Natalia Narochnitskaya, Doctor of Historical Sciences, has long been one of the key thinkers and symbols of the national conservative movement. She was one of the leaders of the Rodina party, a State Duma deputy, and in recent years has been heading the Paris branch of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation. On the eve of the New Year the newspaper VIEW interviewed Natalia Alekseevna.
VIEW: A year ago, the campaign against Putin, both outside and inside the country, was at its peak - the acceptance of Magnitsky’s list in the US, the protests of liberals in Russia against the adopted “law of Dima Yakovlev”. It seemed that the pressure on power would only increase, and Putin’s ability to act in the international arena may be significantly limited. But in reality, over the past year, Russia has managed to achieve impressive successes on the world stage, while the United States simultaneously suffered significant image and geopolitical losses (the case of Snowden, Syria, government shutdown). How can this be explained? Has Russia finished concentrating?
Natalia Narochnitskaya: Yes, last year Russia did an incredible. Seven years ago, in a Munich speech, Putin showed that Russia is concentrating. He didn’t say anything that many people wouldn’t think about, but overnight he deprived the West of the right to be the only interpreter of all political phenomena, deprived of the right to broadcast on behalf of the so-called, phantom “world civilized community”. He said then that we all understand and do not want to hide any more: under the guise of beautiful slogans, you are in fact trampling on sovereignty, openly interfering in internal affairs, leading military and political expansion in all corners of the world. We do not want confrontation, but do not consider us to be blind, who do not understand anything. ”
And it was a shock - but they made some noise, made some noise and recognized our right to speak in an independent voice. And from this began what you called the words of Gorchakov “Russia concentrates”. Gorchakov's circular 1856 of the year contained in a polite diplomatic form a huge foreign policy concept. It did not refuse to cooperate with the West - but it was said that Russia only needed it when the interests of Russia, focused on internal tasks, strictly require it. So Putin actually made it clear that Russia is not going to participate in Western intrigues just for the sake of confirming ideological kinship in “democracy”, which was practiced in the period preceding it.
Indeed, at the end of 2012, defamation campaigns were launched against Russia related to “the law of Dima Yakovlev”. There were a lot of opponents inside the country, and not only among the militant Westernizers who believe that “this country” would like to leave any where possible. By the way, such nihilism to one’s own homeland makes a person completely unhappy, and even personal success and well-being do not bring satisfaction - if there is no intuitive sense of calm and self-respect for the land where you were born and live, then the person will rush from inside the bile that we and have seen many in the Swamp. And often it takes the form of an irrational universal aggressive accusation, which gives rise to social aggression on the one hand, and social apathy on the other. Both are due to nihilism, lack of faith and disrespect for their country.
Yes, 2013 year began in such an unfavorable atmosphere ... But at the same time starting from 2000 years in the foreign policy arena in Russia mostly successes. Slowly but surely, we are becoming more self-reliant, we are complications tactical adjustment, sometimes we make a half-step back, sometimes derelict, but Russia clearly showed the world that she survived, and overcame a backbone element becomes the new global configuration.
The very adoption of “the law of Dima Yakovlev” was a response to the adoption of the Magnitsky list - all states respond to such challenges. The question of whether the topic was chosen correctly for the answer - so sensitive, affecting the fate of children. The deed is done, but, undoubtedly, one of the positive consequences was that the discussion itself and the critics so much attracted attention to our unsatisfactory adoption system and the hot topic of orphanhood, that in a very short time much was done to improve the situation.
As for America, domestic violence is really very widespread there, unlike in Europe, with which we continue to cooperate in adoption. It is so difficult in the United States to adopt a child inside the country that those strange couples who later became guilty of the death of our children would never get permission there. Over the decades, their life would be subjected to a total check, including the situation and customs in the family, interviews of neighbors, analysis of all visits to doctors ... Do not forget that the motivation of Americans to adopt children is very different from ours. - In Russia, with a poor population, mostly childless families are adopted who want to satisfy their dream of a continuation of the race, a healthy child. Mostly Orthodox families, families of priests, adopt children in our country. And in the USA they often adopt families with several children, often adopt sick children, because many Protestant denominations have Old Testament motivation: live and multiply, the more like-believers you produce, the more pleasing you will be to God.
VIEW: At the beginning of 2013, the war in Syria was in full swing, and it was clear that the West was only looking for a reason to directly intervene in the conflict ...
