Today, the following conflicts are typical for Russia:
- "status" conflicts between the Russian republics and the federal government, caused by the desire of the republics to achieve more rights or even become independent states;
Territorial conflicts between subjects of the federation;
Internal (occurring within the subjects of the federation) ethno-political conflicts associated with real contradictions between the interests of various ethnic groups. Basically, these are contradictions between the called titular nations and the Russian (Russian-speaking), as well as non-"titular" population in the republics
A number of foreign and domestic researchers believe that inter-ethnic conflicts in Russia often occur between the two main types of civilizations that characterize the Eurasian essence of the country - basically Western Christian and southern Islamic. Another classification of Russian “hot spots” is based on the severity of the conflict:
Zones of acute crisis (military conflicts or balancing on their brink) - North Ossetia - Ingushetia;
Potentially crisis situations (Krasnodar Territory). Here, the main factor of interethnic conflict potential is migration processes, as a result of which the situation is aggravated;
Zones of strong regional separatism (Tatarstan, Bashkortostan);
Zones of medium regional separatism (Republic of Komi);
Zones of sluggish current separatism (Siberia, the Far East, a number of republics of the Volga region, Karelia, etc.).
Nevertheless, regardless of which group the researchers attribute this or that conflict situation to, it has very real and sad consequences. In 2000, V. Putin stated in the message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly: "For several years now, the country's population has been decreasing by an average of 750 thousand people annually. And if you believe the forecasts, and the forecasts are based on the real work of people who understand this, - in 15 years, there could be 22 million fewer Russians. If the current trend continues, the survival of the nation will be in jeopardy."
Of course, such a high concentration of “hot spots” on the territory of Russia is primarily due to the extremely multinational composition of the population, and therefore much depends on the general line of the government, since new and new centers of discontent will open all the time.
Interethnic tension in a number of regions will continue due to the fact that the issues of the federal structure and equalization of the rights of the subjects of the federation have not yet been resolved. Considering that Russia was formed both on a territorial and ethno-national basis, the rejection of the extraterritorial principle of Russian federalism in favor of extraterritorial cultural and national contradictions can lead to conflicts.
Along with the ethnic factor, the economic factor is very important. An example of this is the critical situation in the Russian economy. Here, the essence of social conflicts, on the one hand, is the struggle between those strata of society whose interests express the progressive needs of the development of productive forces, and, on the other hand, various conservative, partly corrupt elements. The main achievements of perestroika - democratization, glasnost, the expansion of republics and regions, and others - gave people the opportunity to openly express their own and not only their thoughts at rallies, demonstrations, and in the mass media. However, most people were not psychologically and morally prepared for their new social position. And all this led to conflicts in the sphere of consciousness. As a result, "freedom", being used by people with low levels of political and general culture to create unfreedom for other social, ethnic, religious, linguistic groups, turned out to be a prerequisite for acute conflicts, often accompanied by terror, pogroms, arson, and the expulsion of objectionable citizens of "foreign" nationality. .
One form of conflict often includes another and undergoes transformation, ethnic or political camouflage. Thus, the political struggle "for national self-determination" of the peoples of the North, which is carried out by the authorities of autonomies in Russia, is nothing but ethnic camouflage, because they defend the interests not of the aboriginal population, but of the business elite in the face of the Center. For example, political camouflage can be attributed, for example, to the events in Tajikistan, where the rivalry of Tajik sub-ethnic groups and the conflict between the groups of the peoples of Gorno-Badakhshan and the dominant Tajiks are hidden under the external rhetoric of "Islamic democratic" opposition against conservatives and partocrats. Thus, many clashes are more likely to take on an ethnic coloration due to the multinational composition of the population (that is, an “image of the enemy” is easily created) than are ethnic in essence.
Ethnic conflicts took place both on the territory of Russia and with the participation of our country on the territory of other states. Two such wars occurred in the second half of the 20th century.
