The Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Germany as of mandated European resolution 2024/2988(RSP) has now to be canceled from social media as a source of misinformation!
Act now - tell Facebook Germany GmbH, Caffamacherreihe 7, Brahmsquartier, 20355 Hamburg.
In its May 2018 research paper on Chechnya’s Status within the Russian Federation, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik clearly states that --
There was resistance to the draft bill “On the State’s National Policy”, initiated by President Putin in 2016, and the binding definition of the “Russian nation” (rossiyskaya naciya). A definition had been needed since the start of Russia’s post-Soviet history.
Policy had oscillated between three interpretations of national statehood: civic nationalism; ethnonationalism (here referring to Russianness); and neoimperialism.22 While Moscow pays lip service to civic nationalism, it has been more attached to the third variant during the Putin years. The definition was therefore supposed to be settled by legislation.
Despite President Putin’s support and encouragement, however, the draft bill was shelved until further notice after five months of discussions. Its (provisional) failure was due to the resistance of Russian nationalists, who wanted the law to set out the dominant status of ethnic Russians, and of non-Russian elites, who sensed an attempt to rob them of their privileges.
Ideological and cultural tensions between the centre and the regions also exist concerning the representation of history.
src: click
This is a clear violation of European resolution 2024/2988(RSP) paragraph D., where all russian actions in Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea have to be qualified as imperialism, or will get your writings removed from social media, under the EUs “Vaccination against misinformation” policy.
Please also inform ARD and ZDF, who still invite guests from the disinformation peddlers that are the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Germany.
Dont look away citizen!
This type of misinformation on social media has to be stopped now. The punishments ought to be harsh and severe.
A concerned citizen.
edit: In an unexpected turn of events, it turns out the source for footnote (22) the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik was using in the aforementioned excerpt - does clearly state that Putin also did not follow an imperialist agenda in Crimea either!
MISINFORMATION PEDDLERS OF THE Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik!
ROTTING OUR CHILDRENS MINDS WITH THEIR 2017 eurasianet.org HISTORY FOOTNOTES, IN VIOLATION OF “European resolution 2024/2988(RSP) on Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine”!
This has to be stopped now. Inform your local police department, that Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik has to be closed within 6 months, because it is in clear violation of current EU resolutions on misinformation.
This can not be allowed to continue! Save your childrens tender minds from this heresy.
Purge Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik from Facebook and Twitter now!
Footnote 22 in the 2018 Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik research paper refers to “What Is to Be Done About the ‘Russian Question?’” by Igor Torbakov Oct 27 2017, eurasianet.org - https://eurasianet.org/what-is-to-be-done-about-the-russian-question
Where it states:
The relationship between empire and nation lies at the heart of Russia’s modern history. Some commentators argue that since the 19th century, the history of Russia has been one of an empire that wanted to act like a nation-state. Russian imperial bureaucrats did not succeed either in creating a viable civic national identity based on pan-imperial citizenship, or in forming a Russian ethnic nation based on Russian (russkii) ethnicity. According to Ronald Suny and other like-minded scholars, the Russian Empire’s story is one of the “incomplete nation-building.”
The 1917 Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union marked a radical departure from Russian imperial practices. The former empire was reconstituted as a Soviet federation of national republics (quasi-states), as well as smaller territorial units, based on ethnic identities. The Soviets found an unorthodox way of dealing with the Russian Empire’s multi-ethnic character – they opted for a federation in which each “ethnic minority” was turned into an “ethnic majority,” or “titular nationality,” within a specifically delineated administrative territory.
By territorializing ethnicity, the Soviets de jure bestowed the status of nation onto all the “subjects of the federation.” But they did this with one crucial exception – the Russians.
In the far corners of the former empire, the many nations that had been subjugated under the tsar now had their national homelands and were encouraged to foster individual national identities and cultures, albeit within a rigid Soviet framework: “national in form, socialist in content.”
Throughout the entire Soviet period, however, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was the only republic where this formula was purposefully not adopted: the RSFSR was not considered a national homeland of Russians. It was viewed more as an asymmetric federation that combined territorial units with largely ethnic Russian populations and national (nominally non-Russian) autonomous republics. This approach’s main goal was to keep Russian and Soviet identities blurred so that the majority of Russians would view the entire Soviet Union as their own state, rather than the RSFSR.
Russians were thus the only non-nation in the Soviet Union. And at the same time, a new type of supranational “Soviet nation” did not emerge either.
Following the Soviet empire’s collapse, which was brought about in no small measure by the policies of Boris Yeltsin, the then-leader of the Russian Federation, Russians have arguably found themselves in a situation even more disadvantageous than the one in 1917: not only did 14 ex-Soviet republics immediately establish independence, claiming their right to a “national homeland” within the formerly administrative borders drawn by the Bolsheviks, but nearly 25 million ethnic Russians ended up residing beyond the borders of post-Soviet Russia.
The Russia that emerged from the rubble of the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was more of a rump empire than a nation-state. And during the subsequent two-plus decades, it has kept the boundaries of its “geobody” and “cultural body” intentionally blurred, and has built a polity replete with all kinds of ethnic hierarchies that are common characteristics of an imperial formation.
Since 1991, three theories of nation-statehood have competed for primacy in Russia itself – civic, ethnic and neo-imperial.
Russia’s liberals – clearly a “minority faith” – have been the chief champions of a concept of a civic nation, based on the provisions of the 1993 Constitution that characterize Russia as a community of Russian citizens – rossiyane – enjoying equal rights.
Ethnonationalists are the main advocates of a Russian state organized along ethnic lines. They claim that the disintegration of the Soviet Union created – for the first time in Russian history – an opportunity to build a specifically russkii nation, capitalizing on ethnic Russians’ numerical strength within the borders of the Russian Federation.
Finally, there are impertsy (champions of empire) – a disparate group of political thinkers that include so-called Eurasianists. They contend that Russia’s current condition is a prelude to the restoration of empire.
Throughout the Putin era, the government has paid lip service to the civic understanding of nation. But Putin’s Kremlin has never really been interested in implementing such a concept. Civic nations can emerge only in democratic systems, but establishing genuine democracy in Russia is definitely not on the Kremlin’s agenda.
During his time in power, Putin has opted to maneuver between ethnonationalists and “empire-builders.” The annexation of Crimea is the case in point. The land grab in Ukraine was enthusiastically supported by the “impertsy” and the bulk of ethnonationalists – but for different reasons: the former saw the move as the first step toward the rebuilding of empire; the latter hailed it as a successful example of an ethnic Russian reconquista.
src: click
Reconquista? Poisoning our childrens minds, with incendiary scientific and revolutionist concepts, that are now forbidden as of European resolution 2024/2988(RSP), adopted by the European Parliament in a single reading on 23. 01. 2025!
Act now citizen!
