Against the background of successful economic cooperation in Russian-European relations, the “conflict of values” has nevertheless become increasingly acute. Europeans demand that Russia recognize the only true model of democracy. Russia does not agree with this position. But why the West does not want to hear its arguments? Why did Europe and the West become so dogmatic and is a respectful dialogue between them and Russia possible? How do trends of modern society influence this? The observer of the magazine “However” Marine Voskanyan talked about this with a well-known German political scientist, an expert in Russian-German relations, a scientific director of the German-Russian Forum and a member of the coordinating committee of the Petersburg Dialogue Forum Alexander Rarom.Policy values or realpolitik?
Despite the productive economic cooperation, there is an opinion that in politics now is not the best period of Russian-German relations. Why?
- Yes, the trade turnover between Russia and Germany is growing, but we should not exaggerate the significance of this relationship. Russia simply sells more gas and oil, rare metals and minerals that German industry and economy need. Machines, high-tech equipment, which is not produced independently in the country today, are imported into Russia. But in essence, this is the same model as under Ivan the Terrible, when wood and furs were exported to Europe, and the Kremlin and churches were built by foreign experts.
You have repeatedly stressed that Germany has two different approaches in foreign policy towards Russia.
- In Germany, there are two points of view on Russia, this is true. The first is that Russia abandoned communism, Russia does not need to be afraid, you can trade with it, you can earn big money in Russia and Russia is a big market that Europe needs, since the Russian middle class, unlike the weakening middle class of Europe, has money to consume European goods. Therefore, a part of German society, especially business, is committed to friendship with Russia. But there is another part of society. This is the elite, politicians and intellectuals who view the rest of the world from the position of liberal values. It is important to note that this is their position not only in relation to Russia. They believe that Western democracy won in the Cold War, and therefore the West has the right to moral superiority over those countries where in the XX century there was an “unlawful state”.
It turns out that the “export of values” today has become for Europe the main foreign policy task?
- Twenty years ago, such an instructive position could not be, people were busy with more pragmatic issues - to preserve a fragile peace, to establish economic relations between Western countries. Today, Europe, both in foreign and in domestic politics, is becoming more and more oriented towards the primacy of liberal democratic values, it is admired by them. This is also a defensive reaction in many ways. In economic terms, Asia has overtaken Europe, but Europe says: morality is on our side, be equal to it. The military power of Europe is no longer the same as before, its own industry, with the exception of Germany, in fact also does not develop. After China overtakes the West, the Asian capitalist model can be a better role model than the European one. Europe is afraid of becoming a “museum of democracy”. But it already seems to many that European values are like a work of art that was created as a result of the Enlightenment in European stories, but which must be modified, brought closer to reality.
Undoubtedly, everyone wants to live in a state of law, to be protected from the arbitrariness of the authorities. But many are annoyed by how the West elevated its values to the status of a new religion or dogma.
But how can the dogmatism of Europeans be combined with such value as multiculturalism?
- Multiculturalism is only one of many liberal values. Here in the West, a gender factor has also appeared, for example, the minimum quota for 40% of women in company management. And the protection of the rights of sex minorities. Europe wants to give the individual the right of maximum freedom, but where is the goal and limits of such freedom? Indeed, for centuries and decades people have won real freedom for themselves. But today the struggle for even greater rights and freedom is turning into a cult of minorities. Indeed, it is good when minority rights are protected, but what happens if minority rights dominate the rights and ethics of the majority?
Where did the Europeans have such arrogant self-righteousness?
“I already said this: a quarter of a century ago, the West won the Cold War.” This is a key victory for the United States, Britain, France and Germany - for the Germans today there is no greater celebration than the fall of the Berlin Wall. Victory in the Cold War, do not be offended, in the eyes of a Western man the same triumph as in the eyes of the Russians is a victory over Hitler. And the USA, it turns out, won twice, both in 1945 and 1991.
It is also strongly influenced by the position on the question of the Second World War. Any attempts to equalize Stalin and Hitler in Russia cause rejection. The Russians, even regardless of their political orientation, believe that the Soviet Union saved Europe from Hitler at the cost of millions of lives. And Germany itself, too. And when they hear such comparisons, it causes outrage.
