Soviet propaganda invariably spoke of the eternal brotherhood of the three East Slavic peoples that arose in the place of Kievan Rus - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. At the same time, from the 1930s and 40s, the usual formula “Polish-Lithuanian interventionists” was established, which refers to the invaders who fought with Russia in the Time of Troubles, who took control of Moscow for a while and from whom then the militia of Minin and Pozharsky liberated the Russian capital. It seems that Ukraine and Belarus have nothing to do with it. However, let's see what Poland and Lithuania were like at the beginning of the 17th century.

From the beginning of the XIV century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) began to expand sharply to the south and east, absorbing the western principalities of the disintegrated Kievan Rus. The Russian population often itself recognized the supremacy of the Lithuanian princes in order to gain protection from the violence of the Mongol-Tatars. So, the present-day Belarus, most of Ukraine, part of the regions of present-day Russia (Smolensk, Bryansk, partially Tver, Kaluga, Tula and Oryol) gradually became part of the GDL. The troops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the 14th century often clashed with the troops of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. In the annals, all these clashes appear as wars with Lithuania. However, it should be taken into account that at that time about 90% of the population of the GDL were the direct ancestors of Belarusians and Ukrainians, and the dialect of Old Russian remained the language of state documents of the GDL until the end of the 17th century.

In 1385, the GDL concluded a dynastic union with the Kingdom of Poland. From that moment on, the Catholic religion began to enjoy a privileged position in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, however, its Orthodox population fought for equality and more than once sought the lifting of restrictions on Orthodox subjects. Many Belarusian and Ukrainian magnates and gentry professed Orthodoxy for a long time. In 1569, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland agreed to unite "for all eternity" in the Commonwealth (Republic, because the king was elected by the nobility), and the border between them changed. Only Lithuania and Belarus were left in the GDL, while all of Ukraine became the land of the Polish crown.

In Russia, Lithuania was mainly called Belarus until late XVIII century, when, having annexed this country to Russia, Empress Catherine II officially renamed it. When, from the end of the 15th century, the Muscovite state waged frequent wars with Lithuania for the “return of the legacy of Rurik’s house,” it was mainly Russians and Belarusians who fought in these wars among themselves. There were much fewer ethnic Lithuanians in the GDL army than there were Tatars in the Moscow army.

At the same time, the names “Belarusians” and “Ukrainians” were not at all common in those days. The dominant self-name of the Ukrainians was "Rusyns" (in Moscow, however, they were called "Cherkasy"), and the Belarusians were called by their state - "Litvins". Even in the middle of the 17th century, during the wars of independence with Poland and Russia, the Ukrainian Cossacks officially called their state the “Russian Ukrainian Hetmanate”. So it is called in the treaty of union with Poland in 1658.

Of course, Ukrainians and Belarusians, that is, "Cherkasy" and "Litvins", as good subjects of their kings, were obliged to fight at their call against the enemies of the Commonwealth. And they fought well - bravely, with skill, with no less ardor and passion than their Slav brothers from the Muscovite state. And the main enemy of the Commonwealth for several centuries was precisely Moscow.

We often find in the literature the words that the Polish-Lithuanian people besieged the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Smolensk, defeated the Russian army near Klushino, occupied Moscow, hunted for the young Mikhail Romanov, that Ivan Susanin heroically led them into the swamp and killed them, etc. .d. When we read this, it is not superfluous to remember that the vast majority of these Polish-Lithuanian people, in the ethnic sense, were Ukrainians and Belarusians, for the majority of the subjects of the Commonwealth belonged to these two peoples.

According to the Lithuanian hetman Stanislav Zholkevsky, during the siege of Smolensk by the Polish-Lithuanian army in 1609-1611. there were 30,000 Ukrainian Cossacks alone. The total number of Cossacks who entered the Muscovite state at that time, according to contemporaries, exceeded 40 thousand.

