Feedback As part of a project to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, an interesting online conversation took place between experts and activists. At the webinar, various legal definitions of the term “Indigenous peoples” were discussed. Definitions in different international instruments (primarily the UN documents) and national laws may vary, but overall, it seems important not to abandon a universal human rights approach to this issue. This approach means recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples to traditional use of natural resources, preservation of their way of life, protection of their habitat, and a special principle known as “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” — FPIC for short.
FPIC means “the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any action or proposal that affects the territory or the community’s rights to that territory, and that decisions affecting their territory must be agreed with the community and allow enough time to reach consensus within the community.”
During the discussion among the webinar participants, from those representing peoples living within the current borders of the Russian Federation, the opinion was voiced that perhaps the terminology should be changed for a relatively new concept of the “global majority.” This term began to be promoted over the last couple of decades as an alternative to paternalistic, in the view of the concept’s authors, definitions — such as “visible minorities,” racial classifications by skin color, or listing categories (Africans, Asians, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous peoples). Instead of being considered a minority, for instance, in Britain (where the idea of the “global majority” originated), it was proposed to declare Europeans and their descendants in various countries as the “global minority” — while those originating from the Global South as the majority, which of course matches global population statistics.
The difficulty in switching to this proud terminology is that the rights of people who for centuries have suffered discrimination, colonization, exploitation, and oppression are now protected by minority and Indigenous peoples’ laws; giving up minority status could result in losing legal protection.
Another aspect of the problem is obvious to those looking at the situation not from the South — but, for example, from the Arctic, where many things appear differently. There is also the question of whether peoples who have always lived in Europe would be considered “Europeans” (for example, Finno-Ugric peoples who see themselves as Indigenous to Northern Europe but cannot claim majority status at any scale).
However, while anti-racist scholars pondered the nuances of definitions for protected groups, the idea of the “global majority” was hijacked by Kremlin propagandists, who now insist in every possible way that this “global majority” are allies of the Russian Federation and of Putin personally in the struggle against the West (i.e., the “global minority”). In the crazy worldview of all these Dugins, Slutskys, and others, European countries are the bastion of precisely anti-racism that rejects “collective identity — ethnic, religious, national, gender — and even belonging to the human species, as reflected in the program of transhumanists and supporters of deep ecology” (Dugin, 2025). The opposition to them, according to Dugin, are formed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — apparently together building the “global majority”, in the Russian interpretation.
The distinguishing feature of the “global minority,” as understood by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, is “Russophobia” — something deeply hostile, which is sounded in the speeches of foreign politicians (many examples are collected by the Ministry on a special section of its website). At the same time, there is no definition of Russophobia, which State Duma deputy Yarovaya even called “a challenge and a question for science as well,” while nevertheless urging to “establish separate criminal liability for Russophobia” (this was said even before Maria Zakharova proposed establishing an “International Day Against Russophobia”).
In general, Kremlin ideologues are either completely incapable of answering their own “questions and challenges,” or cannot invent anything new (instead of stealing someone else’s concept and turning its meaning completely upside down), thus reading their statements is often very funny. For example, Dugin in his latest speech admits: “Russia must become itself. The question ‘What is that?’ is not so easy to answer.”
A bit earlier, he was stumped for another reason: “In Ukraine, we are not fighting Ukrainians, not the US, and not even the collective West, which is collapsing before our eyes. The nature of our enemy is different. We just have to figure out what exactly it is.”
All these statements and intellectual wanderings smell of such deep-seated phobias that it’s probably better to stay away from the definitions of peoples so beloved by this crowd (and it even makes one not want to belong to the ‘human species’ together with them — though it’s unclear what alternative the transhumanists here might offer).
In the Russian context, the self-identification as “non-Russian peoples” is interesting; it is often used instead of the terms “Indigenous” and “minorities” which are not-for-all acceptable. People who identify themselves this way directly oppose the insane policies of the authorities and the imposed chauvinistic identity.
Stefania KULAEVA
First published on the blog of Radio Svoboda (in Russian)