The Afghan war (1979-1989) is an armed conflict between parts of a limited contingent of Soviet troops (OKSV) and the pro-Moscow government of the DRA, on the one hand, and the anti-Soviet forces of the Afghans (mujahideen, or dushmans), on the other hand, for control over the territory of Afghanistan. One of the reasons for the war was the desire to support the supporters of Soviet power in Afghanistan, since the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism caused by the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 could really destabilize Soviet Central Asia through Afghan Tajiks. At the international level, it was stated that the USSR was guided by the principles of "proletarian internationalism". As a formal basis, the Politburo used Hafizullah Amin's repeated requests for military assistance to fight anti-government forces.
Afghan casualties are believed to have been over a million.
The historical roots of the Chechen conflict go back to the time of the Caucasian War of the 19th century, when tsarist Russia sought to strengthen its position in the south and, in the course of territorial expansion, came across fierce resistance from the mountain peoples of the Caucasus.
The Chechen conflict in its modern form as a struggle over the issue of independence of Chechnya or its preservation as part of Russia originated, like almost all other national conflicts on the territory of the former USSR, in the second half of the 1980s, with the beginning of perestroika and the weakening of state and party control over all areas of public life.
The two military campaigns clearly show the interest of certain foreign circles in the continuation of the escalation of hostilities and the maintenance of instability in the region. It is no coincidence that the majority of domestic researchers are inclined to think that when studying the causes and - mainly - ways to resolve the armed conflict in the North Caucasus region, it is necessary to identify not only the interests of the two conflicting sides of Ichkeria and the center, but also the parties standing above the fight, controlling the intensity of the conflict.
Any ethnic conflict has a stage dynamics of development (a gradual increase in the degree of tension), which looks like this.
In the period of the emergence of a conflict situation, demands are put forward to increase the role of the language of the indigenous population of the region, national movements turn to traditions, customs, folk culture, ethno-national symbols, which in their totality are opposed to similar phenomena of an "alien" culture. This stage can be called value-symbolic.
Further, the maturation of a conflict situation is characterized by a desire to redistribute power in favor of one ethnic group at the expense of other groups, change the ethnic hierarchy, raise the ethnic status of indigenous people, etc. At this status stage of the conflict, ethnicity finds its expression in the form of ethno-national interests and becomes for the local elite an instrument of pressure on the central government in order to reorganize the existing ethno-political space in their favor.
And finally, the next stage can bring the development of the conflict to the nomination of either territorial claims within the framework of a given ethnological state, or claims to create a new ethno-national statehood, to change the territorial boundaries of the existing political space. At this stage, an ethnic group can resort to forceful actions in order to support its claims with force of arms Stefanenko T.G. Ethnopsychology. - M.: Aspect Press, 2013.
Each of the noted stages of the development of the conflict is characterized, in turn, by the corresponding state, types and forms of practical relations between ethnic groups. So, for the first stage, the state of interethnic alienation becomes the main one. This is manifested in the desire for ethnically homogeneous marriages, for mono-ethnic communication, for minimizing contacts with a foreign ethnic environment, with the exception of the inevitable - professional or domestic. In other words, we are talking about increasing the socio-cultural distance. At the same time, alienation is intensified by the cultural differences of ethnic groups, their dissimilar stereotypes of behavior.
As the conflict situation develops, the state of alienation develops into a state of ethnic hostility, in which shortcomings, miscalculations, mistakes in the spheres of culture, economics, and politics are extrapolated to the corresponding ethnic community. The state of hostility, under appropriate conditions and circumstances, can quickly lead to violent actions, which in ordinary consciousness are most often regarded as a conflict proper. In this case, ethnic conflict becomes a form of political action and a means to achieve political goals. At the same time, any ethnic conflict is one of the varieties of social conflicts along with religious, racial, interstate ones. In general, an ethnic conflict is understood as a dynamically changing situation, generated by the rejection of the previously established state of affairs by a significant part of the representatives of one (several) of the local ethnic groups, and therefore one can speak of an ethnic conflict as a real phenomenon when a national movement or a party whose goal is to ensure the national interests of a certain people and, in order to achieve this goal, seek to change the existing and previously tolerable or habitual situation in the cultural, linguistic, socio-economic or political sphere of life. Ethnic conflict is always a political phenomenon, because even if the initiators of change seek to change the situation only in the cultural-linguistic or socio-economic area, they can achieve their goals only by acquiring certain powers.