- In Germany, a completely different point of view prevails. That Germany was saved by the Americans - from Hitler and from the Russians. It is believed that the Second World War was launched by Hitler and Stalin, Hitler attacked first, otherwise Stalin would have attacked Europe. Russia did not forgive the seizure of Eastern European territories, the Prague events of 68 year. It is believed that the GDR - it was a Soviet concentration camp. In the minds of Europeans, the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin became equal.
And it is completely incomprehensible to Europeans why Russia does not celebrate 91 year as the main holiday of liberation and does not repent for having enslaved half of Europe. It is surprising that the Russians have forgotten the names of Soviet dissidents, and for the majority of Russians, all this means nothing.
For European political theory, the ideas of Jurgen Habermas on communication and dialogue as a basis for solving any problems are very important. But it is obvious that not everyone wants to enter into a dialogue in which the other side speaks from positions of superiority. And dialogue inside Europe is not always successful.
- The West has recently lost the desire for dialogue, before the policy of the West seemed to me much more tolerant. Today, the West listens less to others, other people's arguments are not interesting to him, instead, it “crushes”, absolutely convinced that it is right. Misconceptions appear from such self-confidence, for example, about the possibility of liberalizing the Arab world or all Muslim immigrants can be re-educated as Democrats.
In Egypt, after the elections, Islamists came to power, in Tunisia, women - university teachers are forced to wear headscarves and hide their faces. In free elections, the people elect not democrats at all.
- In the West, they hope that it is possible to agree with the Muslim Brotherhood. And that a certain increase in religiosity is an acceptable price for free elections. And we are confident that by supporting information and economically pro-Western politicians there, they will be able to influence the situation. But apparently, the West is still afraid of radical extremists. While Al-Qaeda’s structures appear to have missed the appearance of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, NATO contingents are now going to fight in Mali. After destroying the terrorists, the West hopes to make friends with moderate Islamists.
The desire of the West to see the leaders of the Arab world only pro-Western politicians recalls the well-known joke that "democracy is the power of democrats."
- We in the West will have to learn history again. Western-style democracy will not be around the world anyway. On different continents, there are societies with a historical burden to a more pronounced vertical and continuity of power. In some countries, the revolution of "progressive forces" can destroy what has provided stability in the state for centuries. It is necessary to recognize that there are countries where the population is ready to live in conditions of less political freedom, but to have greater stability and material well-being.
Europe in crisis
American political scientist Walter Lacker, one of the leading staff of the Washington-based Center for International and Strategic Studies, in his latest book, After the Fall: The European Dream and the Decline of the Continent, writes that this is a big question - will other countries listen to European propaganda of values against the background of the economic and military weakness of Europe itself?
- Russia does not fully understand that Western Europe is much more closely connected with America than it might seem, if you look at a geographical map. Europe relies on the support of the United States as the strongest power in the world and expects America to “back up” Europe. While there is America, Europe is not afraid of external enemies. The West is still inspired by the American way of life, from which, as we believe, breathes freedom. And after the end of the Cold War, the West is convinced that this spirit of freedom must make happy the rest of humanity. This ideology reminds me of Lenin and Trotsky. They also believed that the world proletarian revolution should be carried out. And the West today is exporting a "middle class revolution" all over the world, and not by peaceful means.
But how is this possible against the backdrop of the economic crisis in the EU and internal problems, the huge numbers of unemployment in Greece, Spain?
- Nevertheless, there is a conviction that these problems will be solved only through the strengthening of democratic mechanisms and the principles of a market economy. Interestingly, national sovereignties are no longer the last truth in international law, the globalization of world politics and world economy occurs through the construction of a “global village” (global village) and a global “civil society” that will swallow up all countries. There is confidence that a completely liberated individual will always make a choice in favor of an optimal economic and social structure. Do you disagree with that?
But after all, the mechanism of free elections can theoretically, against the background of crises, lead to the growth of right-wing, nationalist sentiments completely opposite to these ideals within Europe ...