NN: Yes, during the year the situation in Syria was catastrophically complicated and went to the fatal line. By the end of the summer, everything was already balanced on the brink of war. Many knowledgeable experts thought it was inevitable, and it was already a week or a day. And here a virtuoso move was found! It is now openly acknowledged that we saved not only the region and the world from war with unpredictable global consequences, and with the most terrible - inter-religious dimension, but in fact saved America. They opened Pandora’s box, driven themselves with their ultimatums into a corner from which it was already politically impossible for them to get out without losing face and status, allowing them to claim the role of ruler of the world. And we - and this was the greatness of this chess game - did not begin to beat the timpani, but played it out so that for the sake of the interests of the world and saving the global intercivilizational equilibrium we helped them to slowly retreat without losing their faces. They, of course, will play, put sticks in wheel Geneva meeting. The United States continues to believe that B. Assad should leave, but now by peaceful means in the course of some kind of democratic procedure. But in any case, it proved to the world that Russia does not have to be ignored, the world and global problems cannot be solved without it. The world community is clearly convinced that the unipolar world did not take place once and for all. It did not take place, by the way, not only because Russia survived and retained its right to a historic initiative. For twenty years after the proclamation of a unipolar world, the world has developed rapidly and not at all according to the calculations of American strategists. Dynamism has moved to Asia. China India is no longer on its way to becoming the great powers of the 21st century, even if today their growth rates slow down a bit.
It is also important that with its turbulent growth and development, the eastern civilizations refuted the thesis that modernization is possible only with total Westernization. And this is the main blow to the claims of the West. It is not just the transfer of an economic or technological center to Asia. The West, embraced by the systemic crisis of liberalism in the economy and the spiritual and moral sphere, apparently ceases to be the only way, as was stated in all the old theories of linear progress, which our epigones still think. Now this is just one of the modernization projects.
VIEW: But at the same time, the West itself is not ready to abandon the idea that its line of globalization, the path to modernization, is the only true and only possible one?
NN: At the level of the expert community - already ready. New concepts of world science on modernization have already departed from the doctrine of a single model of development and, accordingly, from the model of catch-up modernization, which Russian “modernizers” are still committed to. National cultures today grind down capitalism everywhere, and earlier they believed that capitalism could grind all cultures. Now is the era of national modernization projects.
Globalization has already hit the West itself, especially in Europe - marking the beginning of the inevitable social demographic and value transformation of the West itself. Moreover, natural globalization is not at all a doctrine of “global governance” - a sort of “philosophy of globalism” is a modern term covering up the eternal desire to subordinate and control. For the rest of the world, globalization is almost universally turning into a progressive lag. Mere imitation of the West does not bring modernization. The main conclusion: today, globalization has ceased to be a synonym for modernization! In line with the “philosophy of globalism”, the elites of countries, even the most backward, are inspired by the illusion of belonging and membership in the world club of the oligarchy, and the people are given a completely false understanding of civil society, destroying the nation as a successive organism with the goals and values of national existence. The ideal of globalists is the non-involvement in the affairs of their homeland — a sort of super-liberal doctrine of a “citizen of the world.” All this paralyzes the internal energy, divides the nation into different civilizations, preserves the general backwardness of society, prevents it from going forward, including its own levers, its own development potential. Following our own tasks, not the cabinet doctrines of European structures, at the same time one can borrow a lot from the West, but necessarily grinding it and stringing it onto its own core, ensuring the continuation of the nation’s life. And this background also became one of those factors that bankrupted the project of a unipolar world.
And the fact that we managed to prevent reprisals against Syria is a consequence of this. Agreements on Iran are very important.
VIEW: Having defended Syria, they actually saved Iran - because the fall of Damascus cleared the way to Tehran ...
N.N. And this is also the merit of Russia. Syria had to be destroyed in order to go in for Iran. After all, Iran for them is not only oil and geopolitics associated with control over the Persian Gulf, it is also the banner of an anti-materialistic and anti-hedonistic alternative to Western consumerism and a thirst for power over the world. Therefore, Iran’s self-sufficiency in America as a bone in the throat is an alternative civilizational model that feels so independent and strong that it dares to challenge the most powerful state.
VIEW: Now Iran with its project partly replaces the Soviet Union for the West?