The Ukrainians and Belorussians were not only the rank and file of the troops, which, as it may seem to some, the Polish and Lithuanian magnates led against their Great Russian counterparts. Among them were major military leaders who fought hard on the Moscow land in the Time of Troubles. Ukrainian Cossack hetman Peter Sahaydachny in 1618 led 20 thousand of his Cossacks to Russia. While the Polish army of King Vladislav (the pretender to the royal throne) was approaching Moscow, the Ukrainian army of Sahaidachny took dozens of large cities south of Moscow, among them Kursk, Yelets, Ryazhsk, after which they came near Moscow to help the king. Sagaidachny's raid prevented Moscow from rebuffing Sigismund and forced him to agree to a truce, giving Smolensk to the Commonwealth. In Ukraine, at the same time, Sahaidachny became famous as the patron of Orthodox brotherhoods and schools, a fighter for the rights of the Orthodox.

Belarusians by origin, however, who had long since adopted Catholicism, were, for example, Sapieha and Lisovsky. Jan Piotr Sapieha, brother of the great Lithuanian chancellor, was one of the commanders of False Dmitry II, led the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in 1608-1610, participated in the defense of Moscow by the Polish-Lithuanian garrison from the First Militia in 1611. Alexander Lisovsky, declared a criminal in Lithuania, also initially served as the second impostor, successfully fought with the troops of the Moscow Tsar Vasily Shuisky, after which, having earned forgiveness from King Sigismund III, he fought in his army near Smolensk. His most famous act dates back to 1615, when Lisovsky, at the head of a "flying" cavalry detachment of 600 people, made a thousand-mile raid around the whole of Moscow along the route Bryansk - Kaluga - Rzhev - Torzhok - Shuya - Murom - Aleksin and returned safely, with rich booty. in ON. Moscow governors were powerless against his speed and elusiveness.

There was a time when our Riga made the same impression on tourists. “Why do you have nowhere and nothing written in Russian - all the same around - Russian speech, and they will answer your question in Russian?” After all, even in the menu of restaurants popular among tourists, they wrote only and exclusively in Latvian.

And the local residents had to explain to the guests about our national peculiarities - about the law on the state language and cautious entrepreneurs, and so on and so forth ...

Now we have these difficulties with translation and excesses, it seems, for the most part, already behind us - graduates of our Russian schools have spoken Latvian en masse, regardless of nationality. Yes, and foreigners in the Riga bars-restaurants in the Latvian language are no longer a nightmare: the restaurant and hotel business in Latvia has grown to respect the client, communicating in a language he understands.

In Belarus, everything is different. There are two official official languages ​​here - Belarusian and Russian. And

Russian in Belarus received the status of the state language as a result of a referendum: in the mid-90s, more than 80 percent of all participants in the referendum voted “for”.

After all, the language situation in the country is special, unique in its own way for the former post-Soviet space.

About 15 percent of the population consider themselves Russians in Belarus, but two-thirds of the inhabitants who speak the Belarusian language choose Russian in their family and everyday communication. And only 6 percent of Belarusians constantly use the Belarusian language. However, sociological studies and census data give different figures. But on the streets of Vitebsk, for example, the predominance of Russian visitors immediately catches the eye.

Experts believe that the language situation in Belarus today resembles that in Ireland.

The country has been free from political dependence on Great Britain for a long time, but English clearly dominates here. And Irish, although considered the official language, is supported only by the efforts of the national intelligentsia.

Difficulties in translation

In my presence, one of my colleagues asked a Belarusian student of philology: does anyone here speak Belarusian at all?

Yes, it turns out, say writers, journalists, representatives of the nationally oriented intelligentsia. In rural areas, many people speak, but hardly pure Belarusian.

Rather - depending on the geography of the region - a local mixture of Belarusian in Russian, Ukrainian or Polish.

And if it’s so easy to turn to a person in Belarusian on the street, then what? With a high probability, he will answer you in Belarusian, but this is not a fact. On Pushkin Street, where craftsmen and Vitebsk artists set up tables with souvenirs on the occasion of the city holiday and weekends, we got into a conversation with a local resident Ivan. Including - about the Belarusian language.

Ivan also tells me: they say, it happens that he himself is reproached for being a Belarusian, but for some reason he speaks Russian.

