Ethnic conflicts over the past 5 years are examples. The most global conflicts. What is ethnic conflict

The various consequences of conflicts can be divided into external and internal, i.e. in accordance with their territorial localization.

External ones led to a kind of transfer to Russian territory of the consequences of clashes that were widespread throughout the world, and especially in the territory of the former USSR.

Here, researchers from the Center for Demography and Human Ecology (Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences) recorded the impact of five wars, which, in fact, were fought on a purely ethnic basis (Karabakh, Georgian-Abkhaz, Tajik, Georgian-South Ossetian, Transnistrian). On the territory of Russia, the Chechen and Ossetian-Ingush conflicts should be classified as ethnic. We will conditionally classify them as internal.

In addition to armed conflicts that have signs of interstate clashes, purely ethnic clashes are also recorded, where physical violence is also used, accompanied by explosions, pogroms, fights, house burnings, livestock theft, kidnappings (the so-called conflict of uncontrollable emotions).

Loss

That is why human losses should be highlighted as the first negative consequence. Experts believe that the number of dead and missing in the territory of the former Soviet Union could reach up to one million people. Of course, the lack of reliable sources of information usually leads to exaggerations. Thus, the Chechen side determined the losses Russian army for 1994-1996 100 thousand people. Some Russian politicians (D. Ragozin, G. Yavlinsky) are also inclined to a similar assessment, including the losses of the Chechens1. According to official data, losses federal troops amounted to 4.8 thousand people, separatists - 2-3 thousand. Direct losses of civilians 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 to be approximately the same.

Other more distant, but no less severe, losses are the increasing number of cases of families refusing to have children, especially in conflict zones and in the territories where these families have moved, and a decline in the quality of life.

Migration

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 mass arrivals 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 release 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

The migration increase of the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia was especially noticeable. 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 place in the migration balance on the territory of the Russian republics were Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz (6 thousand people), and the third place is occupied by Kazakhs (approximately 2 thousand people). At the same time, despite the smaller volumes of influx, migrants from the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are more likely to settle in the national republics of Russia than the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia. For 1994-1996 in the republics of Russia, respectively, 21 and 28% of migrants of the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan were concentrated1.

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-abundant 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 was 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 are actively migrating to the region, hoping with the help of relatives to gain a permanent place of residence here. In a region with a labor surplus population and a housing shortage, and in rural areas in the context of land privatization, this gives rise to social tensions that quickly become interethnic in nature.

The usual appearance of non-Slav refugees from areas between national 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 area of residents of Central Asia, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus oriented towards higher incomes than those of Rostovites led to a shortage of housing, rising food prices, overloading the socio-cultural infrastructure, first of all, 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. Most of them are concentrated in retail establishments (kebabs, beer bars, small trading stalls). There are many Caucasians among garage managers and drivers, construction foremen and owners of intermediary enterprises. Experts note that in these areas the competition between migrants from Central Asia and Caucasians is higher than between migrants and native Rostovites.

In conditions of a general economic crisis and impoverishment of the population, the purchase and export of relatively cheap locally produced products, “ruble intervention,” and the activities of shadow economic structures built on the planned principle, which serve as a significant factor in interethnic tension, are flourishing.

A tough position towards this group of migrants is taken by Cossack organizations, which occasionally demonstrate force, oppose representatives of certain nationalities, and act under the slogans of “illegal” protection of the indigenous population.

Using the low legal culture of the people, the Cossacks act as organizers of population gatherings, at which demands are made for the eviction of persons of certain nationalities from the village (district, city, region). Violation of the equality of citizens based on 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 derogatory labels, the implementation of the principle “ collective responsibility"and others1.

