Russians and ‘Rossiyane’: Why difference matters

When analysing Russia and its people, they often start by ignoring one detail. While in other languages, there is no separation between Russians as an ethnicity and citizens of Russia, as both are generally described with one term, the difference is notable when spoken in Russian. Russian as an ethnicity is represented by the common term ‘Russkiy,’ while the general citizen of Russia who does not necessarily have a Russian ethnic background is called ‘Rossiyanin.’ Creating a term acknowledging a difference would be a significant step in increasing the accuracy of analysis, far from when everything was called Russia, be it the Russian Tsardom, Russian Empire, or even the Soviet Union that did not have Russia or anything Russia-related in its name. It will be a reminder that being Russian as an ethnicity does not mean being part of the government and fully accepting it, especially since it is not a democracy. They are just the largest ethnic group in the territory of the Russian Federation.

The closest analogy to these terms would be the difference between the terms ‘English’ and ‘British.’ Yet, it is not a complete equivalent since the United Kingdom has separate territories considered lands for key ethnicities, such as Wales, Scotland, and England. The current Russian Federation has this structure with key ethnic minorities, with an example of Tatars having the Republic of Tatarstan and Yakuts having the Sakha Republic, while the rest of Russia is just districts, territories, federal cities, and autonomies.

History of the term ‘Rossiyanin’

Historically, the term ‘Rossiyanin’ started to appear in the early 16th century in the works of Greek-speaking monks. At that time, the Russian Orthodox Church was not fully independent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which meant that the Greek language was essential to the Russian Orthodox Church. With the prevalence of Greek speakers, Hellenisms were inevitable, and the Russian name Rus became Rossiya, followed by Rossiyanin. Until the 1917 Revolution, ‘Rossiyanin’ was defined as a civilian subject of the Russian Tsardom and later the Empire. During the Soviet period, Russian emigres used the term exclusively, as the Soviet Union had a new term and a new supranational project.

How and why the ‘New Soviet man’ became Rossiyanin instead of Russkiy

With the collapse of the Russian Empire and the establishment of the Soviet Union, which had plans for a new system that required a new type of nation and a new name. Soviet people was the new term to encompass the new citizens and their values, which should eventually include all of humanity. Russians, as the ethnicity located in the heartland of the Soviet Union, were the first and primary target of Sovietification that aimed to change personal identification from ethnic to supra-national identity. The closest analogy would be a theoretical attempt to promote European identity as the primary one among the citizens of Germany. This is why the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic did not have a separate Communist party, and the Soviet posters tended to portray ethnic Russians as the only people in non-ethnic clothes.

In the end, that process ultimately failed (with Yeltsin rallying the population, marking the end of promotion of a new primary identity. Now, the population that identified itself as ethnic Russian was around 80% and was uncertain towards the political question of whether Russia will finally try democracy or will continue authoritarianism but under a new flag, a return of a term Rossiyanin was a sign of a things to come. Reintroduced in the middle of the violent suppression of parliament and subjects of Russian Federation trying to determine how much sovereignty can they get, Rossiyanin was unpopular due to being too official, superficial, and enforced by the state that made choice not to do liberal democracy. Thus, the 19th century slogan ‘Russia for Russians’ still maintained its relevance, as the state in Russia still failed to provide the means to rule to the largest population group, and subsequently, to the rest of ethnicities, keeping the key power in the Kremlin. Thus, ‘Russia for Russians ‘as a slogan has remained relevant where ‘Deutschland uber Alles’ is not. Since the beginning of the 19th century, a united Germany was formed as a state, but the Russian people still cannot freely determine their fate through democratic means.

It is no secret that the current government of the Russian Federation has no intention of sharing power with the people of Russia and wants to control all narratives, suppressing anyone who might provide an alternative. Long before regular democratic organisations were deemed extremist and banned. The mechanism was tested on Russian nationalistic organisations, with many being banned without even having a chance for any action under the clause of ‘extremism.’ This process continues even after the state started to use parts of nationalism rhetorics, as demonstrated with the 2018 banning of an organisation called ‘Russians’ alongside their slogan of ‘Russian rule for Russia’. After all, the Kremlin needed a monopoly for a new assimilation plan, which was not too different from the prior Soviet attempt.

Rossiyanisation and why Putin gets away with it 

Nowadays, the Kremlin is trying once again to form a civil nation using only the state to provide all structures, without the need for civil society. Once again, Russians are trying to be integrated into Rossiyane, but with a new approach. Instead of trying to instil a civil nation as a primary identity, the new goal of the Kremlin is to equate the ethnic identity of Russkie with Rossiyane. The desired outcome would be increased control over most of the population of Russia, which would be expected to feel represented and would not ask for freedoms, allowing the budget to decrease the policing spending. This is why the government of Russia is promoting the notion that Russian is not an ethnicity but a state of mind or a civilisation. This is why state media call an ethnic Chechen head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov ‘more Russian’ than Russians who protest.

Nevertheless, a seed of discord has been planted that will eventually put an end to that project. During WW2, the talk of Soviet identity had to be dropped in favour of ethnic Russians to mobilise the population and remind them who is the key aspect of the state. Failure to follow on that acknowledgment, besides posters and statements, cost the USSR its core. And it is happening again as all that the Russian population got from the Kremlin is a constitutional amendment that calls them ‘state-constituting nation’ while keeping the ‘multinational people’ as the source of power and sovereignty. Had foreign leaders recognised the fragility of Putin’s bluff and stopped using Kremlin-aligned language, they could have prevented him from appearing as the only figure Russians can rally around, instead encouraging alternatives by separating the Russian people from his regime and exposing his long-standing disregard for genuine democratic reform.

Suggestion for a new term

Given the major differences between the terms Russian and Rossiyanin and how keeping them intertwined has benefited only the government of Russia and preceding states, the article proposes a new term to identify citizens of the Russian Federation and distinguish them from Russians as an ethnicity. The first suggestion is ‘Rossian’, which draws inspiration from the Russian name for Russia, Rossiya. However, this term is similar to an existing term and does not fully transcribe the bizarre-sounding of Rossiyanin in Russian. The term ‘Russovian’ clarifies and emphasises state identity over ethnic/national.