But what's the point of him, when offering a product, to talk to a person in a language that he does not understand at all? ..

After all, there are townspeople on the pedestrian walk, and there are many tourists. And the Russian language is equally understandable to everyone. The native language of my interlocutor is Belarusian, and he speaks Russian in most life situations. Which confirms the statistics.

...and the joy of recognition

By the way, both Latvian and Lithuanian speech in Vitebsk also sounds quite often. In any case, during the three days in the city I happened to meet my compatriots more than once. Vitebsk is still territorially very close to Latvia - our Kraslava is only 230 km from it, and even less to the border.

Cross-border cooperation between Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus is developing, and the Vitebsk region territorially falls into such programs.

The Belarusian holiday Kupala is like our Ligo. Photo: Vasily Fedosenko, Reuters / Scanpix

Latgale has much in common with Vitebsk region.

There are family and friendly ties, the habit of visiting each other or shopping with neighbors is still preserved, the price difference is great.

Look at least how many cars with Belarusian numbers are parked at the Daugavpils shopping center on weekends! By the way, we were in Vitebsk just in those days when journalists from Belarus writing about tourism were visiting Latvia - including Kuldiga and Riga.

Take a look at the Facebook page of Vizit Jurmala, how cheerfully Belarusians learn Latvian on this trip: and the vocabulary is not at all the one taught at school, but the most suitable for strengthening friendship and cooperation!

Language as a national color

I met people in Vitebsk in national “embroidered shirts” - just on the street, in a crowd of passers-by. Occasionally, but met. But basically the impression was that the bright signs of the Belarusian identity receded into the region national color, such as is shown mainly at patriotic holidays and foreign tourists.

The same beautiful Belarusian language - in lively and figurative speech and in the song version - we heard only once, and in the museum. Thanks to Raisa Gribovich, actress of the Vitebsk National Academic Drama Theater named after Yakub Kolas!

How well she speaks and sings beautifully!

Raisa Gribovich, actress of the Yakub Kolas National Academic Drama Theatre. Photo: Tatyana Odynya/Russian TVNET

We were fortunate enough to listen to her by pure chance. Some important Chinese guests were expected in the Repin estate Zdravnevo near Vitebsk. And while they were driving, Raisa Stepanovna sang wonderfully to the participants of the Vitebsk festival "PhotoKrok" with all her heart.

"Vitebsk" or - "Vitebsk"?

The inhabitants of the city have another linguistic and fundamental dispute: what is the correct name for them?

In Minsk, the citizens are Minskers, in Moscow - Muscovites, and in the city of Vitebsk - who? ..

There are two variants in colloquial speech - Vitebsk residents and Vitebsk residents. Moreover, both are considered self-determinations of almost equal rights. Those who come from hereditary townspeople in several generations are in favor of "Viteblyans".

And they tell, by the way, such a bike. When the city of Vitebsk is still Soviet power- was preparing to solemnly celebrate his 1000th anniversary, then the chaste party members considered it completely indecent in "Viteblyans" this very " fucking"... And they began to intensively introduce a new "Vitebsk people" into the minds and speech of Vitebsk residents...

So, the old-timers consider one of the names imposed by philologists-ideologists at the behest of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus. Maybe it's true, or maybe fiction, no one can say for sure.

Vyshyvanka, Belarusian character and memory of the war

Belarus, having declared its independence, clearly did not follow the path of creating an ethno-national state. Or rather, already during the presidency of Alexander Lukashenko, she abandoned this path. There are, of course, individual actions today to promote the signs and symbols of national identity to the masses. And state support they enjoy.

There are also nice human actions among them. For example,

babies born on the eve of Independence Day were given gifts this year with the meaning: “Padars don’t wear embroidered shirts” - this is how the recent action is called in Belarusian.

Starting from June 15, newborns were given embroidered vests with traditional Belarusian ornaments.

Many signs play the role of a talisman, so they handed miracle clothes to parents in different regions of the country of kids.

But for people it is rather exotic.

Another thing is historical memory, the memory of a long-standing war, sacred to Belarusians - today one cannot imagine the Belarusian character without it.