In order to prevent the aggravation of interethnic tensions, in August 1994, the Legislative Assembly of the Rostov Region adopted the Law “On Measures to Strengthen Control over Migration Processes in the Rostov Region,” which tightened the registration regime. However, some researchers (L. Khoperskaya) believe that it is necessary to take a differentiated approach to different categories of migrants, i.e. provide assistance to those entrepreneurs who pay not only for registration, but also for the infrastructure they use. As for administrative bans, their effectiveness seems 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 crime, but also in interethnic tension2.

Internal ethnic migration (republics of the Russian Federation) in 1994-1996. is 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), and 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 development interethnic relations, associated with the fact that ethnic communities inevitably begin to compete in the areas of employment, residence and communication. Against the backdrop of unfavorable economic conditions and 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 come to a new place develop a negative and sometimes hostile attitude towards the new environment.

There are well-known disagreements in assessing the consequences of migration. Some researchers believe that any expansion of interethnic communication can in any case be considered 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 leads to the optimal development of interethnic relations when it is based on voluntariness and is not accompanied by the emergence of socially competitive situations.

The first point of view is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bethnos as a rather static collection of unrelated or weakly connected families or individuals. Indeed, with this approach it turns out that the wider the contacts with representatives of other nations, the easier it is for people to 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 elements of their own culture. From this point of view, the expansion of interethnic contacts, if it can have any negative consequences, then only applies to individual individuals and does not in any way extend to the entire ethnic group or its layers. In the opposite concept, an ethnos is considered 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 disrupt this integrity leads to resistance. The latter intensifies when representatives of contacting national groups find themselves in competitive relationships over some vital values. Moreover, the activities of the system usually involve people who are not themselves included in competitive relations, and generally do not experience any particular inconvenience from external influences to ethnicity1.

With all the negative assessments of migration, one should not, apparently, reject the fact that migration shortens the distance between peoples; it constantly fosters mutual tolerance among all ethnic groups in contact.

The migration situation in the Russian Federation, in particular, its demographic consequences, is assessed by researchers as diametrically opposed.

Thus, Russian demographers L.L. Rybakovsky and O.D. Zakharov believe that intra-Russian interterritorial migrations remain the dominant component of the overall 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 basic trends in migration exchange that began to take shape in the early 90s. But they are gradually modified under the influence of changing social conditions. There is a decrease in the scale of resettlement within Russia and a change in their geographical structure. By the mid-90s. In interregional migrations, a new general direction of population exchange has already fully formed - its redistribution from areas of new development to old ones, mainly to the European regions of the country. These changes were especially harmful for the eastern and northern territories. There is a destruction of the demographic and labor potential that was 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 main one in terms of its consequences and severity of problems is the migration exchange of population between Russia and the new abroad. 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 foreign countries than returned. During these same years, Russia accepted over 600 thousand refugees. Its population grew by almost 3 million people precisely due to migrants and refugees from the new foreign countries. Of this number, 2.2 million are Russians. In turn, the Russian population in the new foreign countries decreased to 23 million people.

In the migration exchange between Russia and new foreign countries, 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 share 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 unchanged high level; 3) opposite trends are observed in the migration activity of representatives of the titular nationalities of the former union republics. The scale of their departure from Russia is decreasing in parallel with the decrease in their arrival.

A new destructive phenomenon for Russia in the post-perestroika period was the increase in the scale of emigration. Now tens of thousands of citizens are emigrating from Russia. Their total number for 1989-1994 exceeded 600 thousand people. Among the emigrants there are mainly Germans, Jews, and Russians. They are sent predominantly (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, labor skills, and production experience are exported.

Researchers recognize 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, and 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 septic tank and a transit point for immigration. The most important consequences of the immigration to Russia of hundreds of thousands of citizens of old and now new foreign countries are the following: 1) the creation of conditions for the penetration of new ethnic diasporas, their settlement, and their purchase of 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, predominantly of poorly educated and unskilled populations, worsens its labor potential and increases labor pressure low quality to the labor market; 3) immigration, primarily illegal, is associated with an increase in the crime situation (expansion of drug trafficking facilities, smuggling, organized crime).

