"Successful" Europe and "unsuccessful" Russia
You meet periodically assessments of the situation in Russia, the development of Russia, Russian problems, made, so to speak, from Europe (Eastern Europe, the “very” Eastern Europe). At first glance, it is interesting and instructive, well, of course: people from abroad always look at internal realities in their own way, which allows us to get some additional information. However ... however, there is such a system error for everyone from the outside. Almost everyone.
Very often, they simply perceive Russia as a “bad variant of Europe.” Unsuccessful such. It is difficult to say what this is all about: in principle, the very Europeans never considered Russians “theirs” - even approximately. No, if Russians always and everywhere tried to “draw” into all European projects - then another matter. Then their “amazement” would be understandable. But, as a rule, everything was exactly the opposite.
Therefore, the assessment of Russia, precisely from the point of view of compliance with the very "standards", cannot but cause sincere misunderstanding. The same Europeans readily recognize the uniqueness of the countries of the Arab culture, Turkey, Iran, India, China, Japan ... but not Russia. In principle, it is quite obvious that by its stories, state structure, customs and norms, culture and traditions, Russia is very different from Europe.
The massive borrowing of European culture, beginning with Peter the Great, changed very, very much, but could not rewrite the social and cultural basis of Russian society. It is rather strange to assess Russia from the point of view of Western European standards: what worked well for them does not necessarily work well for us, and our goals may be slightly different.
This initial error makes almost all further analysis absolutely meaningless. Just compare, for example, Russia and the Czech Republic. Absolutely different size of territory, absolutely different climate (set of climates!), Absolutely different national picture. State tasks within the country and in foreign policy also differ very, very strongly. The Russian state with all the desire not to can to be like Czech is impossible by definition.
If we compare Russia with France, Germany or Poland, the conclusions will be quite similar. We are so different. And the Russian government cannot copy French in any way: it would be very, very strange. For some reason, practically none of the “observers” have this in any way come to mind. After all, for example, the polity of the very same United States of America is very, very far from the structure of the Czech Republic. However, no one in Europe puts it "in appearance" for the Americans.
The “uniqueness” and “otherness” of the United States is perceived quite normally and even with interest / approval. But for some reason this does not apply to Russia. As a resident of Russia, I would, for example, be careful not to give "friendly advice" to the Germans or the British in organizing their political system and solving their political issues - we are too different, and what is good in Russia is not necessarily as good in Europe. Moreover, I would be careful (and many of us love to do this) to give advice to Americans about their enormous problems.
We are not they, they are not us. Our initial understanding of what “good” is and what is “bad” is very, very different in our country. However, they have no understanding of this fact at all. On the contrary, the principle of a bad, second-rate Europe operates. That is, the discussion on the Europe-Russia line in itself loses all meaning after that. When a compact European country (such as Holland) is considered as a model and on the basis of this some far-reaching conclusions are drawn with respect to Russia, there will be no limit to surprise.
A certain meaning was at one time compared, for example, the Russian and the Dutch empires - that is, super-systems entirely (if, of course, it makes sense to compare such dissimilar state entities altogether). Comparison of a giant state that occupies most of Eurasia with a small cozy European country looks rather strange.
Theoretically, Russia and Holland cannot have the same or similar polity - this is impossible. There is no ideal / universal government — it’s just an obsessive myth. However, how many times have we heard the admiring "squeals and squeals" of our compatriots who have been in one or another "small cozy European country", and each time it causes complete and sincere admiration and even the desire to do everything one-on-one "like people".
Say, simply all you need to "copy", well, everything will work. It is clear that “corrupt officials”, who do not want to share power, interfere with this. So everything is simple, accessible and understandable. In principle, this tradition is not one century. There is, by the way, a reverse tradition: to prove that it is all right with us, but just in the "godless" West everything is disgusting. That, in principle, is also very reasonable and promising.
Sorry, there is no "wrong" Russian history. Or what, 1000 years - and everything is wrong? Turkey, for example, is very much not similar to Europe (although it wanted to join the EU), but nobody really pokes it for dissimilarity.