When you admire the modern city of Vitebsk, you can’t even imagine that after the liberation of the city by the Soviet troops there was no city in this place ... Of the 180 thousand people of its pre-war population, ... 118 people remained. More than 90 percent of the housing stock has been destroyed...

The American allies are said to have sent a commission to assess the damage. And, having visited the ruins of Vitebsk, they said: dead, they say, this is a city and there is no such force that could bring it back to life ... That's when not only a savvy guide tells you about all this, but also many citizens, including very young, then you understand something important, real, important about the city and the townspeople.

Memorial in honor of Soviet soldiers, partisans and underground workers of the Vitebsk region. Photo: Flickr/tjabeljan

“And be sure to go to the Three Bayonets!..” My friend Ivan, an artist from a Vitebsk walker, a young bartender and many other people have been advising all three days that in Vitebsk you should definitely see

. "Three Bayonets" is a memorial complex in honor of Soviet soldiers, partisans and underground fighters of the Vitebsk region, built back in Soviet times, and now replenished with old military equipment and turned into an open-air museum park.

Late Sunday evening - no best time to visit such places. But, one has only to climb the stairs with the embankment crowded with beer rows, as you can see: there are people here even at night.

Illuminating with a flashlight military equipment a late family with children is inspecting the park... Teenagers with bicycles stand for a long time near the eternal flame. Young boys are wandering serious talk talking...

Here is such a strange city - Vitebsk.

Secrets of Belarusian History. Deruzhinsky Vadim Vladimirovich

Belarusian or Belarusian?

Belarusian or Belarusian?

Let's continue this topic. Since 1991, our country has been officially called "Belarus". How should a resident of this country be called according to the norms of the Russian language? The answer is obvious: Belarus. At the same time, it would seem that automatically in the Russian language there are two different meanings: the old "Belarus" means nationality, and the new "Belarus" - the civil affiliation of a person. That is, a difference appeared, similar to the difference between the terms "Russian" and "Russian". At the same time, “Belarusian” has a purely ethnic meaning, and “Belarusian” can be a Russian, Pole, Jew, Tatar, and anyone else who has citizenship of the Republic of Belarus.

It is this interpretation that Russian linguists I know adhere to, but the question is “confused” by the fact that there is no such duality of concepts in the Belarusian language. In it (as well as among the Poles in Poland and Ukrainians in Ukraine) there is only Belarus - this is both an ethnic name and citizenship. Therefore, Belarusian linguists insist that the general concept of “Belarus” should also be introduced into the Russian language, that is, the former meaning of the word should be preserved, replacing the letter “o” with “a” in it.

In passing, I note that the different meanings of the concepts "Russian" and "Russian" causes criticism of Russian linguists who would like to see the complete identity of these terms. However, in my opinion, this is just necessary for Russia, because, unlike Belarus or Poland, it is not a unitary country, but a federal one. For example, the same Tatars will never agree to be called "Russians" (or "Russian Tatars"), but they quite agree with the term "Russians" denoting citizenship.

As for the term "Russian", it is artificial (invented by the Jew Sverdlov) and illiterate: in Russian, all names of nationalities are nouns. So, in all the documents of the LKL, not “Russians” were indicated, but precisely Rusyns - now Ukrainians (the current “Russians” of Russia in the past called themselves Muscovites). "Rusyns" according to the norms of word formation just corresponds to the term "Russians", which was first actively used by Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Instead of being concerned about the preservation of the term "Belarus", it would be better for the Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences to replace the illiterate term "Russians" with the term "Rusyns" that corresponds to the norms of the Russian language.

But let's get back to the issue of transition from “Belarusian” to “Belarusian”. In previous chapters, I have already given the history of the emergence of the very term "Belarusian" in Tsarist Russia, I will not repeat myself. Officially, the term "Belarusian" existed only for 23 years (from 1840 to 1863) and was banned by Governor-General Muravyov, nicknamed "the hangman". It is clear that only “Belarusian” was written at that time, since our language itself was banned by the tsar’s decree in 1839. However, at the same time, Konstantin Kalinovsky used in his illegal publications the terms "Belarus" and "Belarus", organic for our language.