Firstly, as for external migrants, there is a possibility that many of our compatriots will return with the material and spiritual capital acquired in the West. We cannot exclude the assistance that they are now providing to their relatives who remain in their homeland.

Secondly, internal migrants often do work that native residents 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, despite all the negative consequences of this process, the simultaneous improvement of living conditions for the local population.

As we see, the consequences of migration are varied and ambiguous. It is premature to consider the situation related to ethnic migration catastrophic, which cannot be attributed to the assessment of the ever-increasing potential of interethnic conflicts themselves.

Examples of such events were given to many peoples at a very significant cost. The bloody world wars of the twentieth century will long be remembered in every corner of the globe. Modern society, it would seem, opposes any military actions and conflicts; its development is based on liberal ideas, healthy competition and world globalization. However, in reality everything is somewhat different. The number of conflicts on national and religious grounds is only increasing every year, and an increasing number of participants are involved in the cycle of such battles, which leads to a gradual expansion of the scale of the problem.

The discrepancy between national interests, territorial claims, negative perceptions of each other by the parties - all this creates interethnic conflicts.

Examples of such situations are covered in political news with enviable consistency.

It is a type of social conflict, which is based on many factors and contradictions, usually ethnosocial, political, national and state.

The causes of national conflicts, if we look at them in more detail, are in many ways very similar:

Fight for resources. The depletion and uneven distribution of natural resources that provide the most often leads to fueling disputes and strife.
Population growth in conditions of closed territory, uneven level of quality of life, mass forced
Terrorism as a phenomenon requiring tough measures and, as a consequence, escalation

Religious differences

The interethnic ones, which will be given below, relate primarily to the largest power of the twentieth century - the Soviet Union. Many contradictions arose between the union republics, especially in the Caucasus region. A similar situation persists after the former received components Soviet countries have sovereign status. Since the collapse of the USSR, more than one hundred and fifty different conflicts have been registered in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.

The presence of the disadvantaged within a sovereign country directly forms the basis of the concept of “interethnic conflicts,” examples of which are becoming more and more common. This is the Gagauz conflict in Moldova, the Abkhaz and Ossetian conflict in Georgia. Usually, with such contradictions, the population within the country is divided into indigenous and non-indigenous, which leads to an even sharper aggravation of the situation.

Examples of religious conflicts are no less common. The most striking of them is the fight against infidels in numerous Islamic countries and regions (Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc.). Similar conflicts are typical for the African continent; the fierce struggle between Muslim authorities and representatives of other faiths has claimed more than two million lives, and wars on the holy land between Muslims and Jews have lasted for decades.

The same sad list includes conflicts in Kosovo between Serbs and Albanians, and the struggle for the independence of Tibet.

August 2005

Conflict

Chechen migrants broke the monument on the grave of Eduard Kokmadzhiev, a Kalmyk conscript who died during the Chechen campaign. The vandals received suspended sentences. The Kalmyk community, dissatisfied with the verdict, demanded the eviction of all Chechens, which led to a series of fights. During one of them, 24-year-old Kalmyk Nikolai Boldarev was shot dead.

Reaction

After Boldarev’s funeral, a spontaneous procession took place, in which up to a thousand people took part. Kalmyks from neighboring countries began to come to the village settlements. Six houses in which Chechen families lived were burned. To prevent unrest, FSIN special forces, a company internal troops and a company of Marines.

Consequences

On the one hand, Kalmyk Anatoly Bagiev was sentenced to seven years for participation in pogroms and calls for disobedience to authorities. On the other hand, 12 Chechen migrants were convicted of hooliganism with the use of weapons.

Kondopoga, Republic of Karelia.