Examples of ethnic conflicts
In the modern world, unfortunately, ethnic confrontations take place. They are characterized by a certain degree of political influence, the creation of social movements, the confrontation of the parties with the help of mass chaos and disorder, separatist actions and even wars. Many researchers of the issue of ethnic and national strife note the main characteristic feature of the phenomenon - intractability. The lion's share of national problems is of a religious-territorial nature.
Aggravation of situations is observed during periods of economic downturns and political instability, both between countries and within certain states. An illustrative example of ethnic conflicts can be the CIS countries after the collapse of the USSR: Moldova and Transnistria, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Abkhazia, Georgia and Karabakh, Tajikistan (Uzbekistan) and Afghanistan. Some Eastern European countries, after the fall of the world socialist system, found themselves in the center of ethnic confrontations. ethnic conflict tension
The Balkans is one of the most unstable regions of the planet, where the fire of interethnic hostility periodically flares up with renewed vigor. It is worth recalling the Yugoslav crisis, the problems of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The interest of most major powers is concentrated here, even including the geographically distant United States and China. Most of these conflicts are related to status and territorial claims, and, as the outcome of many showed, fixing part of the territory to an ethnic minority can lead to its isolation.
World history is rich in examples of hundreds of ethnic conflicts: between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France and Corsica. In recent years, the problem of the Basques in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey, and the recent conflict in Greece is indicative. In African countries, destabilization often occurs due to the mismatch of interests of ethnic communities.
Termination of national confrontations is a very problematic task, since it is impossible to carry out a complete neutralization of political and economic factors in practice. However, the state and global policy of tolerance and the ability to conduct dialogues in many cases will help prevent the emergence of acute conflicts or smooth out their course.
The concept of interethnic conflicts, the causes and forms of their occurrence, possible consequences and ways out of them are the main keys to solving a serious problem of relations between people of different nationalities.
In the world in which we live, interethnic conflicts are increasingly emerging. People resort to the use of various means, most often the use of force and weapons, to establish a dominant position in relation to other inhabitants of the planet.
On the basis of local conflicts, armed uprisings and wars arise, leading to the death of ordinary citizens.
What it is
Researchers of the problem of interethnic relations in the definition of conflicts between peoples converge to one common concept.
Interethnic conflicts are confrontation, rivalry, intense competition between people of different nationalities in the struggle for their interests, which are expressed in various requirements.
In such situations, two parties collide, defending their point of view and trying to achieve their own goals. If both sides are equal, as a rule, they seek to negotiate and resolve the problem peacefully.
But in most cases in the conflict of peoples there is a dominant side, superior in some respects, and the opposite side, weaker and more vulnerable.
Often a third force intervenes in a dispute between two peoples, which supports one or another people. If the mediating party aims to achieve a result in any way, then the conflict often develops into an armed clash, a war. If its goal is a peaceful settlement of the dispute, diplomatic assistance, then bloodshed does not happen, and the problem is resolved without infringing on anyone's rights.
Causes of interethnic conflicts
Interethnic conflicts arise for various reasons. The most common are:
- social dissatisfaction peoples within the same or different countries;
- economic dominance and expansion of business interests; extending beyond the borders of one state;
- geographic disagreement on the establishment of boundaries for the settlement of different peoples;
- political forms of behavior authorities;
- cultural-linguistic claims peoples;
- historical past in which there were contradictions in relations between peoples;
- ethnodemographic(the numerical superiority of one nation over another);
- struggle for natural resources and the possibility of using them for consumption by one people to the detriment of another;
- religious and confessional.