After 1863, "Belarus" was called in Russia the "North-Western Territory". And only at the turn of the 20th century the term "Belarus" began to come into use in unofficial publications. Moreover, they wrote it in the Belarusian language exactly like that, and not through the letter “o”. For example, in 1910 Lastovsky published his book “A Short History of Belarus” in Vilna.

But here's what's interesting: in 1920, the Declaration of Independence of the BSSR was published by the Minsk newspaper Sovetskaya Belorus, which was renamed Soviet Belarus a few years later. The linguists of Moscow and Minsk then agreed that in the Russian language there is the term "Belarus", similar to the term "Belarus" in our language, but there can be neither "Belarus" nor "Belarus". It turns out that even then Moscow transliterated the term “Belarus” into Russian, because the term “Belarus” was never used in the USSR after 1920.

This is an indicative fact: the term "Belarus" (having a connecting "o") was abandoned in the USSR back in the 1920s - and "Belarus" was introduced into the Russian language. There is no connecting “o” in the Belarusian language, just as there is no rule of the Russian language to double “s” to form a suffix. And since the Russian language has come into use since the 1920s, contrary to the norms of the Russian language, “Belarus” instead of “Belorus”, then “Belarusian” instead of “Belarusian” should also enter, where it seems strange no longer “a” instead of “o ", namely one "s". (But since we deny the connecting "o", then we automatically have to deny the doubled "c" - after all, this and that is a transliteration.)

The inevitability of transliteration is also acknowledged by the skeptic A. V. Frolov, quoted above: “And if we recognize the inadmissibility of the word Belarus in the Russian language, then it logically follows the need for further distortion of the language - changes and derivatives formed from the word Belarus, i.e. spelling in Russian“ Belarusian" state and nationality "Belarus" ... "

But what does Frolov call "mangling the language"?

Belorus is a resident of Belorus. But such a country has not existed since September 19, 1991 (more precisely, since the 1920s, and since 1991 Belarus has not existed), there is only Belarus. Accordingly, its inhabitants are Belarusians. According to the norms, I emphasize, the Russian language.

We see the distortion of the language just today, when the term "Belarus" is put in phrases along with the term "Belarusians". The phrase itself looks unambiguously illiterate: “Belarusians of Belarus”. Why is there "o" and then "a"? Where is the logic? Where is the system? Some kind of linguistic mess. No one can dispute the spelling of the word "Belarus", since it is the only official name our state. This is absolutely correct, since the country should have an international name taken from its national language, and not from the language of its neighbors - Russians or Poles.

Here is a typical example: journalist Pavel Sheremet in the article “Belarus - Belarus. One country - two names" noted that "one familiar writer asked: "Why do you always call Belarus Belarus? Belarus is such a tractor! ".

People in Russia do not understand that Belarusians generally have their own language, in which not only the tractor, but also the country has the right to be called. Therefore, in order to eliminate this illiteracy, there is no other way but to change the spelling "Belarus" to "Belarus". Then linguistically everything will be normal: “Belarusians of Belarus”.

Now about the adjective "Belarusian". This moment seems to be “the most controversial”, because it clearly violates the norms of the Russian language, it causes rejection in any literate person who writes in Russian: not in the letter “a” (which is easily accepted as a derivative of “Belarus”), namely in the absence of a double "s".

However, linguists (both supporters and opponents of this transliteration) are right. To the readers of this book, who are hardly versed in the laws of linguistics, I will explain the following thing. The word "Belarusian" (with two "s"), in principle, cannot exist according to the laws of linguistics, since it is both a product of transliteration from the Belarusian language (which denies the connective "o"), and a product of the grammar of the Russian language (retains a double "s" ). But it doesn’t happen, it’s the same as being “a little bit pregnant.”

Since the term is a product of transliteration from the Belarusian language, then it must be completely, and not selectively - that is, not only in the question of the connecting “o”, but also in the question of the double “s”. This is an axiom for linguists: if a word is transliterated, then completely. And in principle, it cannot be a “hybrid” of two languages.

