Forum

Here’s an observation, by the way. Practically all the nationalist movements I know of were founded and developed not on “nationalist ideas,” not on the idea of uniting based on blood, skin color, etc., but primarily on a focus on fighting an external enemy. That is, Ukrainian nationalists, Baltic nationalists, and Russian nationalists all fit perfectly into this pattern. It is quite possible that without an external enemy, it is difficult to impose such a perverted ideology on a sane person. Isn’t this the difference between nationalist ideas and national ideas? It is obvious that they should not be mixed. Here is an example of a national idea: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and national identity.” Do you have any thoughts?

Let me remind you that my goal is not to convince you. The goal is to get information, not to implant it.

It won’t work; you will still have to step out from behind the mask of a “detached scholar.” The point is not Google, and it is not basic knowledge of history. I am interested in an assessment of a “prosperous state” specifically from your point of view.