- To prevent this from happening, Europe creates huge financial funds from the funds of richer countries in order to support southern European countries. There is a belief that, thanks to big money and necessary reforms, these countries will solve their problems and be even more integrated into a united Europe. A more united Europe is a barrier to radicalism.
And how do citizens in Germany look at such support, which is largely carried out at their expense?
- Ordinary citizens - against, elite - for. Politicians believe that “letting go” of Greece is by no means impossible, since if you help her solve her problems, she will remain a market for German and European products.
And besides, if Greece leaves the eurozone, its debts will never be paid at all. And so there is hope that, continuing the tough measures, Greece will return some of the debts.
Such schemes are based on confidence in the stable position of Europe in the long term. But for example, if a large-scale military conflict begins in the Middle East, this can change everything very much, and this will not happen too far from Europe. Can we hope for stability in such a volatile world?
- The Western man in the street will tell you that NATO has the strongest army in the world and that we have the most developed technical weapon, The same Drones, which will allow us to bomb the enemy's territory without the direct participation of manpower. But the West will not actually go to war where there can be heavy casualties, such as in Iran or Syria. Another thing is terrorists and Bedouins on camels in Mali. With more dangerous countries, the West speaks the language of economic sanctions.
The mentality and often the arrogant position of Europe evokes the greatest aversion among conservative and patriotic forces in Russia. But there is a paradox here - these people are often experts and big admirers of classical European culture (which, as they believe, modern liberalism is destroying). In general, in spite of any friction, Russia remains a country very European-oriented. And she is very offended that in response to this craving for Europe, she constantly receives reproaches. Even if we talk about Putin, he has repeatedly appealed to Europe with proposals to deepen cooperation, but it is obvious that with a condition not to impose other values on Russia. These suggestions did not find a response.
- Again we returned to the topic of the Cold War. While Russia has not adopted a liberal democracy, it is not considered as a full-fledged partner or ally of Europe. The question is how to break the barriers of Russia and still penetrate into Europe. After all, Russia is an integral part of historical Europe. Russia does not accept only transatlantic Europe without its participation. Interestingly, and vice versa, the United States and individual countries of the European Union will do everything so that Russia does not recreate its past influence on Europe. We did not feel this opposition in the 90s, now it will intensify. The West will demand disarmament from Russia. And Russia will demand a “divorce from America” from Europe. In my opinion, this is the historical logic of today.
But in Russia, many believed that the end of the Cold War does not mean a division into winners and losers ...
- I will say even tougher. Some in the West think that communism was equal to Nazism. Germany, after the surrender in 1945, apologized for her sins to the whole world, paid reparations to everyone. See, even today the Greeks still demand money from Germany for the damage caused by him during that war. So, there is a point of view that Russia should completely capitulate after the overthrow of communism, pay reparations, apologize and repent for the sins of Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev. Russia, however, rejected the “German model” of repentance. And therefore, according to some intellectuals in the West, now it is, if not a pariah, then, in any case, a failed state in a civilized sense. Russia is being offered to study democracy - and if it sits on the school bench again, it will be petted. All this is not funny. In this regard, one cannot underestimate the role of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and the post-Soviet space. In Western Ukraine, in the Baltic states, in Georgia, even in many Central Asian republics, the entire national policy is based on anti-Russian rhetoric.
In Russia, they look at Europe with a great degree of idealization and sympathy. And people really cannot understand these positions.
“And by the way, Putin also thought that if he offered friendship to Germany, then Germany would gladly agree to such a partnership, because this is economically beneficial, especially since Putin himself is a“ Germanophile ”. And I agree that in Russia people do not understand where these claims come from, for example, the sharp resolution of the Bundestag about the lack of respect for human rights in Russia.
They also do not understand it because Russia is an important energy partner of Germany.
- Russian gas accounts for 25 – 30% of the total volume consumed. It's a lot. But this is not a monopoly and no dependence. Do not forget that the gas itself is only 20% of energy consumption in Germany. However, after the abandonment of nuclear energy, the role of gas increases.
Nevertheless, the combination of such a policy of values and economic cooperation looks very strange.