For this reason, Belarusian linguists and historians interpret the Law of the Republic of Belarus cited above (“to establish that these names are transliterated into other languages ​​in accordance with the Belarusian sound”) is interpreted wider than just the terms “Republic of Belarus” and “Belarus”. They equally transform the name of our language (and the adjective "Belarusian" in general) into Russian, finding it derived from the terms specified in the Law.

Accordingly, the new spelling of terms should also enter the Russian language. Not only through “a” (which is derived from the name of the country Belarus), but also with one “s”, which is the implementation of the principle of transliteration. For example: “Belarusian athlete”, “Belarusian climate”, etc. Since we use “a” instead of “o”, we should automatically use one “c” instead of two. Both, as they say, "comes in a set".

Finally, the expression “Belarusian Constitution” or “Belarusian language” seems simply strange when it is the Constitution of Belarus (not Belarus) and the language of Belarus (not Belarus). This is the same as saying: "Persian Constitution of Iran" or "Persian Iranian language".

• March 15, 2016, 10:49 am
• 4357

Andrey Poliy is a third-year student at the Russian State University for the Humanities. He studies at the Faculty of Fundamental and Applied Linguistics, and makes presentations at conferences. Anton Somin - Junior Research Fellow at the Laboratory of Linguistic Conflictology, School of Philology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Lecturer at the Institute of Linguistics, Russian State University for the Humanities. The topic of their research is a sore point for most Belarusians: why do Russians say not Belarus, but Belarus? And why do we resent it?

Anton Somin. Photo: personal archive

- I must say right away that I was born in Moscow, my parents are also Muscovites, so I have no connection with Belarus,- Andrey Poliy begins. - The idea to work on the topic “Belarus vs. Belarus” was born from a conversation with my teacher Anton Somin: knowing that he himself was from Belarus, I asked him which name of the country would be correct. From him I heard about the double norm. In the end, we decided that together we could write an interesting paper about this, especially if we consider not only dry facts, but also the dispute around them. After all, there are several other country names in Russian with a similar history, such as Moldavia and Moldova - but due to the fact that Russians choose the "Soviet" option, there is much less dispute on the Internet.

Andrei conducted two surveys: the first one was on the Internet, with the participation of 418 Russians. The task is simple: identify ten states, their language and the name of the inhabitants - in order to find out how, without hesitation, "on the machine" the participants will name this or that country. In the case of our state, the majority preferred Belarus (67.2%), Belarusian (88.3%) and Belarusian (s)skiy (93.1%). An interesting but logical pattern: the higher the level of education and age, the more likely the Russian will prefer the “Belarus” option.

Andrei specially came to Minsk for the second survey - and spent two days talking with visitors at the National Library.

- The oral survey was more interesting because I could track my personal reaction. I can say that the most “combatant” can be considered young people under 30: they especially emotionally proved that “Belarus” was right and nothing else. The older generation, in general, behaved quite calmly: call it what you like, most importantly, treat the country well.

Anton Somin interviewed another 71 Belarusians online, and 52 of them (73.2%) expressed their feelings towards Belarus in the following way: from hatred to mild irritation. More than half of them said that they would correct the interlocutor who used this word, because he was either illiterate or did not respect them.

In the work of Andrey Poliy and Anton Somin there is another model of a typical dispute on the Internet. Usually, an indignant Belarusian starts everything: the name of my country was written incorrectly! In response to this, the Russian user reports that, according to the norms of the Russian language, it is correct - Belarus. If the argument continues, then the same set of arguments is used.

Supporters of Belarus point out that the names of other states and cities are not transliterated into Russian (Deutschland, France, Roma). They say that Belarus is a Belarusian word, and there is no connecting vowel “a” in Russian. They cite as an example Moldova, Kyrgyzstan and other countries that changed their name after the collapse of the USSR - but this was not reflected in the Russian language, because one state cannot tell the other how to call it (the Russian language is considered as the property of Russia). Not without jokes, the most popular: "Belarus is a tractor, and the country is Belarus." If references are used, then almost always this is a letter from the IRL RAS (where it is indicated that “both names - Belarus and Belarus have the right to exist and be used in modern Russian”), a photograph of Alexander Lukashenko sitting at the summit with a sign “Republic of Belarus ", or an article in Wikipedia" Naming the Belarusian state in Russian.