We have to get used to such a funny paradox: we are very similar in appearance to the Northern Europeans, for the last 300 years we have actively borrowed their culture, technology and technology, as well as philosophical and political ideas. However, we are not. Russians are not Europeans, and the state here will always develop differently.
And the same Europeans always will treat us like strangers. Well, and no one offers India to directly borrow the experience of the same Switzerland, stupid because. And we are actively offered. The reason for the fundamental conflict of Russia with the same Europe is the categorical unwillingness of the latter to recognize the “otherness” and peculiarity of Russia. The categorical unwillingness to recognize the role of a separate civilization center for Russia.
But if you look at the events of the same 20-th century from this point of view, then much becomes clear. Regarding the population ratio: China has often been a supergiant in this area ... however, he almost never had a global cultural influence. Only the Far East. India, with its vast population and history spanning more than one millennium, has influenced world culture, of course, somewhat more, but not to say that it is many times stronger than China.
But Russia, on the contrary, had an impact “on a global scale”, both cultural and political. And in the purely technical / technological sphere it is rather strange to deny its influence: the entire 20 century is a clear evidence of that. Earlier, Russia had a serious political influence on Europe. But the cultural and historical features of Russia are of no particular interest to anyone in Europe - this is, so to speak, the root of all ills. Russia is perceived there as a “wrong element”, which must undergo a complete “transformation” in order to become part of that same “democratic Western world”.
What this “transformation” looks like most clearly can be seen on the territory of the former. Of Ukraine. Why, by the way, the complete collapse of the economy, the collapse of society and the massacres there do not cause any rejection in Western Europe? Yes, because everything that was earlier, - everything was “wrong” and needs alteration, and, of course, it is necessary to cut it alive, but, as they say, the wood is cut down - the chips fly, or you cannot fry an omelette without breaking eggs.
Therefore, there is nothing to be horrified by. Do you want "European integration"? Get it and sign it! And no one promised that "before communism" everyone will reach. And on the road, too, no one signed up to feed. Of course, a certain percentage of Ukrainians will survive in the midst of this lawlessness, of them and a “new free Ukraine” will be built. And why do you think that the mass death of Ukrainians is a tragedy? Tragedy, sorry for whom? Where do so many sentiments come from?
As a matter of fact, what we see in Ukraine is exactly how, in the opinion of our European "friends", the future of Russia should look. Well, in the first approximation. That is why it is extremely difficult for us to reach a “compromise”. Because from their point of view, this very “compromise” categorically does not take into account the interests of Russia, and does not imply the existence of Russia as a single state.
That is why the “return of the Crimea” (an event not too significant from a geopolitical point of view) caused such a hate storm In the case of Crimea, our European friends seemed to slightly reveal their cards. After all, in theory, one could say: yes, to hell with it, with this Crimea, we have enough of our concerns. In the end, the Crimea within Russia is a stable and prosperous region. Want to solve acute problems? So do North Africa. Take care of the Balkans, finally.
A strange thing, giant resources are focused precisely on the "return of the Crimea." Is everything already in order in Ukraine? And with the Baltics? With Bulgaria? People returned to Russia, they feel good there, so leave them alone, but no ... Actually, the European Union has enormous moral obligations to the tens of millions of people from the former CMEA who now live under the star-dark blue flag.
They (Bulgarians, Hungarians, Estonians ...) were promised a lot of things when they joined the EU, including in the economic sphere. The task is difficult, and the task is not for one generation. But no one is trying to solve it, instead, in the same Baltic during the “war of sanctions” the economy is seeking. In general, the EU does not owe anything to the Crimea, as the Crimeans do not owe anything to the European Union. But about the Eastern European countries (and South European) can not be said.
In general, the sensible leadership of any power first of all cares about a certain arrangement of its own citizens, and only then tries to solve other people's problems. So, the already economically weak Eastern / Southern Europe lost billions “because of the Crimea”, lost irrevocably.