Relations between peoples are built in the same way as between ordinary people. There are always right and wrong, satisfied and dissatisfied, strong and weak. Therefore, the causes of interethnic conflicts are similar to those that are the prerequisites for the confrontation between the townsfolk.
stages
Any conflict of peoples goes through the following stages:
- Origin, the occurrence of the situation. It can be hidden and be invisible to the layman.
- pre-conflict, the preparatory stage, during which the parties evaluate their strengths and capabilities, material and information resources, look for allies, outline ways to solve the problem in their favor, develop a scenario for real and possible actions.
- Initialization, the event is the reason for the beginning of the occurrence of a conflict of interest.
- Development conflict.
- Peak, a critical, culminating stage, at which the most acute moment in the development of relations between peoples comes. This point of conflict can contribute to the further development of events.
- Permission conflict can be different:
- elimination of causes and extinction of contradictions;
- acceptance of a compromise decision, agreement;
- impasse;
- armed conflict, terror.
Kinds
There are different types of interethnic conflicts, which are determined by the nature of the mutual claims of ethnic groups:
- State legal: the desire of the nation for independence, self-determination, its own statehood. Examples are Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ireland.
- ethnoterritorial: determination of the geographical location, territorial boundaries (Nagorno-Karabakh).
- Ethnodemographic: the desire of the people to preserve national identity. Occurs in multinational states. In Russia, such a conflict happened in the Caucasus.
- Socio-psychological: violation of the traditional way of life. It occurs at the everyday level between internally displaced persons, refugees and local residents. At present, relations between indigenous people and representatives of Muslim peoples are escalating in Europe.
What is the danger: consequences
Any interethnic conflict arising on the territory of one state or covering different countries is dangerous. It threatens peace, the democracy of society, violates the principles of the universal freedom of citizens and their rights. Where weapons are used, such a conflict entails the mass death of civilians, the destruction of houses, villages and cities.
The consequences of ethnic strife can be observed around the globe. Thousands of people lost their lives. Many were injured and became disabled. The saddest thing is that in the war of interests of adults, children suffer, who remain orphans, grow up as physical and mental cripples.
Ways to overcome
Most ethnic conflicts can be prevented if you start to negotiate and try to use humane methods of diplomacy.
It is important to eliminate the contradictions that have arisen between individual peoples at the initial stage. To do this, statesmen and people in power must regulate interethnic relations and stop attempts by some nationalities to discriminate against others, which are characterized by a smaller number.
The most effective way to prevent all sorts of conflicts lies in unity and mutual understanding. When one nation respects the interests of another, when the strong begin to support and help the weak, then people will live in peace and harmony.
Video: Interethnic conflicts
The various consequences of conflicts can be conditionally divided into external and internal, i.e. according to their territorial location.
External ones led to a kind of transfer to the territory of Russia of the consequences of collisions that are common throughout the world, and especially on the territory of the former USSR.
Here, researchers from the Center for Human Demography and Ecology (Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences) recorded the impact of five wars, which, in fact, were waged on a purely ethnic basis (Karabakh, Georgian-Abkhazian, Tajik, Georgian-South Ossetian, Transnistrian). On the territory of Russia, the Chechen and Ossetian-Ingush conflicts should be classified as ethnic. We conditionally classify them as internal.
In addition to armed, having signs of interstate, purely ethnic clashes are also recorded, where physical violence is also used, accompanied by explosions, pogroms, fights, arson of houses, cattle rustling, abductions (the so-called conflict of uncontrollable emotions).
P o t e r i
That is why human losses should be singled out as the first negative consequence. Experts believe that the number of dead and missing on the territory of the former Soviet Union could reach up to one million people. Of course, the lack of reliable sources of information leads, as a rule, to exaggerations. Thus, the Chechen side determined the losses of the Russian army for 1994-1996. in 100 thousand people. Some Russian politicians (D. Ragozin, G. Yavlinsky) are also inclined to such an assessment, including the loss of Chechens1. According to official information, the loss of federal troops amounted to 4.8 thousand people, separatists - 2-3 thousand. Direct losses of the civilian population as a result of the conflict amounted to approximately 30 thousand people. Mortality from indirect causes (severe injuries, lack of timely treatment, etc.) is estimated at about the same size.
