Photo: Boris Yakovlewicz Rapoport
In Poland, cognition of modern Russia is now shaped by fierce rusophobia cultivated by alleged "Western democracies" as part of the ongoing information war, which the Western Allies started almost immediately after the end of planet War II. Anglo-Russians, due to the fact that they play a major function here, prey with large successes on the complexity of Polish-Russian political relations from the 16th century to the present and skillfully fuel the increasing centuries of Polish-Russian prejudice.
But 1 can observe in modern Poland and another phenomenon, which is the uncritical apologetics of political and socio-economic systems of Russia under W. Putin and his surroundings. In the already 25 years Putinian system, his apologists see an effective retreat from the Gorbachev-Jelcinian collapse, an alleged alternate to the strategy solutions of modern capitalism, and even if not pro-Slavic orientation, it is definitely an anti-globalist and sovereign model of development.
These 2 viewpoints are a mixture on the 1 hand of ideological-mythic confusion and blindness and on the another hand of cynical pragmatism of business elites. no of the accepted perspectives let for a cool analysis of reality, and all the more so it is not utilized to make a reliable plane if not cooperation, it is the good neighbourly coexistence of the 2 largest Slavic nations: Russian and Polish and 2 states with the strongest historical roots: ethnic, cultural, socio-economic and political.
Knowledge of Russian language among contemporary Poles is niche. The elites of both countries have fundamentally stopped contacting each other. Modern digital technologies can be useful in common cognition to increasingly better explain the achievements of public, creative, or even scientific, but to do so, there is simply a request for cognitive will to reject prejudice and to impose on the outside crucial calculis.
As always, direct relations between people are the most important, and in the case of helplessness or bad will of political elites, the alleged "citizen abroad policy" is very important, i.e. the activity and readiness of "normal citizens" – Poland and Russia to keep contacts, to get to know each other, and to present social, economic, cultural, political, worldview, scientific, etc. in both countries as nonsubjective as possible.
It is not easy to prevent the isolation of the societies of both countries, as the full staff of “specialists” on both sides is working on the process of isolation and creating stereotypes and the underlying reality. The external, "transnational curators" are very afraid with the formation of "in-state delusional worlds", as well as the forgery of global relations, the creation of prejudices and hostility especially in the environment of nations or Slavic peoples.
In the current global situation, it is so very crucial that Polish people who have been curious in bilateral Polish-Russian relations for years, and who have frequently even been in the close past in Russia – as frequently as possible, but besides objectively inform about the situation in our most crucial neighbour abroad. Matthew Piskorski is 1 of these. Matthew, however, has late made an astonishing political will. First of all, it would seem that the activist and publicist of left-wing orientation (let's just mention his affiliation with the “Self-defense” and then the initiative to make a “Change” organization with a fresh left-wing face another than the conformists of the erstwhile PZPR or the SLD) turned unexpectedly into an active publicist of “Polish Thought” – trying to proceed the tradition of National Democracy.
Matthew has besides been positioned to date as a rational analyst and publicist. What a surprise, then, is his current "infatuation" with a policy, not only distant from the left-wing agenda, but besides disconnected from real national policy. Braun, in pure form, is simply a political cyclicalist who manipulates the consciousness of contemporary Poles with the usage of symbols and religious-Catholic emotions and with purely sectarian colors. Grzegorz “the happiness of God” Braun is besides a cynical “political showman”, previously sympathizing with neoconservative judaic American politicians, and for respective years exposing his expected “anti-Jewish” and perpetuating in global space the primitive stereotypes of “Polish anti-Semitism” thanks to his directed “anti-Semic performances” – in Poland and in the European Parliament.
On the way of his disturbing “changes”, this time in relation to abroad policy, Mateusz Piskorski late took another step towards losing the image of a credible analyst and publicist dealing with the issues of contemporary Russia. This assessment is based on Matthew's comment on the supposedly "political program of the current authorities in the Kremlin", by a certain Boris Rapoport. He is mentioned as 1 of the 2 vice-directors of the Management Board (Office) of the Monitoring and Analysis of Social Processes-, headed by political-technologist Aleksander Chariczov, – established in the summertime of 2024 in the Administration of the president of Russia, shortly after the presidential elections completed in March 2024.