September 2006 year

Conflict

In the Chaika restaurant, local residents Sergei Mozgalev and Yuri Pliev quarreled with the waiter Mamedov, and then beat him up. The waiter, an Azerbaijani by nationality, called for help his Chechen acquaintances who were protecting the restaurant. Those, not finding Mamedov’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. Locals demanded the eviction of Caucasians, who allegedly regularly terrorized the indigenous townspeople. The head of the DPNI Alexander Potkin arrived in the city. “Chaika” was stoned and set on fire.

Consequences

The heads of the republican prosecutor's office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB were 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 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 shabashniks who worked for the local gypsy Sergei Krasnoperov. They demanded that he return the stolen goods and leave the village. He threatened that he would turn to his Azerbaijani acquaintances.

Reaction

A couple of days later, Krasnoperov’s armed accomplices entered the village, but they were stopped by an ambush set up ahead of time. One of the attackers was killed.

Consequences

Initially, local law enforcement agencies tried to classify the incident as a “drunken brawl,” 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 year

Conflict

The head of the Dagestani diaspora in the village of Demyanovo, Nukh Kuratmagomedov, did not allow local youth to rest in the cafe he owned: the working day was over. Offended villagers beat two Dagestanis, including Kuratmagomedov's nephew. Then the businessman gathered his fellow countrymen. During the mass brawl, the Dagestanis used traumatic weapons.

Reaction

To prevent further escalation of events, reinforced police detachments were deployed to Dmyanovo. The governor of the region, Nikita Belykh, arrived in the village by helicopter, who, however, was asked questions not only about national relations, but also about the sad state of the local hospital.

Consequences

The head of the village and the head of the district resigned. The only person accused in the case of the mass conflict in Demyanov, Vladimir Burakov, received a year’s probation for “hitting a policeman’s shield.”

Nevinnomyssk, Stavropol region

December 2012

Conflict

At the Zodiac club, Nikolai Naumenko, a native of the village of Barsukovskaya, had a fight with two Slavic girls. Chechen Viskhan Akayev, a native of Urus-Martan, came to their aid. During the “argument,” Akaev stabbed his opponent. Naumenko died from loss of blood.

Reaction

After the incident, several protests took place in Nevinnomyssk and other cities of the region under the common slogan: “The Stavropol region is not the Caucasus.” Local nationalist leaders and metropolitan nationalists took part in the actions.

Consequences

Akaev was discovered with distant relatives in Grozny, arrested and taken to the Stavropol region.

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 the serious problem of relationships 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.

Based on local conflicts Armed uprisings and wars arise, leading to the death of ordinary citizens.

What is it

Researchers of the problem of interethnic relations in defining conflicts between peoples converge on one general concept.

Interethnic conflicts are confrontation, rivalry, intense competition between people of different nationalities in the struggle for their interests, which are expressed in different demands.

In such situations, two sides collide, defending their point of view and trying to achieve their own goals. If both sides are equal, as a rule, they strive to reach an agreement and solve the problem peacefully.

But in most cases, in a conflict between peoples, there is a dominant side, superior in some respects, and an 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 pursues the goal of achieving a result by any means, then the conflict often escalates into an armed clash or war. If its goal is a peaceful resolution 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 superiority and expansion of business interests; extending beyond the borders of one state;
geographical unconformity on establishing the boundaries of settlement of different peoples;
political forms of behavior authorities;
cultural and linguistic claims peoples;
historical past, in which there were contradictions in relations between peoples;
ethnodemographic(numerical superiority of one nation over another);
fight for natural resources and the possibility of using them for the consumption of 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 confrontation between ordinary people.

Stages

Any conflict between peoples goes through the following stages:

Origin, the emergence of a situation. It can be hidden and invisible to the average person.
Pre-conflict, preparatory stage, during which the parties assess their strengths and capabilities, material and information resources, look for allies, outline ways to solve the problem in their favor, develop a scenario of real and possible actions.
Initialization, the event is the reason for the beginning of a conflict of interests.
Development conflict.
Peak, a critical, culminating stage, at which the most acute moment in the development of relations between peoples occurs. This point of conflict may contribute to further developments.
Permission conflict can be different:

elimination of causes and extinction of contradictions;
making a compromise decision, agreement;
deadlock;
armed conflict, terror.