The arguments of the supporters of Belarus are no less convincing: Russian is the state language of Belarus, and this gives the Belarusians the right to influence its norms. The name Belarus is enshrined in the Russian-language Constitution, indicated in passports and law No. 1085-XII of 1991. Those countries whose names are not transliterated simply do not have Russian as their state language. Disputants remind that Belarus is a name Soviet republic and Belarus is an independent state. The country with the name Belarus no longer exists: Burma has become Myanmar, and the Ivory Coast has become Côte d'Ivoire. They usually refer to the letter of the IRYA RAS, the All-Russian Classification of the Countries of the World or the website of the Institute of Geography of the RAS. Favorite joke is a hyperlink to the existence of the country of Russia.

The parties fail to convince each other - as is usually the case with disputes on the Internet.

- It seems to me that this issue is important for Belarusians because the Belarus option is too Soviet. The people would like to completely separate themselves from the USSR, including at the level of the name of the country. From the reaction of people at the National Library, I realized that for many this is a very serious issue.

And although Andrei himself admits that Belarus speaks more often than Belarus, he has no good news for us. The Russians know that Belarusians are offended by the “wrong” name of their country, but they are in no hurry to say otherwise.

- The fact is that for Russians this is not a political issue at all, but rather a linguistic one. For example, some time ago, false information got into the media: allegedly the Ministry of Education allows literary language neuter gender for coffee. The reaction on the forums and in social networks was quite violent. It's the same here, the Russians, rather, think something like: "Why can the Belarusians teach me the Russian language?" It will also be difficult to convince them because all Russian media prefer "Belarus". Some even write that Alexander Lukashenko is the “president of Belarus”, although this is just a mistake: the phrase names an official.

26 years ago, on July 27, 1990, the Supreme Council of the BSSR adopted the Declaration "On state sovereignty Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic".

This short document (only 12 articles) is of great historical significance: Belarusians, like many other peoples of the USSR, first gained statehood.

As historical experience shows, such an event usually turns into a general holiday and a national victory, but Belarus is an exception.

There is no holiday in the minds of our people. With our usual gravity and caution, we rejected everything connected with this date.

Judge for yourself: in 1994, the Belarusians chose, perhaps, the most pro-Soviet presidential candidate, "rewarding" independents and Russophobes with only a few percent.

A year later, during a national referendum in 1995, they got rid of the dubious state symbols used by Nazi minions and post-Soviet nationalists in favor of the de facto Soviet one (the coat of arms and flag of today's Belarus differ from the symbols of the BSSR only in the absence of a hammer and sickle).

In addition, they again gave the Russian language the status of the state language and supported the president's foreign policy course towards integration with Russia, giving the head of state the authority to prematurely terminate the activities of the Supreme Council, which adopted this same declaration of independence.

During the next referendum, which took place in 1996, the people threw the very date of the adoption of the declaration into the dustbin of history: from now on, Independence Day began to be celebrated not on the day of its adoption, but on July 3, the day Minsk was liberated from the Nazi occupiers. In the same year, the death penalty was returned as a form of punishment.

Let's see why the Belarusians perceived their own independence from Moscow as a tragedy and are still Russia's closest allies in the post-Soviet space.

Belarusians did not want independence

To begin with, it must be said that the Belarusian people simply did not want their republic to leave the USSR.

During the All-Union referendum on its preservation, which, incidentally, took place after the adoption of the declaration of sovereignty, 82.7% of the population voted for the preservation of a single country.

It is difficult to talk about the reasons for such a decision, but it can be said with certainty that Belarusians did not feel themselves a people separate from Russians and Ukrainians.

After gaining independence, domestic independents, in alliance with Western strategists and sponsors, tried to brainwash our people, as they did in the Baltics and Ukraine, but even their well-coordinated propaganda machine broke down and backed off.