Other more distant, but no less serious losses are the increasing cases of families refusing to have children, especially in conflict zones and in the territories where these families have moved, and a drop in the quality of life.
M i g a c i i
A large-scale consequence of interethnic conflicts is the inevitable migration of the population from dangerous regions in such cases. It should be noted that Russia has become the main country receiving migrants. Moreover, the peaks of the mass arrival coincide with the most acute ethnic clashes. The RAS experts mentioned above, in particular V. Mukomel, provide the following data (Table 4):
Table 4. Arrivals in Russia, thousand people1
Country of origin 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Azerbaijan 60.0 75.9 91.4 48.0 70.0 54.7 49.5 43.4 40.3 Armenia 23.1 22.5 13.7 12.0 15.8 20.8 46 .5 34.1 25.4 Georgia 33.1 42.9 54.2 69.9 66.8 51.4 38.6 Kyrgyzstan 24.0 39.0 33.7 Moldova 29.6 32.3 19.3 Tajikistan 19.0 50.8 27.8 72.6 68.8 45.6 41.8 32.5 Uzbekistan 66.0 84.1 104.0 69.1
Especially noticeable was the migration increase of the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia. In all Russian national republics during the period under review, it was only positive. For 1994-1996 about 15 thousand migrants of the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia moved to the republics of the Russian Federation.
This is the largest volume of resettlement for the titular nationalities of the former Soviet republics. However, in relative terms, this is only 7% of their total external migration balance over these three years. The second in the migration balance on the territory of the Russian republics were Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kirghiz (6 thousand people), and the third place is occupied by Kazakhs (about 2 thousand people). At the same time, despite the smaller volumes of inflow, migrants of the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are more inclined to move into the national republics of Russia than the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia. For 1994-1996 21% and 28% of the migrants of the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan1, respectively, concentrated in the Russian republics.
For example, it has become a kind of promised land for migrants. Rostov region, which is one of the most attractive regions not only for forced Russian-speaking migrants, but also for residents of nearby labor-surplus regions, in particular, the indigenous population of the republics of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. It was this part of the migrants that gave rise to interethnic tension and conflicts throughout the region.
For example, it is noted: historically, representatives of non-Slavic nationalities live on the Don, who have a fairly high level of ethnic cohesion and a dense structure of intra-ethnic ties. In some cases, these ethnic groups generally have a higher social status and standard of living, which causes acute discontent among the indigenous population. In recent years, residents of Transcaucasia and Central Asia have been actively migrating to the region, hoping with the help of relatives to gain a foothold here for permanent residence. In a region with a surplus population and a shortage of housing stock, and in rural areas in the context of land privatization, this gives rise to social tension, which is rapidly acquiring an interethnic character.
The usual appearance of non-Slavic refugees from the zones of interethnic conflicts is also associated with an increase in the level of crime in the region, the export of weapons and "conflict, power psychology."
Objectively, migration to the region of residents of Central Asia, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus oriented towards higher incomes than Rostovites has led to a shortage of housing, rising food prices, overloading the socio-cultural infrastructure, primarily secondary schools. However, an analysis of the social composition of these migrants shows that they occupy social niches that traditionally do not attract native Rostovites. Their bulk is concentrated in trade establishments (barbecue, beer, small trade stalls). There are many Caucasians among the heads of garages and drivers, construction superintendents and owners of intermediary enterprises. Experts note that in these areas, competition between migrants from Central Asia and Caucasians is higher than between migrants and native Rostovites.
In the conditions of the general economic crisis and the impoverishment of the population, the buying and export of relatively cheap locally produced products, “ruble intervention”, the activity of shadow economic structures built according to the planned principle, which serve as a significant factor in interethnic tension, are flourishing.
A tough stance towards this group of migrants is taken by Cossack organizations, which occasionally demonstrate strength, oppose representatives of certain nationalities, and act under the slogans of “illegal” protection of the indigenous population.