That is, the gentlemen in Brussels / Strasbourg hate Russia so much that they are ready to sacrifice the interests of the citizens of the European Union in order to annoy her. From their point of view, regardless of the degree of well-being in Sevastopol, his presence inside Russia is bad, and this must be fought at all costs. Including the cost of impoverishment of EU citizens living in the Baltic States. Any strange priorities for them? Are they fighting for universal justice? Nobody chose them to be the "emperors of the galaxy".
Simultaneously with the “Crimean holiday season”, “truly” Ukraine is faced with truly eerie outrages. However, this does not cause a word of criticism. We agree that corruption and abuse of power is everywhere, but in Russia today they are somewhat less than in Ukraine. A freedom of speech and the law a little more. However, the EU of the last forces supports Ukraine and crushes Russia.
During the acute phase of the conflict in Ukraine, there was no “communication” other than threats, attacks and insults from Europe. The opinion of the inhabitants of the Crimea, the Donbass, and Russia as a whole did not interest anyone in any way. There was a hard power pressure.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that nobody tried to agree on anything, “convince” Russia about anything, or “bargain”? Neither try to find some kind of compromise ... There is an attempt to stupidly push the border of EU influence to the east at any cost. Through lies, coups, murders and ethnic cleansing ... And at the same time at any cost eliminate any Russian influence in these territories.
That is, a completely classic “beautiful new world” is supposed to be built on the ruins of the old. At the same time, the mass death of Aboriginal people in the course of "radical reorganization" is not considered a fundamental problem. Gentlemen, who are in favor of European projects in Russia, are you, in fact, where are you taking us?
Here, theoretically, hypothetically, that very Ukraine could have become a zone of contact and interpenetration of Europe and Russia. Well, if you look at the situation in the abstract. Paradoxically, if you unfold the situation, then ... it could turn out to be very interesting, a kind of synthesis of approaches and historical traditions.
However, as we all know, in Ukraine the situation is fundamentally different. Another point is not clear here: if the Western model is so “more efficient”, then why so many prohibitions and restrictions? People themselves will learn English / German, people will themselves switch from Orthodoxy to Catholicism / Uniateism. People themselves refuse Russian banks and soc. networks. However, we have bans, bans, bans.
After all, Ukraine can be regarded as a testing ground for interaction, interpenetration of two cultures (Russian and European). Somehow it interestingly happens, right? What does “wrong” mean? What does it mean - "this is not a precedent"? Let's just take the example of Ukraine (the state itself with the letter U is of little interest) consider the process of interaction and cooperation.
And, strictly speaking, why not? Great example! Here, the attitude of Europeans towards Russian traditions, culture and history as something wrong, unworthy and incomplete can be clearly seen. All this must be cleaned up and start building from scratch. So to say, "country of Ukraine" as tabula rasa. That is, in fact, we have exactly that.
No matter how someone likes it, but Ukraine is precisely “territory”, and what is happening on this territory does not cause any denial in Europe. So it is here that it is very curious to observe the very respect that Europeans have for the "great Russian culture." The factual approach is extremely simple: all this must be banned / burned with hot iron. I do not like? I understand, but in fact everything is exactly so. They begin to have serious respect for the “great Russian culture” when it is protected by the “great Russians tanks", no other way.
The approach in Europe is such a simple one: Ukraine is not Russia, and to Russia no has no relationship and can not have. And Russia does not need to go there. Approximately the same applies to the Baltic states - this is part of Europe, and there is nothing for the Russians to do there, because everything the Russians are doing is wrong (we will do everything right!). That is, they are ready to lead discussions on the political situation in Russia. But not in Georgia, not in the Baltics, not in Ukraine and not in Moldova.
But as far as Russia is concerned, yes, one can discuss here. Excuse me, why do we need such “discussions”? In politics, it is very important to impose "your game." So, with regard to the same Baltic states, it is necessary to consider this territory as a “zone of interaction” of two cultures: for many centuries the Baltic was part of the Russian Empire / USSR, now it is part of the European Union ... So what do we have? What results have been achieved?