Species

There are different types interethnic conflicts, which are determined by the nature of mutual claims of ethnic groups:

State-legal: the nation’s desire for independence, self-determination, and its own statehood. Examples - Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ireland.
Ethnoterritorial: determination of 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. Currently, relations between indigenous people and representatives of Muslim peoples are becoming strained in Europe.

What is the danger: consequences

Any ethnic conflict arising on the territory of one state or covering different countries, dangerous. It threatens peace, the democracy of society, and violates the principles of universal freedom of citizens and their rights. Where weapons are used, such a conflict entails mass deaths of civilians, destruction of houses, villages and cities.

The consequences of ethnic hatred can be seen throughout to 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; they remain orphans and grow up to be physically and mentally crippled.

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 resulting contradictions between individual peoples at the initial stage. For this statesmen and people in power must regulate interethnic relations and suppress attempts by some nationalities to discriminate against others, characterized by smaller numbers.

The most effective way to prevent all kinds of conflicts is through unity and mutual understanding. When one people 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

There have been, are and will be interethnic problems. Speaking on this topic, it makes sense to talk only about the degree of intensity of ethnic conflicts, about marker nations and, perhaps, about the reasons that cause them. The myth of the Soviet “friendship of peoples” was dispelled, and the bitterness of its disappearance was intensified by anti-Russian sentiments in the 90s, in the former republics of the USSR that broke away from it and embarked on an independent life. Of particular interest is the fact that not all nations out of 190 existing in Russia are associated with interethnic conflicts.

Marker peoples

About 190 peoples live in Russia and based on this figure we can safely say that Russian Federation is a multinational state. All of them are in close and contradictory interaction with each other, at the same time complementing and influencing one another. But not all of them are in the “interethnic conflict” theme, that is, in a phase, to one degree or another, of hostility among themselves. The main outline of the problems is the tension between the Russians and the “others.”

Analysis of all materials covering the problems of ethnic conflicts and phenomena related to them allows highlight just five(!) nations, about which we can say that they have stable problems with the Russians, and Russia in general.
These are the peoples-markers of the theme “interethnic conflict”:

Armenians

And indeed: Russians have no problems with the Tatars, the Buryats, the Khakass, the Udmurts, the Circassians, the Kabardians, the Chuvash, the Jews, the Germans, the Serbs, the Moldovans, the Yakuts, the Khanty, the Kalmyks, etc. .d. It is extremely difficult to find constantly updated negative conflict statistics among these peoples, but the “five leaders” indicated above are constantly present there and with enviable consistency gives reasons for plots from crime reports.

Russians have no problems with the Tatars, Circassians, Buryats, Khakassians and Chuvashs

That shooting weddings, then the demonstration of national flags is out of place, then the murder of Russians, then anti-state terrorism, then demarches associated with local residence, then medieval habits in matters of cohabitation, then religious clashes. And, finally, ethnobanditry.

I would like to note the fact that the sore word "", which, by the way, is almost synonymous with the words “conflict, fight, showdown, banditry, murder, humiliation,” is not entirely unambiguously associated with the inhabitants of the Caucasus. Steadily, immediately and first, in a series of negative associations with the word “Caucasian”, there will undoubtedly be Chechens and Dagestanis. The fact that, for example, Ingush, Circassians and Ossetians fall under this concept does not immediately come to mind, I have to start remembering. It turns out that not everyone is entirely negative characters. It turns out that among the mountain peoples there are “normal” and “abnormal”.

Moreover, even an interfaith or religious topic is not a 100% identifier of a potential conflict.

It turns out that the overwhelming majority of peoples living in Russia and neighboring Russians are quite easygoing and they know how (want?) to live in a friendly manner, but there are those who frankly do not know how (do not want?) to live “here and now” like normal neighbors. What are the reasons for the exclusivity of the “conflict five”? After all, they undoubtedly exist!