Using the low legal culture of people, the Cossacks act as the organizer of gatherings of the population, at which demands are put forward for the eviction of persons of certain nationalities from the village (district, city, region). Violation of the equality of citizens on the basis of nationality is carried out not only in the form of direct calls for reprisals against them, but also through moral pressure - the formation of negative ethnic stereotypes: the use of humiliating labels, the implementation of the principle of "collective responsibility", etc.
In order to prevent the aggravation of interethnic tension in August 1994, the Legislative Assembly of the Rostov Region adopted the Law "On Measures to Strengthen Control over Migration Processes in the Territory of the Rostov Region", which tightened the propiska regime. However, some researchers (L. Khoperskaya) believe that it is necessary to take a differentiated approach to different categories of migrants, i.e. to assist those entrepreneurs who pay not only for registration, but also for the infrastructure they use. As for administrative prohibitions, their effectiveness seems to be problematic due to the possible mass bribery of local officials. The result of this - the illegal residence of tens of thousands of migrants - will lead to an increase not only in criminogenicity, but also in interethnic tension2.
Internal ethnic migration (republics of the Russian Federation) in 1994-1996. characterized by an increasing outflow of Russians and a decrease in the migration growth of the titular population, however, there are exceptions: from Komi, Sakha (Yakutia), Tyva, there is a constant outflow of both the Russian and the titular population. Tatars, who make up the bulk of the population of Bashkiria, in 1994-1996. reduced migration to this republic. The greatest losses of the Russian population are recorded in Yakutia, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Komi, Tyva, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria. The consolidation of the titular population is most noticeable in North Ossetia, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan.
Migration, in turn, gives rise to negative trends in the development of interethnic relations due to the fact that ethnic communities inevitably begin to compete in the areas of employment, residence and communication. Against the backdrop of unfavorable economic conditions, reduced opportunities to meet basic needs, migrants are simultaneously faced with the loss of their past status characteristics. In any case, the majority of those who came to a new place develop a negative and sometimes hostile attitude towards the new environment.
There are known differences in assessing the consequences of migration. Some researchers believe that any expansion of interethnic communication can in any case be considered as a positive phenomenon that contributes to the emergence of cultures and the establishment of internationalized patterns of behavior. Others proceed from the fact that the expansion of interethnic contacts only then leads to the optimal development of interethnic relations when it is based on voluntariness and is not accompanied by the emergence of social competitive situations.
The first point of view is based on the idea of an ethnos as a rather static collection of unrelated or loosely connected families or individuals. Indeed, with this approach, it turns out that the wider the contacts with representatives of other peoples, the easier people get used to them, learn the language of another ethnic group and (or) the language of interethnic communication, the easier it is to part with the elements of their own culture. From this point of view, the expansion of interethnic contacts, if it can have any negative consequences, is only in relation to individual individuals and does not extend to the entire ethnic group or its layers. In the opposite concept, an ethnos is viewed as a complex self-organizing system for which the need for self-preservation is an integral property: the stability of an ethnos is determined by a set of close interpersonal ties. As long as the system maintains its internal integrity, any impact on it, intentional or unintentional, that could violate this integrity, leads to counteraction. The latter is intensified when representatives of contacting national groups find themselves in competitive relations over some vital values. Moreover, the activities of the system usually involve people who themselves are not included in competitive relations, and generally do not experience any particular inconvenience from external influences on the ethnic group.
Despite all the negative assessments of migration, one should not, apparently, reject the fact that migration shortens the distance between peoples, it constantly cultivates mutual tolerance among all adjoining ethnic groups.
The migration situation in the Russian Federation, in particular, its demographic consequences, is assessed by researchers diametrically opposite.