- The Germans firmly wish that Russia had an independent parliament, elections were held, like in the West, that the winner would receive his “democratic” 51%, and the opposition candidate would have support up to 49% of votes, not 20, as in Russia today. The Germans want to see more critical media in Russia, independent courts that can defend the interests of the common citizen, even if the state is against it. In Russia, by the way, they do not argue with this, but the mentor tone that is constantly present in this dialogue is annoying.
Omitted 90
Europe expects a greater presence of opposition in the media. But, with the possible exception of central television, the entire spectrum of political views is represented in the Russian media. The paper press and the Internet are very much critical of the current government.
- Anyway, in Europe they are convinced that the Kremlin deliberately deprives the opposition of the opportunity to broadly express its position.
Do you really not understand that objectively the opposition that led the people to Bolotnaya does not have the mass support of the entire population? Not Moscow, and the majority of Russians. And the opposition, even in general, does not hide its real attitude to this majority, considering it a dark mass, which brainlessly votes for who they will say. But people refuse to support liberal politicians simply because no one wants to go back to the 90s. After all, the opposition itself admits that the 90's experience has instilled in Russians a complete antipathy towards liberalism and its values.
- We in Europe really “slept through” 90. We were euphoric about what was happening in the post-Soviet space. The army was disbanded, the rockets were dismantled, Russia imitated the West in everything, we all, as missionaries, moved east to democratize Russia. Only one thing frightened us then: so that the communists would not return to power. But we turned a blind eye to the social distress of the majority of the people. They taught capitalism, not how to build a socially just society. Years pass, and we admit our mistake. It was necessary not to stick money to Yeltsin, but to invent a certain European analogue to the American "Marshall Plan."
Although in Russia the transition from the Soviet system to the capitalist system took place very hard, but now, after 20 years, Russia as a whole is living normally. But what happens in most other post-Soviet countries? Even if you don’t remember what people in these republics went through at the beginning of 90, when there is no light, no heat, no water. But now in the end it is generally a degradation. Millions of people in this space live as in the Stone Age, without work, without medicine, without education, no prospects - except to go to a more prosperous country as a disenfranchised cheap worker. What did this “victorious” model of democracy give them, besides the fall in the standard of living and the failure in the Middle Ages?
- In the West, they believe that worse than Soviet totalitarianism still could not be anything for them, so they got the main value - freedom. In the West, they simply do not understand why the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Georgians threw off the totalitarian past with such joy, and Russia seems to be still marking time in it. Just as with Libya or Iraq - today it is obvious that, under their dictatorial regimes, people lived there much better than they do now and what they will live in 10 years. But for the West it is not clear. And the post-Soviet countries will be helped, and in any case they will do everything so that they do not enter into any Customs Union or the Eurasian Union.
Nevertheless, nothing has discredited the concepts of democracy and freedom as these 90s.
- Yes, and therefore today all hope for a new Russian middle class, which is Europeanized. There are expectations that the changes will be simply demographic. Every year in Russia there will be fewer and fewer people who have nostalgia for the USSR, and there will be more and more young people who are still focused on Europe. By the way, these new young Russians are less negatively related to 90 years than previous generations.
New middle class and internet
In my opinion, there are great illusions with regard to this new youth. This is some kind of crooked mirror in which the young middle class of million-plus cities is disproportionately reflected. Although the request for change in society really is. But it lies in a different plane. It is rather a request for meanings and ideas.
- Meaning and ideas are always better than wild materialism. The problem of today is that there is no national idea either in Russia or in the West. There used to be ideas, in the past, humanity moved by ideas. But now there are few thinking people. Even the struggle for universal values has become a kind of farce. Russia often speaks of its spirituality. Can not see it really. And Europe today only counts money, and the desire not to lose a high standard of living drives politicians and society. But earlier for the European idea they “fought” differently, somehow everything was more ideological.
Perhaps the mass culture and the information society with the Internet, which give people a substitute for ideas, and a surrogate feeling of participating in something important are to blame.
- Everyone can click a button and have their own tribune on the Internet. And an understanding of its importance becomes inadequate. The most dangerous thing is when people break out of the virtual world of computer games into the real one, grab a weapon and shoot - as massacres in some American schools show.