N.N. : Only to a certain extent, yes. If you look at the Syrian conflict, then a military, lively physical collision is only the quintessence of what is happening, and in fact there are a lot of factors and confrontations intertwined there. This is an inter-confessional, and intra-Arab, and inter-civilization conflict. Iran is Shiite, and al-Qaeda is mostly Sunni - and this is the main enemy of the United States, al-Qaida, in fact becoming its ally and even a tool in Syria. Everything is being done to prevent Shiite Iran from becoming the banner of the Islamic world. A world that is growing demographically and politically, despite the chaos provoked in it. See what an explosive force, and what the configuration of the world can be in front of you.
VIEW: The Islamic world is also experiencing powerful religious growth.
NN: Yes, and at the same time, when civilization is on a demographic rise, it always gives rise to the idea of expansion. And at this stage, radical dissident, expansionist branches of any religious and philosophical system are always successful. Recall that when Europe began to outperform the rest of the world in productivity and demography from the 15-16 centuries, it immediately began to not only expand outside, but also wars broke out between Catholics and Protestants under almost Wahhabi slogans: “Kill everyone, the Lord himself will disassemble his and strangers! ”- They imagined themselves to be an instrument of God, which the Islamist fanatics imagine themselves to be. By the way, then, in the 19 century, all the terrorists in the Christian world were already atheists. So we can find many parallels to what is being done now, and in the history of our Christian world.
VIEW: What is happening today, after the signing of the agreements, with the US policy towards Iran? Are Americans really ready to change course or just take a break?
N.N. Much of what has been done in the past decade has been directed at surrounding Iran. American politics is the policy of a global imperial state, which sees the whole world as a zone of its interests. This is the imperial consciousness - in the bad sense of the word. At the same time, Russia is blamed for imperial ambitions when it takes care of the situation along its borders! But even the tiniest non-ambitious state, unable to fight anyone, is interested in the fact that the surrounding states are not hostile, not drawn into some kind of competing associations. And when the state intervenes in the internal affairs of thousands of miles from its shores, even violating international law and the UN Charter, this is crude imperialism in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, only today it is covered with the rhetoric of human rights and universal democracy. The American economy, built on the Tower of Babel of the trillions of green candy wrappers, dictates to collect imperial tribute from around the world. For this, it is necessary to declare the planet a zone of American interests, and all politics are subject to this. Therefore, indulgences regarding Iran are of a tactical nature, they should not be greatly overestimated, but they should not be underestimated, the pause gives a new fan of opportunities, because all politics consists of tactical steps.
What will happen next? I have always believed that pressure and expansion are provoked by the weakness of the national-state will. If a certain center of power and historical initiative has the potential and makes it clear that there is no chance of him moving out of the way, pushing down, morally suppressing, then the expansion potential of the surrounding rivals is reoriented towards other goals. But the vacuum of national will will never remain an empty place, everything will rush there at once - as was the case with the post-Soviet space. What was in 90 in Russia is even difficult to call state ideology - it was a sermon of anti-statism. The ideologists said that the national interests had died out, only universal human values remained, and we need to reach out and open our arms. And while we revel in the complete intoxication of new thinking, the whole world took advantage of the tried and tested old - took everything that we had to give into our hands. Everything that was not written down on paper was taken away, another force immediately appeared everywhere, which, quite cynically, contrary to all the romantic “universal human” rhetoric, acted in the spirit of the harshest Realpolitik.
These are the lessons of our post-Soviet history, and now, it seems to me, there are no longer these rose-colored glasses. This does not at all mean a desire for confrontation — we absolutely do not need confrontation; it is much more difficult to realize our national interests. But in order to avoid it, sometimes you have to first reclaim a little space for yourself. To just straighten your shoulders and breathe deeply, you need a little knock in the crowd, so that they do not pressure you.
VIEW: Is Russia ready to fight for its living space, for its place in the world? Not Putin, who does so much for this, namely, the active part of society and the elite - or for many, internal problems and contradictions are more important?
NN: The society and its active part are now somewhat fluctuating - which is in principle natural for a state that lives in difficult conditions. In the first half of the 2000s, for some time a clear satisfaction arose from the restoration of Russia's honor and dignity in the international arena. And this long-awaited feeling even overshadowed displeasure with internal problems, which then was actually more than today, but more critics today! However, I already believed that it could not continue for a long time. This feeling of satisfaction will pass, for the sake of which one can even put up with the severity of social problems. Honor in the international arena will be taken for granted again, and inevitably the growth of discontent will begin. We passed it! Especially in the past and the year before last there was a peak of this discontent. Than? - And the stagnation of the political system, especially parliamentarism, and, which is much more serious and larger in the main part of Russia, with unfulfilled hopes of restoring a genuine social state.
