You can read the beginning here.
One of the problems of Russia is its gigantic size. Too big, clumsy and badly controlled. Too rich, the entire reliance is not on the fruits of labor, obtained by reason, will and sweat, but on almost free resources easily obtained from a hole in the ground. Moreover, the hole was dug using Western technologies and machines. It is too multinational and in the conditions of the command-repressive form of economy also becomes negative. After all, according to the current policy, Russia is a monocultural and mononational country. National manifestations beyond the permitted norm are severely suppressed. And this is not globalization, as in the whole world, but unification, cultural genocide.
Undoubtedly, an antediluvian car, but well-tuned and somehow working is better than its absence. But it is impossible to continue to operate this first-generation machine with its obvious moral and material backwardness, when the whole world has already switched to fourth-generation mechanisms. It is obvious that the imperial model of economic development has outlived itself, it does not imply the upgrading possibility and is in dire need of utilization.
Because of the above mentioned, appeals to keep Russia united are counterproductive for the economy. Greatness is more useful for fueling chauvinism, the cement of imperial architecture. And for “protection from external enemies” (in fact, for aggression towards neighbors). All other manifestations of Russia gigantism are harmful.
Again, I will clarify: the country size becomes an obstacle in the conditions of a command and repressive form of economy with a significant emphasis on militarism. Comparisons with the USA, Brazil, and India will be incorrect here, they have the natural laws of economics there: free market, competition, antimonopoly laws. The analysis of the economic phenomenon of China gives grounds to say that the main component of success here is not the leadership role of the Communist Party, but the exploitation of the exceptional industriousness of the Chinese worker and the many-thousand-year-old tradition of living in the conditions of the eastern despotism (as a form of state). This form assumed the mandatory participation of all citizens of the Celestial Empire in public mega-projects such as irrigation, road construction, construction of monumental architectural structures, etc. For thousands of years, the Chinese people labored under the leadership of their despot for the good of the state, the own interests of the Chinese people were pushed to the last place. Now in China the system is not communist, but Chinese state capitalism, which closely resembles the same eastern despotism. In addition, it makes no sense to draw parallels between the industriousness and ability to work of a Chinese and a Russian.
The perverted imperial and chauvinistic ideology of economic machine of Russia is additionally corroded by bad administration, great distance, bad logistics, and the fear to delegate power to local authorities. All together leads to bad roads, villages without gas, underdeveloped infrastructure, and further to a gap in the level of economic and cultural life between regional/provincial centers and small cities / villages. This is how the notorious “national suburbs” appear.
For normal economic functioning (in accordance with economic laws, and not against them), Russia should be divided into self-sufficient administrative and economic units. Division or, on the contrary, unification can be carried out based on the national and geographic grounds, or on grounds of economic and cultural and administrative expediency.
I repeat that the priority here should be the pursuit of economic self-sufficiency. Neither pink nor blue dreams of a democratic national state will be worth a penny if the people do not get the opportunity to work normally and earn money in their country. The author sees here the positive role of the federal union of Idel-Urals peoples, it will be easier to survive by agreeing to support each other. Sovereign national states enter into an interstate association, agreeing to solve economic problems by common consensus. The governing authorities should be formed on a rotational basis. It should concern banks, finance, investments, trade, cultural exchange. Residents of the Idel-Ural republics should feel the economic reforms in their own well-being. It, at least, should not fall at a difficult period of change.