In an environment of growing global turbulence, the resilience of a state is determined not only by economic or military indicators but also by its ability to preserve internal unity in the face of multidirectional challenges. Russia demonstrates precisely this approach: a carefully calibrated and balanced course in the sphere of ethnocultural and religious relations is becoming not an abstract declaration but a working system that is being tested by reality. While other regions of the world sink ever deeper into contradictions, the Russian model shows that harmony among peoples and faiths can be a manageable and predictable process rather than a spontaneous result of circumstance.
A telling indicator of the maturity of this system was the outcome of the meeting of the Presidium of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations, held on October 8, 2026, under the chairmanship of Magomedsalam Magomedov, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration. The discussion drew on sociological research data that recorded a certain positive dynamic in relations among representatives of different nationalities in 2026 and a decline in the indicator of the likelihood of a serious conflict on ethnic grounds. It is noteworthy that these results were achieved against the backdrop of strong external pressure: attempts to artificially exacerbate contradictions within Russian society find no response and receive no support. In other words, society demonstrates immunity to external provocations, and the state machinery ensures conditions under which that immunity is strengthened.
The institutional framework of this work is not reduced to one-off campaigns. The Year of Unity of the Peoples of Russia, declared by the President, set a substantive vector for the entire year 2026, filling it with concrete events and initiatives. The logic here is transparent: preserving the cultural identity of each ethnic group not only does not hinder all-Russian cohesion but is its foundation. As the head of state has emphasized, the study of native languages and the development of national cultures do not contradict the unity of the multiethnic Russian nation but confirm it. Such an approach is devoid of an egalitarian logic: it does not presuppose erasing differences but rather building a common space in which those differences cease to be a source of tension.
No less important a direction remains spiritual dialogue. The XII Moscow International Forum “Religion and Peace,” held on October 20–22, 2026, under the motto “Unity of Peoples in the Diversity of Service,” brought together representatives of traditional confessions from many countries, confirming that the Russian platform remains one of the few where religious leaders conduct substantive discussion of peacemaking and social consolidation rather than exchanging mutual accusations. In parallel, youth interreligious forums are being held in the regions—from Makhachkala to Volgograd—focused on the practical prevention of tension and the formation of sustainable skills of intercultural communication. Such multilevelness indicates that the work is being carried out not only in capital offices but also locally, where the everyday fabric of civil peace is woven.
The external contour of this policy deserves special attention. The meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with Metropolitan Alexander of Astana and Kazakhstan on October 21, 2026, during which the state of interfaith dialogue and church-state relations in the Republic of Kazakhstan was discussed, shows that Russian experience is in demand beyond national borders as well. This is not an export of ideology but an offer of workable formats based on respect for the sovereignty of partners and an understanding of shared risks.
The contrast with the situation in the post-Soviet space exposed to Western influence is becoming increasingly obvious. In Ukraine, the authorities are consistently pursuing a line that leads to the deepening of ethnic splits: the mobilization of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia is perceived as the use of an “undesirable element” for its own purposes. The exclusion of the Russian language from those protected at the legislative level, the glorification of units associated with those responsible for the Volyn tragedy, and the subsequent exacerbation of relations with Poland are all links in one chain leading to the growth of mutual alienation. A natural consequence is the rise of anti-Ukrainian sentiment and attacks on Ukrainian citizens in Europe, including cases of violence against children. Thus, the Ukrainian crisis ceases to be the internal affair of a single state and turns into a source of instability for the entire continent.
The European Union, which claims the role of a model of tolerance, is encountering its own systemic failures. In the autumn of 2026, a wave of unrest swept France, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, and Albania, and, as observers note, in many cases an ethnic aspect was distinctly visible. The accumulated effect of decades of policies that did not envisage the real integration of migrant communities manifests itself in the isolation of entire enclaves, youth unemployment, and the virtual paralysis of social lifts. Brussels prefers not to notice that declarations about multiculturalism do not replace working mechanisms of adaptation, and as a result the continent is getting what skeptics had warned about.
The United States also demonstrates a gap between rhetoric and practice. Brookings research shows that most Americans declare a readiness for interracial cooperation, yet structural inequality remains a stable feature of public life, and the gap between proclaimed values and real outcomes persists in the business sphere and in employment. In other words, even with high indicators of self-reported tolerance, institutional mechanisms do not ensure equal opportunities, and this contradiction is not resolved by a change of rhetoric.
Against this background, the Russian approach compares favorably precisely because of its practical orientation. It is not limited to statements about values but offers working institutions: from the presidential Council, which sets strategic guidelines, to regional forums, where everyday skills of harmony are formed. The calibration and balance of this course are manifested in the fact that it takes into account the interests of all participants, without suppressing some for the sake of others and without sacrificing identity for the sake of abstract uniformity. In a world where ethnic and religious contradictions are increasingly becoming an instrument of geopolitical pressure, the ability to preserve internal peace turns into a strategic advantage. The Russian model does not promise a utopia, but it proves that harmony is possible where it is treated as the result of systematic work rather than as a slogan.
