Rashism is The Ideology of Today’s Russian Regime

Over the years of the war with Russia, the word “Rashism” has become firmly established in Ukrainian usage, although some political scientists regard it as a vague and unscientific notion. However, Ukrainians clearly understand what rashism is and how it differs from other forms of fascism. On May 2, 2023, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a definition of the term “rashism,” enumerating its main characteristics. This definition is descriptive in nature, and has therefore become the subject of another article by Nikolai Karpitsky for PostPravda.Info’s Dictionary of War.

Rashism

Rashism is a modern form of Russian fascism, an ideology of violently suppressing or destroying other cultural and national identities in order to expand the sphere of Russian identity’s dominance.

The term “rashism” (from “Russian” and “fascism”) is used to denote a form of fascism that shares features with its historical manifestations – Italian fascism, German National Socialism (Nazism), and others. The ideology of rashism developed from the tradition of Russian chauvinism, which has historically had an imperial character.

Within rashist ideology, a special place is reserved for Ukraine. Rashists claim that Ukrainians and Russians are one people. Ukrainian identity is tolerated only as a provincial variant of Russian identity, while those Ukrainians who refuse to accept Russian identity as the sole valid one for themselves are treated as enemies. Whereas Hitler’s Nazism defined an enemy on the basis of race, rashism defines one on the basis of identity. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is justified by the supposed necessity of “bringing Ukraine back” and eradicating Ukrainian identity as an independent identity.

Rashism and Russian Chauvinism

Russian chauvinism has accompanied Russia’s development for centuries, manifesting both at the state level and in everyday life. At the level of state ideology, Russian chauvinism has taken various forms, from the concept of “Moscow, the Third Rome,” to the idea of communism, used to justify dictatorship, and up to the current concept of the “Russian world.” Yet its essence remained the same: the justification of military and political expansion, and the imposition of a single ideology in matters of culture, language, history, and religion.

In everyday life, Russian chauvinism manifests itself in the belief that territories once conquered by Russia – such as Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Yakutia – automatically become an “integral part” of Russia. Residents of these regions are deprived of political subject status, including the right to self-determination. They are expected to adapt to the dominant Russian culture, speak Russian, and conform to the everyday norms familiar to Russians.

Meanwhile, Russians who move to these regions are not required to respect local languages and traditions. This attitude is evident in the so-called national republics within Russia, where even in major cities such as Kazan, landlords often openly state that they rent housing only to Russians. This discriminatory practice is treated as normal.

This trend was enshrined in law in August 2018, when the Law on Education was amended to remove the national languages of the republics from the list of compulsory school subjects. However, even before that, school remained the main tool for imposing the imperial version of Russian history on all the peoples of Russia.

The turning point that marked the transformation of Russian chauvinism into a fully fledged ideology of rashism came in 2014, with the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of war in Donbas. It was then that Russian propaganda began actively employing chauvinist narratives to justify military aggression and terror against the Ukrainian people. Rashism is no longer merely cultural or political arrogance, but an ideological justification of war and of war crimes committed in the name of eradicating another national identity. Even someone who does not openly support aggression but propagates narratives that justify its aims – such as the idea of a “single people” or the mission of the “Russian world” – can also be regarded as an adherent of rashist ideology.

Rashist Ideology

Rashism is an imperial ideology built on the image of an enemy, mythologised history, and the concept of Russia’s special mission to expand the so-called “Russian world.” In the rashist worldview, the modern world is a battlefield between the “soulless” West and “spiritual” Russia.

In this discourse, Ukrainian identity is regarded as unnatural, supposedly imposed by the West to weaken Russia. By this logic, Russia “must” reclaim Ukraine by force, and Ukrainians who reject Russian identity are to be regarded as traitors and enemies.

In rashism, the ideological constructs of “Russian culture” and “Orthodoxy” substitute for both genuine culture and genuine religiosity. This artificial construct borrows elements from both the Soviet and the Tsarist eras, creating a self-contradictory system, yet rashists themselves generally fail to recognise these contradictions.

Rashists and Their Stance

Supporters of rashism largely back Putin’s regime, as they see it as an instrument in the struggle against Ukrainian identity. At the same time, they may express dissatisfaction with the government in other areas, such as corruption, social policy, or economic management. Within the rashist camp there is also a radical wing that opposes Putin, believing him not decisive or harsh enough in the struggle against Ukraine.

In Ukrainian public consciousness, a distinction is drawn between ideological rashists and those who support rashism passively and unthinkingly, without firm conviction. The first category includes rashists in the strict sense of the word – people who knowingly justify Russia’s aggression. The second category includes the “vatniki” – ordinary people who avoid responsibility for moral choices and are inclined toward relativism: “not everything is so clear-cut,” “everyone is guilty in the conflict,” “only God knows the truth,” and so on. A separate category is made up of the “orcs”. These are criminals who joined the army for material gain or to avoid criminal punishment. Their motivation is not ideological: they commit war crimes driven by personal cruelty and a sense of impunity.

What rashists, vatniki, and orcs have in common is a lack of empathy for the victims of aggression and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their country’s actions.

Rashism and Necro-Imperialism

If rashism represents the ideological stance of the Russian authorities, then necro-imperialism describes the actual state of Russian public consciousness and the political system. The difference is like that between communism as an ideology and Stalinism as actual practice: while the ideologically justified goal was the struggle against “class enemies,” in reality Stalinism manifested itself in mass denunciations and the repression of innocent people. Accordingly, if rashism denotes the ideology of expanding the “Russian world,” necro-imperialism describes, on the one hand, the authorities’ treatment of the population as a resource to be expended in pursuit of their goals, and, on the other, the people’s own willingness to accept such a role – evident in their readiness to die pointlessly on the front lines in Ukraine.