Causes of tension

The basis of social exclusion and conflict is everyday demeanor. To be more straightforward - undisguised contempt for the Russians and their way of life, which is demonstrated by representatives of the marker nations. Moreover, the “level of civilization” or “degree of cultivation” of a particular people is not the reason for such contempt. Eat something subtler and more elusive, which serves as such a reason. It can be assumed that the root cause is temperament, but this is not so because an impetuous nature is also inherent in other peoples, but, nevertheless, this is not the starting point for quarrels for them.

The level of “civilization” of a people does not affect its conflict potential

Most likely, the basis for contempt is a certain “superiority” over the Russians. This superiority goes back to the dashing nineties, during the collapse of the USSR, when Russians were persecuted with impunity from many former republics. The formation of new national elites allowed the latter to gain political and economic points for themselves by pitting their fellow tribesmen against “these Russians.” Of course, our Western partners did not fail to add fuel to the fire by openly supporting the total Russophobia and consistent defamation of Russians.

The devastation in the state led to repeated impunity in interethnic problems - those who were not constrained by moral standards and who did not have problems with the use of gang violence won. As a result, over a long period of time, some peoples self-image of “tough guys” was formed, who are knee-deep in the sea. Representatives of marker nations are accustomed to the fact that they are tougher and untouchable, that pushing, squeezing and humiliating is part of their lifestyle and their sovereign right. Self-admiration of their coolness and ethnic narcissism deprives Chechens, Dagestanis, Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians of the ability to assess the situation adequately. They liked it gangster lifestyle, flaunt caste and the availability of money. The word “bandit” and “protection racket” have practically become common with Chechens, Dagestanis, Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians.

Militancy and aggressiveness are not virtues, they are stones in the boot

The picture of interethnic problems would be incomplete if we did not mention the reasons for dissatisfaction with something and someone among the Russians themselves.

Everything is simpler and more clear here. Russians are irritated by the influence of prominent representatives of these five nations on their lives. Namely: the ethnicity of many areas of business, especially wholesale trade, show business and mass media, as well as the presence of representatives of these peoples in key positions. It seems very strange to Russians: Why, suddenly, all trade in vegetables and fruits “belongs” to Azerbaijanis and Armenians; why the entertainment industry is “under” the Chechens and Dagestanis; why “settlement” is necessarily connected with the “Caucasus”, etc. Add to this the outright Russophobia of the newly formed states and the picture becomes completely complete.

Russians are annoyed by the influence of powerful non-Russians on their lives

It turns out this way - not only do the marker nations “get fat without straining too much,” they also swagger over those from whom they cut money! It is also important that all these peoples became part of Russia later than many others, which means they did less for Russia than others and suffered less for it, but they have more than others. Unfair!

Ethnic diasporas, communities and communities make a significant contribution to hostility on the part of Russians. This kind of “social conglomerates” is a state within a state, which allows the people who comprise them to be above everyone else. To be outside the laws existing for the bulk of citizens of the Russian Federation. Diasporas, when the Russians "flapping their ears", grabbed satisfying and unburdensome economic and political pieces for themselves, created social and civil enclaves and kept others in a dependent position. Impunity and influence of national diasporas are the most persistent breeding ground for conflicts, in whose depths an anti-Russian streak is being formed and implemented marker nations, it is in them that people develop confidence in their superiority.

Degree of heat

Now it’s 2015 and, thank God, the level of intensity of interethnic problems is several times less compared to the stage of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, the degree of interethnic confrontation has greatly decreased due to civil war in Ukraine and the political-economic confrontation with the collective West, but the ember of tension is smoldering. In order to fill it as much as possible, representatives of the marker nations should look around them and think " How do other peoples and ethnic groups of Russia manage to be non-conflict and harmonious?"