There is a belief that the modern Russia is not what it was a hundred or even two hundred years ago. Russia was considered to be one of the countries which had neither civilisation nor history. It was the envy of one of the Russian philosophers Leibnitz that whoever wanted to carry out reformation in the contemporary Russia was to start from an empty slate. The reasoning of one of the reformists called peter was based on the fact that people and the institutions are infinitely impressionable in their lives. It was expressed in the early Russia that it was not easy for the country to undergo a complete reformation process. This was echoed by many other people of the country as the church leaders (Kenez, 2006).
There are often opinions that democracy in the Russia of today is a thing of the past. This is because of the fact that the country has no traditions that are democratic in nature. The country has been autocratic for many years and is thus doomed to remain so for a long period of time. This is true because of the present nature of the people where they always want strong leaders and that they accept tyrants to be their rulers. The Russians themselves are anarchistic people. They did not form their own state in the past yet they mostly depended on the external support that came from foreigners. They welcomed strangers from the neighbouring communities. Some of the people who came to the modern-day Ukrane are the Vikings. They came here using the extensive system of the north-south river. They specifically came for trade in the region. Though they established states, they were loose federation of various cities. It was headed by the prince in Kiev, which was one of the most important towns in the region. There existed some trade routes that went through the cities and thereby they collaborated to establish a protection around the states in order to protect these routes. These routes ran from Scandinavia to Byzantium. Byzantium was a rich country in terms of its culture. It was well advanced unlike many other states in the region. As a result of this, the Russians and the Ukrainians wanted to be in possession of this city. They thereby regarded the period of this state as a period of a golden age. It was also during this period that Russia came to the acceptance to be one of the members of the European family of nations. It became Christianized in 988. However, the country was termed backward because of the system of marriage that was taking place in the region. After this encounter, there were a number of years that passed before the nation was again accepted to be one of the members of the European families (Shlapentokh & Woods, 2007).
There existed a rudimentary form of democracy inn the Kievan Russia. They therefore have a democratic heritage in their own making and they resemble the Greek city states of antiquity. However, the kievan state existed for a short period of time due to the attacks that occurred on the trade routes and the nomadic pastoralists who were in the land. The trade routes were thereby changed with the attack of the nomadic pastoralists. The country thereby fell apart never to be gathered again. This was even before then coming of the Mongols. The Mongols later arrived and took control of the land for another 250 years. The country was in pieces with the splitting of the Kiev state into other three centres.
The resultant effects of the country could not be described anymore. The state became extremely poor to an extent that it could not manage to pay for its workers. There was no government hence the absence of the civil service and the emergence of corruption in most parts of the country. Russia was then considered to be moving in the opposite direction and against the other countries of the continent. The citizens were never full fledged to the origin of their country. There existed serfs during this period of revolution. Slavery was extended during this period of time. The merchants lived a marginal life due to the fact that the country was situated in a place that could not receive enough rainfall for agriculture.
There existed an economic downturn that endangered the lives of the lesser noble families. Though the land was plentiful from its outlook, there were not enough workers to work on the fields. After the Mongols left the country, there was a no mans land that fell in the hands of the nomadic pastoralists. Though the soldiers were given land from the activities they did, it was useless since there were no people to work on them. As a result of this, the gentry people faced destruction. The peasant suffering affected the states security, and hence they were dealt a favour. They thereby united with the tsar and went against the aristocracy in the country. This alliance was well enduring. It was after a short period of time that the country embraced the coming of the Christian missionaries into the country. They brought several revolutions in the country though the developmental state of the country was very slow.
In the first case, the Russian country was totalitarian in nature, then it transformed to the democratic regime. There were the rise and fall of the great powers between the periods of 1945 and 1991. There was a variance of the domestic as well as the foreign policies in the country. One of the first policies was the interpretation of the Stalins post war policy. This was an economic policy that struck the five year plans of the rapid industrialization and economic collectivization. Some of the other policies were those of de-stanization and the Khrushchevs reforms of 1953-1964. The Soviet Union was also disintegrated during that particular period of time (Kenez, 2006).
One of the other aspects that are common among the contemporary Russia is the sense of nationalism. This characteristic is both political movement as well as a political ideology that people embrace in one way or the other. #this characteristic emerged in the Western Europe at the age of modernity. It was consistent with the breakup processes of the traditional empires that were in existence. It was also based on the substitute with an innovative world order of modern-nation states. The term nationalism can be integrated in this state by the fact that it enables nations to reproduce themselves and fit in the modern world of development and growth. Russia is a country in which there was an occurrence of disintegration. With the present aspect of ideological perspectives of nationalism, the country was able to gather itself up and formed a quasi-imperial unity. The collapse of the USSR replaced the ideas of nationalism again among the Russian people both the rich and the poor.
In point of fact contemporary Russia is building the first stepladder in restoring itself into a nation state, and so the predicament of elaborate of a pertinent ideology has became principally urgent. At the similar time, expectedly, in Russian society close by is no agreement about the forms and character of nationalism, which are required and which can progress here. Thus in the in attendance study, we designed to reveal at least how these nuisances (of national individuality, dealings between different ethnic groups, politics of nation construction, etc.) are seen by youthful Russian citizens (age 18-25). Our investigation is a qualitative study, based on 40 interviews with unfasten questions on separatist tricky in modern-day Russia. Russian intellectual history is a history of thought that fights desperately to escape the prison of an ideocratic system created by the strenuous and sacrificial efforts of thought itself. What makes Russian thought so unique is its internal tension, its struggle against itself, against its own ideational constructions and social extensions (Pilkington, 1996).
Currently, Russia by no means played a significant role in the human race philosophy, but philosophy did play a vast role in Russia, principally in the 20th century. Now that the system of ideocracy is not only hypothetically deconstructed but, expectantly, traditionally transcended, one can envisage the turnaround of these tendencies. As philosophy will engage in recreation of a lesser role in a Russian society more and more motivated by grasping, economic goals, Russian philosophy, rethinking its sole familiarity of self-denial and self-liberation, will presume a higher-flying role on the intercontinental prospect.
Because of the comparative fickleness of the Russian financial system and politics, largely companies tranquil fancy to make short-term procedures on a yearly, quarterly and monthly basis. Company structures also replicate the long-established Russian frame of mind. Policies are characteristically made in a top-to-bottom craze and then circulated to the heads of each branch. There is not much idea flow between different levels inside an organization. And the number of those who build significant decisions independently, without consulting others, is still pretty high (Pilkington, 1996).
In totality, one of the chief collective characteristics of the Russian multifaceted business culture is a brawny role of the company manager (often its founder) and his or her traits in planning and control. The Russian business civilization is still frequently based on paternalistic, captivating headship. Together, this model is careful to be more supple and adaptive than the Western, process-oriented replica.