Exceedingly informative – Ethnicity, Poverty and Russian Areas, Kamil Galeev (sadly on twitter)
On this lengthy thread, Galeev talks in regards to the incentive for the Russian identification to homogenize Russian ethnic/cultural identification, and likewise to take care of areas in poverty. He says that his area (Tartarstan) post-Soviet had native aristocracy take over, which meant the wealth skimming remained native, whereas different areas had Moscow homeowners who pumped the cash out-of-region, to Moscow and Europe.
Case of Tatarstan could be very illustrative. Individuals see ethnic steadiness as primordial. That’s not essentially true. Ethnic steadiness relies upon upon ethnic hierarchy. And ethnic hierarchy will be renegotiated by as little as having a well-run metropolis amidst the post-Soviet desert
One main consequence was the renegotiation of ethnic hierarchy. Till 1989 Russian neighborhood was indisputably dominant and the Tatar one definitely inferior one. After 1991 this steadiness began to crumble As soon as Tatarstan received richer neighbours began taking a look at them up, that’s it
When he was rising up, the census takers would write down everybody as russian. Put up Soviet, Tatarstan was doing higher than different areas due to with local-landlordism, so individuals had been prepared to be labeled Tatar, and that is the fracture level for regional breakup potential. Moscow can’t allow any area or metropolis to turn into profitable or else that turns into a
Additionally, Galeev thinks that that the Russian “loyal opposition” in Moscow (e.g. Navalny) is a part of the ruling class, and subsequently any change would merely substitute one tsar (or mafia overlord) with one other. All roads result in Moscow, privilege and energy.
In different phrases he sees Russia as a colonial empire.