules it promulgates. [Aaron Good, AMERICAN EXCEPTION]
LOL. I followed through with Aaron Good and found an interview on You Tube that I'm listening to, either side of this Repy cum Like,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckeCp1ojZSo
so thank you.
Thanks. Is it possible to have pride sans ego inflation? IMO, Putin's trying to instill a sense of humility to tame what was once known as Great Russian Chauvinism. The constant iteration of Russia being multiethnic as its source of strength must be seen in that light. The writer's question about how to enforce that provision in the constitution without ideology is excellent. I'd want him to be more articulate, but that's hard to do sometimes in writing when one's thoughts are best expressed orally as is often the case with Russians and others.
Agree. It occurs to me that that the collapse of the USSR and the immediate consequences could be an equivalent of the Cultural Revolution in the PRC. Let's hope that the synergy of V V Putin and Xi Jinping's personal relationship radiates nationally and internationally both at an individual and social level. It seemed to me that perhaps the meeting between Putin and Modi illustrated that possibility.
Trying to get Humanity to ditch looking for differences to exploit instead of embracing what we all share in common seems to be the underlying "ideological" goal of Multipolarity promoters, myself included. That's why the emphasis on people-to-people exchanges/encounters so Otherness can be eliminated as much as possible. The symbolic power of imagery associated with Putin's awarding the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called to Modi was very big as is Russia's whole-hearted embrace of Africa--again. This phenomena will be written about again and often.
The crisis of ideology is omnipresent but you can't just conjure a real ideology out of your hat when you need one. In order to fulfill its role the ideology has to be alive - communism is dead- and it has to be an organic development of the people (why communism died).
Russia has an ideology, although it's not "officially" articulated despite being constantly discussed. It's been on display here at the Gym for the year of its short existence, and I reported about it at my VK site over the three previous years.
I agree with 'mjh's' comment. It's funny, I translated the Russian paragraph into Spanish, which is my natural language, and I understood it perfectly (at least I think so). I visited Moscow in 1990 and I have to say that I fell forever in love with the Russian people (then still Soviet). However, the country was falling apart and the Western neoliberal vultures were casting their gloomy shadow everywhere, something that any attentive observer could confirm. Perfection does not exist, and this also applies to nations, but Russia can and should be proud of its history in all political and cultural spheres. I think it was Vladimir Putin who said that without Russia the world was not worth it. I would add that without Russia the world would not be possible, especially the world that is beginning to light a hopeful dawn to which Russia is contributing decisively.
(Post data: I have also lived in the US and, yes, there are a lot of cars there and they are usually very big, if you know what I mean).
this is a fascinating read karl and yes - he doesn't answer his question either.. but just contemplating this is very important...
it seems to me russia wants to emphasize religion - even if it is a plurality of religions, the orthodox christian ideology is very central from all my readings of your posts and elsewhere.. and this ideology is in direct conflict with the ideology of the west at present which is pushing globalization, lgbtq+ and etc. etc. - thus the conflict in ideology seems very apparent to me... now maybe it is secondary to all else... russia also emphasizes its history militarily too and it forms an important part of its ideology - based off the past, no doubt....
at any rate - a fascinating subject and i think he is wise to bring it up and ask what exactly russias ideology is at present, not that it can be articulated exactly or the same for everyone..
now i will read what others have said..
or it could be a recognition that the earlier revolutions +100 yrs ago were about Class and the abuse of power by the wealthy, and that intentions of the USSR were of a good nature that really went off the rails in the 1990s, and that again now the class war is between to days russia (china etc) against the neoliberal world order of the wealthy elites class of the USA in particular seeking to rule over the entire world as One system one ideology of 'rightness' - and the behind this resistance by Russia is an ideological world view too that is founded in morals and ethics and spiritual values .... no less than what arose in the early 20th century that brought down the Tsarists rule as a "class war" . Today is the same, the SMO is no different than the communist revolution (absent the overt political ideology of marxism of those times)
The west pretends they stand of freedom and justice .... Russia (and china etc) is now a representative of a people humans with an 'ideology' (and a love and respect for Human values) that truly does stand of freedom and justice. Doing my best to makes sense out of the issues raised myself. I believe the author is seeking to have Russia put some meat on the bones of their dead great leaders .... and look past the political ideology and errors of the past and declare what they all and today's Russians truly stand for.
eg Stalin is always presented as bad, but gosh, he did well during WW2 and after he was a strong leader who did the right thing for Russia and the whole USSR - yes? And after ww2 the west were very much untrustworthy crazed egotistical ideologues and warmongers who pushed their MIC to the nth degree .... that's not a decent 'national ideology' that's criminal greed and delusion.
My best guess, I have no real idea what the final para means other than what you presented karl.
There are many important ideas raised in Mr. Mikhalkov's essay. Although he doesn't put it this way, here's one of them:
Be very, very careful what you put in your country's constitution. If your constitutional 'reform' is being influenced or - heaven forbid - written by foreigners, be hyper-vigilant.
Russia's constitutional clause forbidding a "state-sponsored ideology" is a trap, one that was likely created by Western influence. The first part of the clause is fine: "The Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity." But then to forbid the state from sponsoring any ideology is both impractical and undesirable. It's impractical because states always sponsor ideologies of one sort or another. It's undesirable because states can't exist without a collective belief in, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially those which form the basis of economic or political theory and policy." To that definition of ideology I would add religious and social policy.
By all means, let different ideologies compete peacefully with one another. However, to deny the government the ability to champion a particular ideology only weakens the government. It takes away sovereignty and hamstrings the government's ability to channel the collective ethos for the good of all.
Suppose we have an ideology that life is sacred. We observe that people in accidents who were not wearing seat belts often died. So, we issue the propaganda, "SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES. BUCKLE UP!" States must have some kind of ideology, one that is flexible, while dogma is inflexible.
Agreed, there are numerous ideologies that every state sponsors. 'Obey the law.' 'Believe in your constitution.' 'Separate church and state.' ' We believe in a free market.' 'Our national religion is _________,' And so on.
Having a clause in your constitution that prohibits state sponsored ideology automatically puts the state in conflict with itself. It must have the ability to promote certain ideologies, which is contrary to the constitution that is the basis of the government. And to the degree that the government refuses to champion any ideology, that government is weakened, emasculated and directionless.