So, Russian demographers L.L. Rybakovsky and O.D. Zakharova believe that intra-Russian inter-territorial migrations remain the dominant component of the general migration situation in the country (they account for about 4/5 of the total migration turnover). Their development as a whole does not go beyond the framework of the main trends in migration exchange that began to take shape in the early 1990s. But they are gradually modified under the influence of changing social conditions. There is a decrease in the scale of resettlement within Russia, a change in their geographical structure. By the mid 90s. in interregional migrations, a new general direction of population exchange has already been fully formed - its redistribution from areas of new development to old-settled ones, mainly to the European regions of the country. These changes were especially detrimental to the eastern and northern territories. There is a destruction of demographic and labor potentials, purposefully created over decades, including large-scale losses of the population adapted to extreme northern conditions, the restoration of which will take more than one generation.
And yet, the migration exchange of population between Russia and the new abroad is the main one in terms of its consequences and severity of problems. In recent years, various political factors have stimulated, on the one hand, the growth of the usual migration outflow of the population from the former Soviet republics to Russia; on the other hand, an increase in the flow of forced migrants (refugees). From 1989 to the beginning of 1995, 2.3 million more people arrived in Russia from the new abroad than they left back. Over the same years, Russia received over 600,000 refugees. Its population has grown by almost 3 million precisely due to migrants and refugees from the states of the new abroad. Of this number, 2.2 million are Russians. In turn, the Russian population in the new abroad was reduced to 23 million people.
In the migration exchange of Russia with the new abroad, three main characteristics can be distinguished: 1) since 1994, Russia has had a positive balance in migration exchange with absolutely all states; 2) the main share (about 80%) of Russia's positive migration balance falls on Russians. Among the refugees, the proportion of Russians is two-thirds. Migration of Russians to all countries of the new abroad in 1989-1994. consistently decreased, while their outflow to Russia increased or remained at a consistently high level; 3) opposite trends are observed in the migration activity of representatives of the titular nationalities of the former Soviet republics. The scale of their departure from Russia is declining in parallel with the decrease in their arrival.
A new destructive phenomenon for Russia in the post-perestroika period was the growth in the scale of emigration. Today, tens of thousands of citizens are emigrating from Russia. Their total number for 1989-1994. exceeded 600 thousand people. Among the emigrants are mostly Germans, Jews, Russians. They are sent mainly (90%) to the USA, Germany and Israel. The emigrants include technical and creative intelligentsia, highly skilled workers. As a result, Russia is losing its intellectual and professional potential. Together with people ideas, skills are exported to work, production experience.
Researchers admit that as a result of the counter process - immigration - the country receives no less, if not more, population. The bulk of immigrants are illegal immigrants. This is facilitated by the transparency of borders, the unsettled issues of entry into the country from new and old abroad, the political and other interests of a number of neighboring states in relation to Russian territory. This situation is considered negative, since Russia has become a cesspool and a transshipment base for immigration. The most important consequences of the immigration to Russia of hundreds of thousands of citizens of the states of the old, and now the new abroad, are the following: 1) the formation of conditions for the penetration of new ethnic diasporas, their settlement, buying up real estate in the largest cities and border, often disputed, regions of the country; 2) the entry into Russia of immigrants from the countries of Southeast Asia, Africa and other underdeveloped countries, mostly of a poorly educated and unskilled population, worsens its labor potential, increases the pressure of low-quality labor on the labor market; 3) with immigration, primarily illegal, the strengthening of the criminogenic situation is connected (growth of objects of the drug business, smuggling, organized crime).
First of all, with regard to external migrants, there is a possibility that many of our compatriots will return with material and spiritual capital acquired in the West. We cannot rule out the assistance that they are now providing to their relatives who have remained at home.
Secondly, internal migrants often do the work that the natives of many Russian cities cannot or do not want to do (trade, construction, transport, etc.).
Thirdly, the temporary “liberation” of the regions of the North by the non-indigenous population means, with all the negative consequences of this process, the simultaneous improvement of living conditions for the local population.
As we can see, the consequences of migration are diverse and ambiguous. It is premature to consider the situation associated with ethnic migration catastrophic, which cannot be attributed to an assessment of the ever-increasing potential of interethnic conflicts themselves.