We must be able to be arrogant and persevering (our legendary "modesty" did not bring us anything good). What is happening in Ukraine also concerns us: it is the former part of the USSR / RI. It is not worth discussing with our esteemed European colleagues what is happening in Russia (this is our internal affair), we need to actively discuss how successfully the transformation of the former CMEA countries went, how high the standard of living there is today.
It is necessary to actively discuss the situation in the same Baltic states, Georgia from the point of view: what was then, what we have now, what are the prospects. If the position of our esteemed partners will be that now it does not concern us ... well, then we have nothing to discuss, as it were.
I still do not fundamentally see in the EU a certain “super-megagiant” - even for a “successful” Poland within the European Union, the Russian market, including the transportation market, is very, very important. I don’t even want to talk about unfortunate Balts.
The promise of such discussions can be very simple: here you are constantly imposing certain political “reforms” on us, and let's see and evaluate those countries in which they have “successfully” passed, let's discuss their successes. And if nothing really happened in small Estonia / Bulgaria, then how can one recommend these reforms of big Russia? Let's rate how much your recipes successful in Eastern Europe.
What did Georgia get in terms of standard of living / human rights? Let's compare with the USSR and let's discuss. When we see that your recipes work great, we will listen to you.
Indeed, in fact, in the 2014 year, it was precisely the “abduction of Ukraine” that took place, that is, it was necessary to put “our people” in power, to reduce Russian influence to zero, to impose sanctions against Russia in order to “change Russian policy towards Ukraine” . Well, and do "reform." So let us assess today what are the political results in a “pro-Western” Ukraine and should we do this? What's so funny?
We have somehow decided to accuse "Kiev" of everything, in Eastern Europe - the Russian occupation of the "East of Ukraine". But you can approach the situation from a completely different angle: at the beginning of 2014, the pro-Western vector was decidedly chosen in Ukraine, so: what are the results, what are the achievements? In politics, economics, state building? What is the level of freedom there?
Once again - in Ukraine, Westerners did what they thought was necessary, so: what are the results? Make us a presentation! After all, we have been “rubbed” for so many years that “everything is wrong” here. So, please, with an example of such historically and culturally close Ukraine, tell us how everything is good in the “Western model” and how bad everything is in the “Russian” one. So to speak, "on points".
I understand that they are extremely unprofitable. Therefore, they are in such discussions and do not climb in principle. But we must learn to impose discussions on those sites that are more profitable to us. You always recommend some reforms to us, right? So. Are these good reforms? Otherwise you would not offer them? So, let us evaluate the results of these reforms on the example of Ukraine, which “overthrew a corrupt government” with the help of Western “friends”.
Who can forbid us to do this? It seems that all of Ukraine is the Crimea and the Donbass, which are not Ukraine at all. So let's discuss with our Western "friends" the results that were achieved during the state reform of "the very country" according to Western patterns. If they are not ready to do this (and they are not ready in principle), then what can they advise Russia if in Ukraine their “recipes” and “recommendations” led to a collapse?
Let's learn to consider Ukraine separately from the Crimea and the Donbass. Let us, in response to horrible fables about Russian problems, puzzle the opponent with the question: how successful is modern Ukraine? How successful is modern Lithuania? Georgia?
Our problem is that we are persistently trying to win on “their sites”: while speaking about limitrofits, they replace the question of “economic success” (which is not found in Georgia or Estonia) with the question of “protection from the Russian threat”. And for some reason they prefer to compare Germany with Russia ...
That is, the intrigues of Grybauskaite on the “Russian threat” need not be justified (this is meaningless), but ask the same sacramental question: “And how much is your country successful in the modern world? ”Like, we want to take a couple of lessons of state-building from you.
- Oleg Egorov
- zen.yandex.ru
- Local morality in the global world
Information