Being a nationalist in Russia is a thankless task. Because Russia has never been a national state - its self-perception has always been imperial and supranational. To inscribe themselves in this Procrustean bed, the nationalists had to become imperial in attempts to marry a variety, - writes Pavel Kazarin in the column for "Crimea. Realities ".

As a result, the entire "illiberal" camp in Russia in its relation to Ukraine was divided into three groups. The most rigid and irreconcilable were the Imperials. Those who denied the "Ukrainians" as a phenomenon, considering them "spoiled by the Russians". Those who called on Ukraine to win and re-educate.

In the second camp there were "Soviet". Those who argued that Ukraine is a fraternal one who was lost and deceived. And that the task of Moscow is to help Ukraine again become "Belarus". Which is understandable, controllable and unproblematic. They were even ready to preserve the fragments of the national - if this is the most national, does not go beyond the sharovars and vareniki.

The third camp left those who were ready to admit that Ukraine was lost, but at the same time considered it to be something like a suitcase with things. In which there are "Russian" and "non-Russian". And that Ukraine can and should be let go, taking before it from her body something that historically does not belong to her.

The irony is that up to the Crimea many adherents of these three groups were completely opposed to the Kremlin. Their situational alliance with the liberals resulted in street protests and joint trips to the police department on police buses. With the power they reconciled only the annexation of the peninsula and the invasion of Donbas. At the very moment when the liberals reproached Vladimir Putin for being too Putin, the nationalists lamented that he was not Putin enough.

The audience of nationalist sites collected money for the militants and independently replenished their ranks. I wrote enthusiastic texts about "new Russia" and prophesied a rematch. Crimea was a point of unification of chauvinism of any spill: in one ideological trench there were Imperials, Stalinists, nationalists and anti-Westerners.

But the state snake Gorynych does not need extrasystem. He does not need sincere allies. Especially if they at the same time pretend to at least some - even symbolic - independence of the way of thinking. And in this sense, the difference between some Prokhanov and an ideological Russian nationalist. The first is inscribed in the official vertical and serves as its unofficial heralds. He is unprincipled to sterility - and is ready to be a public advocate of any power fluctuations.

At a time when the Kremlin was tired of its fellow travelers, he banned the sites of Russian nationalists. Loyalty did not help three years ago:

it turned out that the "post-Crimean consensus" should not be about the peninsula itself, but about the government in general. And if you decided to postpone - you are struck from the list.

And this is another confirmation: Moscow has no ideology, except loyalty. Obedience and submission. Sincerity is harmful and punishable.

Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Join also the TSN group. Blogs on facebook and follow the updates of the section!.