为什么俄罗斯联邦没有在1991年解体?

B. N. Mironov
{"title":"为什么俄罗斯联邦没有在1991年解体?","authors":"B. N. Mironov","doi":"10.21638/spbu24.2023.310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Parade of the sovereignties of the autonomous republics in 1990–1991 led to the disintegration of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and brought the Russian Federation to the brink of collapse. The main centers of separatism in the Russian Federation were Chechnya and Dagestan, but separatist sentiments and movements were widespread in Ingushetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia and Buryatia. In the 1990s from 31 to 75 points of ethno-territorial tensions in Russia were recorded. Researchers expresses different points of view on the reasons for the development of nationalism in the autonomous republics. According to one of them, in the republics, under the influence of Moscow’s national policy, ambitious national elites were formed, which became the driving force behind the development of separatism. In this article, this point of view is tested on the data of the all-Union population censuses of 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989. The analysis of the national composition of the governing bodies in 1917–1989 allows us to propose the following periodization of the process of indigenization of management in autonomies: 1) 1917–1939 — intensive increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and national minorities in general and negative discrimination against Russians, 2) 1940–1956 — democratic alignment of ethnic statuses, 3) 1956–1989 — moderate increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and non-Russian ethnic groups in general and negative discrimination against Russians. Increasing the representativeness and role of non-Russian ethnic groups and the decline in the representativeness and role of Russians in the administration of autonomies were the main trends in the Soviet period.","PeriodicalId":53957,"journal":{"name":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Hadn’t the Russian Federation Collapse in 1991?\",\"authors\":\"B. N. Mironov\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu24.2023.310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Parade of the sovereignties of the autonomous republics in 1990–1991 led to the disintegration of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and brought the Russian Federation to the brink of collapse. The main centers of separatism in the Russian Federation were Chechnya and Dagestan, but separatist sentiments and movements were widespread in Ingushetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia and Buryatia. In the 1990s from 31 to 75 points of ethno-territorial tensions in Russia were recorded. Researchers expresses different points of view on the reasons for the development of nationalism in the autonomous republics. According to one of them, in the republics, under the influence of Moscow’s national policy, ambitious national elites were formed, which became the driving force behind the development of separatism. In this article, this point of view is tested on the data of the all-Union population censuses of 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989. The analysis of the national composition of the governing bodies in 1917–1989 allows us to propose the following periodization of the process of indigenization of management in autonomies: 1) 1917–1939 — intensive increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and national minorities in general and negative discrimination against Russians, 2) 1940–1956 — democratic alignment of ethnic statuses, 3) 1956–1989 — moderate increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and non-Russian ethnic groups in general and negative discrimination against Russians. Increasing the representativeness and role of non-Russian ethnic groups and the decline in the representativeness and role of Russians in the administration of autonomies were the main trends in the Soviet period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1990-1991年各自治共和国主权的更迭导致阿塞拜疆、亚美尼亚、格鲁吉亚和摩尔多瓦的解体,并使俄罗斯联邦濒临崩溃的边缘。俄罗斯联邦分裂主义的主要中心是车臣和达吉斯坦,但分离主义情绪和运动在印古什、图瓦、鞑靼斯坦、巴什科尔托斯坦、雅库特和布里亚特广泛存在。在20世纪90年代,俄罗斯有31到75个民族领土紧张的记录。对于民族主义在自治共和国发展的原因,研究者们表达了不同的观点。其中一种观点认为,在各共和国,在莫斯科国家政策的影响下,形成了野心勃勃的民族精英,成为分裂主义发展的推动力。本文用1926年、1939年、1959年、1970年、1979年和1989年的全国人口普查数据对这一观点进行了检验。对1917-1989年管理机构的民族组成的分析使我们能够提出以下自治管理本土化进程的分期:1) 1917-1939年-名义民族和少数民族的民族政治地位普遍提高,对俄罗斯人的负面歧视;2)1940-1956年-民族地位的民主调整;3)1956-1989年-名义民族和非俄罗斯民族的民族政治地位普遍适度提高,对俄罗斯人的负面歧视。提高非俄罗斯族的代表性和作用,降低俄罗斯族在自治管理中的代表性和作用,是苏联时期的主要趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why Hadn’t the Russian Federation Collapse in 1991?
Parade of the sovereignties of the autonomous republics in 1990–1991 led to the disintegration of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and brought the Russian Federation to the brink of collapse. The main centers of separatism in the Russian Federation were Chechnya and Dagestan, but separatist sentiments and movements were widespread in Ingushetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia and Buryatia. In the 1990s from 31 to 75 points of ethno-territorial tensions in Russia were recorded. Researchers expresses different points of view on the reasons for the development of nationalism in the autonomous republics. According to one of them, in the republics, under the influence of Moscow’s national policy, ambitious national elites were formed, which became the driving force behind the development of separatism. In this article, this point of view is tested on the data of the all-Union population censuses of 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989. The analysis of the national composition of the governing bodies in 1917–1989 allows us to propose the following periodization of the process of indigenization of management in autonomies: 1) 1917–1939 — intensive increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and national minorities in general and negative discrimination against Russians, 2) 1940–1956 — democratic alignment of ethnic statuses, 3) 1956–1989 — moderate increase in the ethno-political status of the titular peoples and non-Russian ethnic groups in general and negative discrimination against Russians. Increasing the representativeness and role of non-Russian ethnic groups and the decline in the representativeness and role of Russians in the administration of autonomies were the main trends in the Soviet period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Departmental Resettlements of Special Settlers during the Great Patriotic War: Mechanism of Realization and Significance (Based on the Materials of North-Western Siberia) Svalbard in the Strategy of the Great Powers During the Second World War (1939– 1945) Soviet Experience in Managing Evacuation Cargoes in 1941–1942: From Over-centralization to Local Initiative The Amur Expedition and the Committee for the Settlement of the Far East in the Agenda of the Russian Council of Ministers under P. A. Stolypin ‘“Sovexportfilm” as an Actor of Ideological Influence during the Cold War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1