VIEW: The majority of the people are dissatisfied with this - but the disgruntled on the streets of Moscow were not following this, but under the slogans of restricting strong power, which does not fit into their understanding of the correct structure of the state ...
NN: There is a lot of protest in the country. But let's recognize that the protest moods in the Krasnodar Territory or in Altai are of a completely different character than the mood in Bolotnaya Square. In the West, only “swamp” protests are noticed. It is clear that everyone wants fair elections, and in this regard, much has been done to ensure that democratic institutions function properly. But the focus and sense of activity of all these institutions for protest people in the outback is completely different from the ideas of Bolotnaya Square.
Relatively speaking, in the capital, they are dissatisfied with the fact that a withdrawal, including ideological, from 90-s has been made, and the whole of Russia is unhappy with the fact that the steering wheel has not been turned sharply enough from the “damned” 90-s! And therefore it is impossible to combine these protests, although such cynical attempts were for the sole purpose of shaking the government. But this could only have a temporary tactical effect for ambitious unprincipled leaders using fellow travelers. So it was when Kasparov, a man of all excellence, flirted with the nationalists, not hiding that all means are good for loosening the existing power. But the capital protest is many times smaller than the provincial.
And the government led, by the way, itself in accordance with the democratic choice of society — that is, it paid more attention to the voice of the people, and began to respond to its task. And to satisfy the protest moods of the majority of citizens, a very strong state is needed. The welfare state is a strong and confident state. Especially in a country where the depth of freezing of the ground is 1,5-2 meters, where it is impossible without non-economic incentives to achieve a more or less even development of territories that are thousands of kilometers apart. We cannot even apply a single economic doctrine everywhere, as the conditions vary, not only socio-economic, but even civilizational: life, qualifications, population structure, natural conditions. In this regard, Russia is similar to the model of the world - all civilizations, archaic and modern technologies, 19 century and 21, inconceivable wealth and unacceptable poverty are represented. That is why we understand the problems of huts and palaces. A. Blok when he said: “Everything is intelligible to us, and the acute Gallic sense, and the gloomy German genius”. We also have strata professing postmodernist views on man and society, which they adhere to in the bohemian quarters of San Francisco, but we have patriarchal foundations, and we are close to the traditional values of societies that constitute the majority of the world's population.
VIEW: In the past year, Vladimir Putin clearly enough marked his course to support traditional values ...
NN: He proclaimed this openly and bravely! But even the degree that our traditionalists seem insufficient, plunged the West into a rage. Therefore, everything was done correctly, measured and metered accurately. The media in the West screamed, and the Europeans as a whole - on the contrary, they began to respect! Therefore, by the way, the libertarian press fights hysterically because of the rage that Russophobia has gone down ... in any case it has become marginalized! As a person who is actively working with the expert community in Europe, I can say that this year there has been a very interesting change in attitude towards Russia. This is a turn towards conservative-minded Europeans towards Russia, and the majority of them. I can not call the trend still dominant, but the process is obvious, this is a fact for me, a proven practice. Today, Russia is practically the only country that, at the state level, openly declared the protection of traditional Christian values. Did you know that the only congratulation to Pope Francis on the occasion of the election, where Christian values were mentioned, came from Vladimir Putin? This was noticed by my friends, European conservatives, and even spoke on this subject at the conference in Rome in the building of the Italian parliament! It costs a lot.
Letters began to come to our Institute for Democracy and Cooperation with gratitude to Russia, its leader, and its parliament. We are told: "You have a democracy!" To our liberals, it sounds like an anecdote, but European conservatives mean that our democracy does not allow the minority to trample down and dishonor everything that is dear to the majority. This is the power of the people, in the end.
We follow in this respect is not the doctrine of cabinet, which should fit the collar and forced to pull society (liberals actually since the Bolshevik approach to the ideas of reconstruction of human life), we follow that wants society itself, which corresponds to its foundations, and that, by and large, it provides continued.