Now this is evidenced by the results of sociological surveys: according to the Independent Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Research, today 66.6% of Belarusians agree that Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are three branches of one people. Alternative point of view different nations) was supported by only 27.1%.

Why has no one succeeded in instilling hatred for Russia in Belarusians?

Our people feel a linguistic, mental and cultural identity with the Russians.

A Belarusian, coming to Russia, does not feel like a foreigner, a stranger, a visitor for a fraction of a percent.

Belarusian and Russian communicate in the same language, on the same topics, worry about similar problems, sing the same drinking songs, believe in the same signs, brought up on the same literary works, Soviet films, with mother's milk they absorbed the wisdom of Russian folk fairy tales.

In the end, they have been living in the same state for so long, more than once they saved each other and protected from external threats.

And suddenly they are offered to split into different states with different symbols, build borders between themselves, almost introduce visas, and the most frostbitten nationalists, who were then eager for power, even declare each other enemies.

It is quite natural that the vast majority of Belarusians sharply rejected any ideas of separation from the Russians.

Belarusians felt cheated
Shushkevich and the Supreme Council

The smooth return to the Soviet period in history and the rejection of July 27 is also dictated by the complete disregard for the public opinion expressed in the referendum.

82.7% of Belarusians are for the preservation of the USSR, in the entire USSR this figure reached 89%, and the newly-minted "democrats" still signed the Belovezhskaya agreements.

In this regard, the people were led to believe that they were deceived. They spit on their opinion, trampling it into the dirt.

Already after December 1991, it was clear that Shushkevich signed the verdict of the loser, and on presidential elections the candidate with a more pro-Soviet or pro-Russian stance will win.

The Supreme Council. Photo: 90s.by

With regard to the declaration of sovereignty, it will be interesting that it enshrined the following provision:

"The right to speak on behalf of the entire people of the republic belongs exclusively to the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus."

Yes, this is the same Supreme Soviet that decided to secede from the USSR. Although the people expressed their opinion six months later, this did not affect the decision of the authorities to withdraw. Gentlemen, what about the holy of holies - democracy? People power?

Today, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus provides that the only source of state power and the bearer of sovereignty in the Republic of Belarus is the people. The referendum ensures the practical implementation of this provision. The importance of this institution is also evidenced by the fact that it stands out as an independent article of the Constitution.

In a democratic society, a referendum has a higher legal force than laws. It turns out that the newly-minted "democrats" came to power by no means democratically, which further undermined the confidence of the Belarusians in them.

Belarusians understood that the collapse of the USSR
will not solve their problems, but will exacerbate

Yes, in the late 1980s, the Soviet country was sick. Empty shelves, inefficient management practices, poverty. However, in this case, a clear and consistent plan for reforming the economy was needed without too abrupt and radical steps.

Firstly, no separatism, all the republics at the negotiating table, the opinion of each should be taken into account;

Secondly, if they decide to curtail military plans, demand the same from the States - to dissolve NATO. Do not want? No concessions, regain control of Eastern Europe and defend;

Thirdly, take into account the results of the referendum;

Fourth, gradually (gradually!) introduce elements of a market economy. Perhaps for a while. Perhaps on long time. But the planning model of the late USSR did indeed falter.

But everything turned out so that the country was cut along internal borders (not always fair, remember the Crimea), and the newly minted and never existed republics, not understanding how to live without the Kremlin, set off home with their economic, military and territorial issues, instantly becoming hot spots.

When the body is sick, it is treated, not killed. It is a pity that then the people understood this much better than the politicians.

Including in Belarus.

conclusions

The day of the adoption of the declaration of sovereignty of the BSSR did not take root. Few people remember him today. And there are many objective reasons for this. I propose to briefly recall them again in order to consolidate:

The declaration was adopted against the will of the people, who in an absolute majority supported the preservation of the USSR;

Belarusians did not understand the meaning of the collapse of a single state of mentally identical Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians;

Belarusians realized that sovereignty would not save them from social, economic and political problems, but would only exacerbate them.

The Belarusian people threw the date of July 27, 1990 into the dustbin of history, but we will sometimes remember it. To avoid repeating mistakes.