In your opinion, can the Internet have such a strong influence on personality and society?
- My Russian grandmothers told me: "Modesty decorates a person." Today it is absolutely the opposite. Modesty ruins a person's career. You have to spin yourself every minute. And the Internet is very conducive. All this talk of solidarity on the Web is a myth. There is always an "I". This new individualism and narcissism, this disappearance of hierarchies is a key new trend. There is no shame, moral barriers disappear there. But I do not want to blacken the Internet; Of course, it contributes to global communication, the knowledge of almost everything, and everything is available and at such a speed.
This self-realization via the Internet reflects the request for great meanings. People want to do something, change something. They were called to the meeting, and they went. And the chance for the future is where to send people's requests for change.
- Our life today is not aimed at fighting for ideals, but at preserving the existing comfort. Previously, people thought more about philosophy, the meaning of life, sacrificed themselves for ideas and beliefs. Now the significance of religion in Western societies is fading. A person no longer has time to comprehend life, he is constantly distracted by some trinkets.
The main thing is the pursuit of personal happiness in the American version. The materialistic american way of life is brilliant. Live for today and create cloudless weather all the time.
Twenty years ago, if tourists walked through the old European city, they looked at architecture. And now, even in Venice, you walk down the street and look not at architecture, but only at the windows. And this lifestyle also spreads in Russia.
Lack of ideas
From your point of view, what kind of ideas are we experiencing today?
- I think that there is not enough viable left idea. She traditionally helped keep the balance - for the sake of social justice in any society. And the financial crisis occurred because in the current world order nothing holds back the financial elites. Earlier in Europe it was fashionable for young people to be leftist, among intellectuals, in universities. Today, most of them only need a career, and they only want to quickly adapt to the current system.
And by the way, in my opinion, this is also relevant for the Russian youth and middle class.
- Over the past 12 years in Russia there have been giant changes. And the middle class in Russia really lives much better than the middle class in Greece or Spain. Russians have never lived with such wealth as they are today. Of course, not all, but enough. My Russian friends think that we should live much better, because in Europe there is higher wages, but Europeans give a third of their income for housing, up to half of their nominal wages are taxed, everyone is forced to pay compulsory insurance — medical, etc. And in Russia, people were given apartments, for utility bills they give in comparison with us - a penny. Taxes for well-earned citizens in Germany - 42%, in France - 75%, and you for all - 13%. Russian tourists live in hotels that not every ordinary German can afford. And yet the Russians complain.
In Russia, by the way, in the youth environment there are also counterbalances to liberal ideas and the consumer paradigm. For example, a rematch of the Soviet idea. Moreover, unlike the older generation, which actually lived in the USSR and saw its flaws, these young people idealize those times. And she is anti-liberal, anti-Western. And against the background of Europe’s actions, unfortunately, it is anti-European.
- What is this anti-Europeanism based on?
This is an obvious response to the mentoring position of Europe. In addition, people see the double standards of all these claims and declarations on human rights. How do human rights combine with the bombings of Yugoslavia, Libya, with non-citizen passports in Latvia among tens of thousands of people, with processions of SS veterans in the Baltic States? And Europe is silent. And the Russians are able to see such things well.
- I understand that Western double standards are repugnant to many Russians. When Russia fought against Islamists and Arab mercenaries in Chechnya, Western intellectuals condemned it for suppressing the freedom of Chechens. Now the West itself has climbed into the war with the Islamists in Mali, and all the Western media applaud. On the other hand, it is again unclear what forces the West supported in the civil wars in Libya and Syria. When Russian special forces released hostages for children in Beslan and at the same time three hundred people were killed, the most severe international criticism fell on the Russian government. Now the Algerian troops, when they tried to free the foreign hostages, suffered a fiasco, as many of the captured were killed. In the West, the Algerian government is not only not blamed, but praised for its principles. These double approaches make it difficult to understand each other.
Alas, the West, with its contempt for everything Soviet, reproaches that Russia has not become an exemplary democracy, conducts a dismissive dialogue. This will change only when Europe realizes that it will be bad without Russia.