Such an opinion about Russia is more present in the conservative circles of European society. I have always believed that conservative circles are our reserve, which always treats us better, because they, intellectuals or ordinary people, always have sympathy for independence, sovereignty of spirit and politics. They are sympathetic to the love of their homeland, despite the fact that everyone denounces it. Because for them it is like the love of a mother - after all, it is natural for a person to protect his mother from desecration, although everyone is well aware that mothers are not angels. People are sympathetic to our position and believe that Russia has a future in this field, that Russia can lead the resistance to the decline and decline of European civilization. For them it is important that the protection of traditional values and foundations was proclaimed at the state level.
And they suddenly thought: “And, actually, why did the Western liberal press endlessly vilify Russia? So after all, the same press denounces us, just because we don’t want to be recorded as “NI parent” and “N2 parent”. After all, we don’t infringe anyone’s rights, we just don’t want to equalize the unequal. Maybe Russia is rejected for the same thing, for which they hate us? And this mysterious Russia is not so disgusting as it is portrayed! An ordinary country, not sinless, of course, but ordinary ... and not a monster at all, as in the eyes of some A. Gluksman with his grotesque calls for a new crusade against the Eastern barbarians ... Such a process in the public consciousness of Europe is obvious that causes nervous anxiety among a narrow, ambitious, self-satisfied minority, which suppresses the “dissent” of the majority in the worst traditions of totalitarianism ... So, as the conservative part of society grows in interest in Russia, that’s x postmodern liberals. After all, the classic 19 liberal of the century would have turned out to be a conservative today, and would definitely turn over in a coffin, seeing that today is the criterion of freedom, for which he was ready to go to the scaffold.
VIEW: Europe is now experiencing a turning point. There are signs that the project of a united Europe, launched by the Anglo-Saxons, is gradually getting out of their control and coming under the control of Berlin. Do you think there is such a trend?
NN: With the emergence of Bismarck's Germany, the Anglo-Saxons have restrained Germany, following their classical attitude, to prevent the emergence of the preferential influence of any of the continental countries. From the 16th to the 19th centuries, France was its main rival, but with the advent of a united Germany, the situation changed. When, in 1886, the Russian ambassador conveyed to Petersburg, that in the case of the Franco-German war, Britain would support France, they did not even believe him at first. However, in London, they no longer wanted to turn Germany into a powerful Central European power, around which the circle of sattelites, the so-called Mitteleuropa doctrine, would inevitably form. This even prompted England to become an ally of Russia in the Entente. After the First World War, the Anglo-Saxons at the Versailles Conference in the absence of Russia cleared Germany according to the ancient pagan principle "woe to the vanquished." Germany did not resign, gave birth to an ugly fetus in the form of German Nazism and led the country completely to collapse (the Germans always ruined themselves with unbridled ambitions - would stop on time, be the number one nation in Europe, and in the world would never dream of us manage Eurasia!)
But everything that was done in post-war Europe - both NATO and the Common Market - was done not only against the Soviet Union, but above all to dissolve Germany, so that the German potential would never be independent in choosing a strategy. It must be dissolved in a united Europe, completely tied. The European Economic Community, the forerunner of the European Union, began, among other things, with the European Coal and Steel Community, which linked the raw materials of the war. Then, when Willy Brandt began a policy of reconciliation with the USSR and Eastern Europe, Washington was still fidgeting about Brandt’s insane run to Moscow, the ghost of Rapallo.
VIEW: As a result, Brandt lost his post, and his successor Schmidt was forced to be much more cautious and loyal to the United States.
NN: When the Soviet Union collapsed, everything was done to ensure that the concept of a new Europe was not German. The mysterious murder of the head of “Deutsche Bank” A. Herhausen in 1991 was witnessed literally in a week. But he had a great influence on Chancellor Kohl, and proposed to make not a dollar, but a mark as a unit of account with the USSR, forgive debts and much more in Eastern politics. If such a concept were to be realized, then it would have been a completely different Europe. Russia and Germany could become two pillars of the Eurasian equilibrium. And it would not be the American world. But the Anglo-Saxons could not allow this! As soon as it became possible to draw the former socialist countries into their orbits, first they were unprepared, were quickly accepted into the EU (the chambers under the burden of all the runaway rabbits and frogs were cracking), the immediate expansion of NATO began to bring European integration processes under Atlantic aegis, so that Europe remains strictly Atlantic.