[On the circumstances and objectives of the creation on the basis of president Putin's decree of June 2024 of the Board of Monitoring and Social Process Analysis, I will effort to compose shortly more -PZ]
The November-December issue (2025) of the periodical, published by the President's Administrations, "The Citizen's Education Notebook", contains an article by Boris Rapoport, who is enthusiastically discussed by Mateusz Piskorski, giving the text not only a program but a kind of ideological and state-making phrase of current power in the Kremlin.
Below is simply a short summary of the article (which almost faithfully repeats Matthew Piskorski) behind 1 of Russian opinion-making portals, and then criticism of Rapoport's views found in the pages ‘Russian National Line’, which occasionally besides publishes articles by myself.
The Kremlin authoritative formulated a fresh ideological triad. alternatively of “Autocracy. ” Orthodox. Nationality is the sovereign state. conventional society. Care State’.
The Kremlin authoritative formulated 3 modern “permanent civilizations of Russia” – a sovereign state, a conventional society and a welfare state. This is stated in the article “Russian Policy Challenges: past and Modernity” by Boris Rapoport, Deputy manager of the Presidential Board for Monitoring and Analysis of Social Processes. Article, reviewed by ‘Wiedomosti’, was published in the Citizen Education Notebook in November-December 2025.
The article discusses how decisions are made in Russia in the face of challenges and threats.
The article notes that the state should not trust on short-term benefits; there must be deep-rooted grounds for decision-making: “The Economist and philosopher Nassim Taleb called this system’s ability to make through trials, not only to self-revive them, “anticrusive”.” According to Rapoport, state policy achieves anti-scrupulity erstwhile it is based on “permanent civilization” confirmed by history. Each decision is shaped by 3 frameworks, Rapoport writes. The first is the framework of national goals and values, i.e. the government's view of the improvement and behaviour of the country. The second is social needs, which is how people imagine their future and their country. The 3rd is the framework of historical experience, which is how certain decisions have worked in the past.
In past there are 3 permanent elements that form the national character of Russians and form the foundation of anti-criminal state policy, writes Rapoport. The first constant is Messianicism, due to the fact that Russia "has always had a peculiar sense of work and wanted to share it with others", and the service of the Homeland was linked to the service of humanity. Moreover, it is simply a Russian model of development, alternate to the Western. Verbal wordings have changed over the years – "Legal messianism", "World Revolution", "Building Communism". Now we have a “fair multipolar world”. The second is conciliarity, or unity cemented by common religion and common purpose, and thus the ability of society to consolidate in the face of challenges. The 3rd constant is justice.
In the 19th century, this was reflected in the triad of Sergei Uwarov “Rightoslaw. Self-government (Self-entrepreneurs). Nationality” says Rapoport. "These constants have accompanied us throughout history, giving society 3 basic faiths: belief in the country, belief in the people around us and belief in the future," writes the official. Now they've turned into a fresh triad.
These constants – Messianicism, Conciliarity and Justice – are translated into modern language as “A Sovereign State. conventional society. Care State’. Rapoport interprets sovereignty as unity around the leader, resisting threats, building a just planet order and fighting neocolonialism. Defines conventional society as a "family of families"; It includes the continuity of generations, loyalty to traditions, and spiritual and moral values. "The conventional society is not stagnation, but continuous development, rooted in its own foundations," writes the official. The welfare state, in the context of increasing inequalities in the global economy, assumes social protection for citizens.
The basic feelings that should come out of this triad, Rapoport writes, are pride, assurance and hope.