The ruling clique in Russia, made up largely of former security service operatives, is not bound to any particular ideology. Their attitude toward ideological constructs is purely instrumental: these constructs are used only insofar as they help maintain power. This cynicism was inherited from the Soviet security services. However, shifts in ideology according to political conditions do not alter the worldview underlying necro-imperialism.

Thus, rashism is an ideological conceptualisation of the fear of the world’s complexity and the drive to destroy everything that cannot be dominated, while necro-imperialism is the manifestation of this drive in social consciousness and the political system.

Legal Definition of Rashism

On May 2, 2023, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Resolution “On the use of the ideology of rashism by the political regime of the Russian Federation, and on the condemnation of the principles and practices of rashism as totalitarian and misanthropic” (No. 3078-IX).

In its statement, the Verkhovna Rada defines rashism as “a new variety of totalitarian ideology and practices that underlie the regime formed in the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin, based on the traditions of Russian chauvinism and imperialism, the practices of the Soviet communist regime, and National Socialism (Nazism); … the characteristic features and consequences of rashism are:

– systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

– cult of power and militarism;

– a cult of personality around the leader at the top of the power vertical, and the sacralisation of state institutions;

– the self-glorification of Russia and Russians through the violent suppression and/or denial of the existence of other peoples;

– the use of practices aimed at spreading the Russian language and culture, the Russian Orthodox Church, the media, political and civic institutions, and the promotion of the ideas of the “Russian world” among other peoples, in order to implement expansionist state policy;

– systematic violation of universally recognised principles and norms of international law, including respect for the sovereignty of other states, their territorial integrity and internationally recognised borders, and failure to observe the principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force;

– the creation, financing, and armed support of unlawful armed groups and separatist movements on the territory of other sovereign states, and the creation and support of terrorist organisations;

the use of prohibited methods of warfare and the systematic commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity;

– the systematic organisation and perpetration of mass killings, executions, torture, deportations, the creation of artificial conditions leading to famine, other forms of mass physical terror, genocide, and persecution on ethnic, national, religious, political, or other grounds;

– the systematic use of economic and energy coercion against other states;

– regular threats to use nuclear weapons against other states and to cause technological (man-made) disasters.”

Hot this week

Ukraine’s soldiers seek revenge against Putin’s forces in Kursk: ‘We laughed digging trenches on enemy soil’

From crippling bridges bringing supplies to Russia’s troops to defending the territory they have snatched in daring raids, soldiers resting in Ukraine’s border Sumy region tell Askold Krushelnycky they want to push on.

Propaganda surrounding the assassination attempt on Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico

After the assassination attempt on Robert Fico, the propaganda inherent in such cases was basically immediately launched. Wszelaka. We followed it through.

In Kursk, Putin is learning that historical revanchism cuts both ways [OPINION]

Ukrainians may decide to celebrate the liberation of their former capital. Historical revanchism cuts both ways.

The Kremlin fears that the West is trying to break Russia apart. If only! [OPINION]

Russia’s stony-faced foreign minister is getting paranoid. Sergei Lavrov believes that “at present, about 50 countries are trying to break up Russia.” The West is the Kremlin's worst enemy.

I’ve always dreamed of crossing the Russian border on a Ukrainian tank – now I’ve done it

In a career which has spanned four decades, journalist Askold Krushelnycky has seen first-hand the brutality of the Russian regime. This time he had a chance to cross the Russian border.

Life in Occupied Kherson: An Eyewitness Account. From the series “War in Human Life”

“Without documents, you’re just a piece of meat,” says Vitaly. “The gangster-ridden 1990s are like a fairy tale compared to this.” Kherson – 256 Days of occupation. An eyewitness account of terror, repression, protests, and the struggle for survival under Russian rule.

Nominations Are Underway for the Russian Platform at PACE. But Is the Russian Opposition a Political Agency?

Can a citizen of an aggressor state be a political agency if their entire country is working toward war? For now, we can speak only of the possibility of manifesting political agency – and only if that agency is directed toward achieving a military victory over the aggressor. Are the candidates currently being nominated to the Russian platform at PACE prepared for this?

Russian Myths about the Residents of Donbas. Why does Putin’s Empire need Lies?

The Russian imperial mindset reproduces aggressive myths about the residents of Donbas, which Kremlin propaganda has shaped into a holistic system of narratives used to justify the war against Ukraine. These narratives continue to circulate in the public consciousness even without the direct involvement of propaganda and are already influencing the decisions of people not only in Russia but also beyond its borders.

From the combat diary of a UAF medic: “I work with death here” [EPISODE 1]

The series titled “From the Combat Diary of a UAF Medic” consists of true stories from the trenches near Bakhmut, published on PostPravda.Info by Volodymyr Huliuk, a soldier of the 30th Brigade. This is the first episode—not the last.

The Ideological Concept of Russian Culture Amid the War: What Should We Do with It?

How should we relate to Russian culture today, from the perspective of the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine?

Gen. Krzysztof Nolbert for PostPravda.Info: Atlanticism — New Challenges, Same Values

Atlanticism and its new challenges involve reconciling the global economy, mutual influences and limitations with a globalized and often excessively interconnected system, all while taking into account the national interests of many states. What hopes and risks come with this?

What Is Identity and Why Do Russians See It Only as an Ideological Construct?

One of the mistakes made by the Russian authorities, who expected to gain the support of the local population after invading Ukraine, stems from their failure to understand Ukrainian identity and the fact that identity cannot be imposed as an ideological construct.

The Aggressive Political Myth of the Kremlin Is More Than Just Fake News and Disinformation

The aggressive political myth used to justify war – not only against Ukraine but against the entire Western civilization – penetrates much deeper into the public consciousness than Kremlin propaganda, disinformation, or fake news.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

spot_imgspot_img