August 2005
Conflict
Chechen settlers broke a monument at the grave of Eduard Kokmadzhiev, a Kalmyk conscript who died during the Chechen campaign. The vandals received suspended sentences. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the Kalmyk community demanded the eviction of all Chechens, which led to a series of brawls. During one of them, 24-year-old Kalmyk Nikolai Boldarev was shot dead.
Reaction
After the funeral of Boldarev, a spontaneous procession took place, in which up to a thousand people took part. Kalmyks from neighboring settlements began to come to the village. Six houses where Chechen families lived were burned down. To prevent unrest, special forces of the Federal Penitentiary Service, a company of internal troops and a company of marines were brought into Yandyki.
Effects
On the one hand, Kalmyk Anatoly Bagiev was sentenced to seven years for participation in pogroms and calls to disobey the authorities. On the other hand, 12 Chechen IDPs were convicted of hooliganism with the use of weapons.
Kondopoga, Republic of Karelia.
September 2006 of the year
Conflict
In the Chaika restaurant, local residents Sergei Mozgalev and Yuri Pliev quarreled with the waiter Mamedov, and then beat him. The waiter, an Azerbaijani by nationality, called for help Chechen acquaintances who "roofed" the restaurant. Those who didn't catch Mammadov's offenders started a fight with other visitors. Two people died from stab wounds.
Reaction
The fight led first to a rally, which was attended by about two thousand people, and then to pogroms. The locals demanded the eviction of the Caucasians, who allegedly regularly terrorized the indigenous townspeople. Alexander Potkin, head of the DPNI, arrived in the city. "The Seagull" was stoned and set on fire.
Effects
The heads of the republican prosecutor's office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB have been dismissed. Mozgalev was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison, Pliev - to 8 months. Six Chechens were also convicted, one of whom, Islam Magomadov, received 22 years for a double murder.
Sagra, Sverdlovsk region.
July 2011
Conflict
After the house of one of the residents of the village of Sagra was robbed, the suspicion of the villagers fell on the coven workers who worked for the local gypsy Sergei Krasnoperov. He was demanded to return the stolen goods and leave the village. He threatened that he would turn to his Azerbaijani acquaintances.
Reaction
A couple of days later, armed accomplices of Krasnoperov entered the village, who, however, were stopped by an ambush set ahead of time. One of the attackers was killed.
Effects
Initially, local law enforcement agencies tried to qualify the incident as a “drunken fight”, but soon, through the efforts of the City Without Drugs Foundation, the events in Sagra acquired an all-Russian resonance. The court sentenced six of the 23 participants in the attack to real terms - from one and a half to six years in prison.
Demyanovo, Kirov region.
June 2012 of the year
Conflict
Nukh Kuratmagomedov, the head of the Dagestan diaspora in the village of Demyanovo, did not allow local youth to rest in a cafe that belonged to him: the working day was over. The offended villagers beat two Dagestanis, including Kuratmagomedov's nephew. Then the merchant gathered fellow countrymen. During the mass brawl, the Dagestanis used traumatic weapons.
Reaction
To prevent a further escalation of events, reinforced police detachments were deployed in Dmyanovo. The governor of the region, Nikita Belykh, arrived in the village by helicopter, who, however, was asked questions not only about ethnic relations, but also about the sad state of the local hospital.
Effects
The head of the village and the head of the district resigned. The only defendant in the case of the mass conflict in Demyanov, Vladimir Burakov, received a year of probation for "hitting a police officer's shield."
Nevinnomyssk, Stavropol Territory
December 2012
Conflict
In the Zodiac club, a native of the village of Barsukovskaya, Nikolai Naumenko, had a fight with two Slavic girls. They came to the aid of a native of Urus-Martan Chechen Viskhan Akaev. During the "argument" Akayev stabbed his opponent. Naumenko died from blood loss.
Reaction
After what happened in Nevinnomyssk and other cities of the region, several protest actions were held under the general slogan: "Stavropol is not the Caucasus." Local nationalist leaders and metropolitan nationalists were noted in the actions.
Effects
Akaev was found with distant relatives in Grozny, arrested and taken to the Stavropol Territory.