Every historical era was characterized by the image of an perfect man: in Tsaric Russia he was a faithful boy of the Homeland, bound by Orthodox religion and public service. present it is simply a creative man who creates a better future, sharing common human values," writes the official. According to his record, 94% of citizens are considered patriots, but everyone attributes a different meaning to this. Therefore, it is essential to constantly share concrete examples of patriotism – he writes. The article cites the communicative of engineer Nikolai Putilov from the mid-19th century.
Чиновник Кремля новую идеологическую идеологическую.
Православия. Народности» это « страна. Традиционное общество. Социальное государство»
Uwarowa Triad and Rapoport Triad: Which is more convincing?
About an article by 1 of Kremlin's contemporary ideologists
Boris Yakovlewicz Rapoport, Deputy Chief of the Presidential Board of Monitoring and Analysis of Social Processes, published an article "The Political Challenges of Russia: past and Modernity" in November-December issue of the diary "The Citizen Education Notebook" of 2025, in which he proposed an ideological triad for future Russia, akin to the imperial triad formulated by number S.S. Uwarov.
The diary "The Citizen Education Notebook" has late become the main body of ideological statements of the President's Administration. She had previously published articles by another high-ranking administration official, A.D. Chariczov, besides on ideological themes.
And now the ideological statements of another Administration official, Boris Rapoport.
The very desire to formulate ideological statements for contemporary Russia is commendable. Eventually, the Kremlin takes ideology seriously. However, this does not sound very convincing so far; both Chariczov's first attempts and Rapoport's were clearly inept. So far, we gotta admit, the ideological approach of Administration The president has definitely failed...
So what does B. Rapoport compose about? It begins by naming the system's ability (Russia is simply a peculiar case here) to evolve in the face of adversity of “anti-subtlety”, citing economist and philosopher Nassim Taleb. possibly Taleb's work inspires Boris Yakovlewicz, but the concept of "anti-criminality" clearly does not give insight into Russia's past or prospects of development. And in fact, it sounds beautiful cliché.
Rapoport besides formulates the image of the man of the future in a alternatively peculiar way: "showing the image of the creative man who creates a better future, sharing common human values." This is more like the thesis of russian sociologists: both creative man and universal human values. With the imagination of the future as they say, we're not going far. Rapoport equally trivially explains the request for a "powerful state power" in Russia – allegedly the only way to last in a vast territory with a harsh climate and low population density. The fact that a strong state is simply a major obstacle to the triumph of globalisation seems irrelevant to it. Or isn't he considering it at all?
However, these are isolated, unfortunate thoughts. possibly the author is proposing an first idea. Consider the logic of B. Rapoport's reasoning.
It starts by saying that our past reveals "three constants that form the national character and form the foundation of the anti-grudge of state policy". The first constant is Messianicism. It is better to quote further: "Russia has always provided for a concrete historical future, has always had a peculiar sense of work and wanted to share it with others." The verbal formulas were different: during the imperial period it was the thought of Orthodox messianism – Russia as a defender and bastion of faith; in russian times – a planet revolution and later construction of communism; present it is simply a fair, multipolar world. 1 thing remains unchanged: the belief that Russia has a certain past mission, that the service of the Homeland is inextricably linked to the service of humanity. For us it is simply a conscious knowing of our place in the world."
The discussion of Russia's peculiar mission is commendable, but here the author displays astonishing ignorance, calling missionaryism (or missionaryism) messianism. Many Russian thinkers spoke of Russia's mission, but before Rapaport most likely only a poet of complex spiritual thought, Andrei Bela, called Russia the messiah, and even then in a poem from the crazy year 1917:
And you, the fiery element,
Go wild, burning me,
Rosjo, Rosjo, Rosjo, –
The Messiah of the coming day!
You cannot so brazenly confuse Russia's peculiar mission with Messianicism!
But how Russia can “share its mission with others”, I think only B. Rapoport knows.
And the explanation of Russia's modern mission – “a fair multipolar world” – seems a bit pathetic. The multipolar planet emerges without much effort from our side. Part, but what the mission of Russia in this multipolar (or alternatively multicentric, due to the fact that poles can only be two) planet – this is the main question that B. Rapoport, unfortunately, does not even pose.
The second Russian constant, according to the author, is soborality (conciliarity). And although N.A. Bierdiaev is not the most crucial authority in the concept of sobality, 1 can agree with both its wording and the thought itself.
The 3rd constant – justice – besides raises no doubt. However, the definition of justice is highly poor. Rapoport reads: “The political goal has always been to build a moral, just society. This has always been expressed in speeches, doctrinal documents, slogans and mottos, for example: “Take care of the weak, work for the strong.” This seems alternatively a mediocre form of justice, completely non-Russian. Justice, in the Russian sense, is simply a fair division and consumption of social goods, according to conscience. Even the communists had the password.
More convincingly: “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his work.” And the “care of the weaker” most likely suits the Americans more than the Russians.
B. Rappoport continues: “These permanent elements have accompanied us throughout history, giving society 3 basic faiths: religion in the country, religion in the people around us and religion in the future.” It is worth noting that the most crucial religion – religion in God (of which the president besides spoke during the fresh “direct line”) – is absent! And this unreligious approach immediately makes the author's designs completely artificial and false.
I wonder how Rapoport tries to combine the ideological expression he formulates for contemporary Russia, with the triad of the Russian Empire, formulated by the Minister of Public Education, number Sergey Semyonovich Uwarov, in 1833 in his memo "On certain general principles that may service as guidelines for the management of the Ministry of Public Education". "Triada Uwarowa", as we know, is: "Rightoslaw, Self-government (Samo-Departure), Nationality (Population)".
The Kremlin ideologist writes that "the same fixed values work in modern Russia; they sound modern but have not lost historical significance". The first component of Rapoport's "triad" is the "lifeline", which he interprets as "a condition for the endurance of the nation, its culture and values", "unification around the leader, resisting threats, building a just order of the planet and fighting neocolonialism".
The second component of the Rapoport Triad is ‘traditional society’. He writes: “Russia is defined as a “family of families”, indicating that the foundation of national identity is the continuity of generations, the fidelity of traditions and spiritual and moral principles.”
The 3rd component of the Rapoport Triad is the ‘care state’. He explains: "In the context of increasing inequality in the global economy, social protection of citizens becomes a state necessity, an expression of this justice, which is 1 of the unchanging features of Russia's civilization".
It's easy to see the manipulation of meanings by the Kremlian ideologist and the confusion he demonstrates.
S.S. Uwarowa's approach is consistent and logical. It first discusses the spiritual sovereignty of Russia, which is ensured by Orthodox religion and which at the same time defines the meaning of Russia's existence. It then discusses political sovereignty and the warrant of the unity of different nations, expressed by the concept of “self-power”. Finally, he discusses the foundation, the substrate of civilization, expressed by the concept of “nationality”. Moreover, Uwarov is precise and concise – all concepts are expressed in 1 word.
B. Rapoport, who tries to avoid the question of religion (in his designs religion in God is fundamentally absent), is yet forced into semantic manipulation. In the diagram of the “Continuous Civilization Russia” the “Triad” of Uwarów now reads differently: “Self-departure, Orthodoxy, Nationality” (by the way, Rapoport is not first here; the triad was thus distorted in the 19th century by 1 of the main critics of Uwarów, liberal literary student A.N. Pypin, who besides called the imperial triad “theory of authoritative nationality”).
Rapoport needed this to someway align his triad with the Uwarowa Triad, as the Kremelian ideologist puts sovereignty first. It inactive didn't work out very well. Moreover, both the first part of the Rapoport triad and the last – the welfare state – concern statehood. Nationality has disappeared and Orthodoxy has in this case been replaced by alternatively inadequate “traditional values”.
In short, the "wary triad" is, as all accounts show, more convincing than the "rapoport triad".
Author: Vladimir Dmitrievich Evsikov, Orthodox publicist