Another example: in the Yugoslav crisis of the beginning of the 1990-s, Americans had long been neutral and did not advocate the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. But when Germany, not resisting the temptation to regain influence in the Balkans as in the First World War, practically imposed the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia to the European Union, the Americans saw the ghost of “Mitteleuropa” - “Central Europe”. The US took control, directed and led the process, so, of course, Germany and the United Kingdom always take the EU and EU interception of the EU integration initiative with caution.
It is difficult to say whether Germany had now such ambition and such opportunities. This is the only EU country that can withstand crisis, she produces herself, her handle all requests and demands of all to feed and treat. Americans keep an eye out for the Germans and are unlikely to allow them to start their game.
VIEW: And the fact that Britain has already threatened to leave the EU is not one way to put pressure on Germany? Or scandals with German gold, which Berlin cannot return from Anglo-Saxon vaults? Or the recent scandal with listening to Merkel - can this affect the fact that the German elite will strive for greater independence?
NN: Merkel initially looked tough atlantist. It was necessary to see the expression of her face at the already famous Munich conference, when Putin spoke. Merkel at a party was the American Minister of Defense, and suddenly your main guest, in front of whom you are making curtsies, your other guest smears on the wall. She was ready to fall through the earth. Of course, for these seven years, she certainly grew in terms of foreign policy thinking ... But, as one of my English friends told me, “I look at European leaders and at yours (Putin and Lavrov), and I understand what we have in the West pygmies compared to yours. " In the sense of will, professionalism, breadth of thinking.
Germany has always prevailed when it pursued an independent Ostpolitik (ie Russia). And it increased maneuverability and westbound. We need to work on that.
VIEW: Is there anyone to work with?
NN: There is. This was shown by my recent experience of participating in a conference on family values in Leipzig. Despite all the difficulties - pickets, overlapping tram stops, kicking my knee - 500 people came. But it’s sad that the libertarian press is raising a new generation of Germans in such a radically postmodern ideology that they don’t even know how to think otherwise ... "They are for good, for freedom, and we are some kind of troglodytes." We are in different ideological dimensions - it is impossible to explain to a blind person the difference between light and darkness, he is outside these categories.
VIEW: Germany is able to reach an agreement with us on Ukraine? After all, the difference between a Bavarian and a Saxon is greater than that between a Russian and a Ukrainian - or are they not ready to measure on their own?
NN: I think we would gradually agree with them - but who will give them? Neither Brussels nor the Anglo-Saxons will allow this. For Europe, of course, the refusal of Ukraine from European integration was a big blow, and there will be a lot of crying, but if the Ukrainian leadership shows a certain firmness, then the process of “wandering” between Russia and the West will take a protracted and less hysterical, but, alas, no less difficult ....
VIEW: In the coming year elections will be held in the European Parliament. Polls show an increase in the popularity of nationalists and rightists. Can they become the largest force in the European Parliament?
NN: Yes, the nationalists are growing. And more likely not respectable, and the liberals are to blame. Absolutely all media are controlled by postmodernists, who instantly calculate any potential respectable conservative force, and label it with extreme extremists and radicals, even if they are just a little closer to the center than these militant nihilists. And those people who have something to lose, feel free to speak, giving it to the marginalized. At one time, a scarecrow was made from the National Front in France ...
VIEW: But now the NF has managed to get out of that marginal niche, where he was strongly pushed ...
N.N. Yes, this is a parliamentary party, but such vilification, rudeness, nastiness, nicknames that are used in the media in relation to the Popular Front are unthinkable in relation to no other party.
VIEW: But, despite all the efforts of the press, Marine Le Pen is doomed to be President of France - not through 5, so in 10 years
NN: No, it is very difficult. The NF will have a large faction in parliament, but not those who have 40 percent support compared to 20 from his rival, but those who do not have a large negative rating, those who are not unacceptable for voters, become presidents. So far, the NF has failed to reverse the situation, although Marine Le Pen has never said anything to complain about. The elite presses in the bud of all potential right-centrists who do not have a margin of marginality in the public consciousness (albeit false and imaginary) and could become an alternative to the vulgar socialists, in which nothing left of the socialists either.
Recently, Jean-Pierre Shevenman, one of the founders of the Socialist Party, a respectable and cleverest politician, spoke at our institute. It combines the idea of a social state with quite conservative, centrist views on all other topics, including foreign policy. Classic European educated socialist. Now he has published a book on the centenary of the First World War about whether Europe has fallen out of history - the way he puts many themes in it is very consonant to me.
Will Europe is to have a healthy, strong, intelligent minded elite who are not afraid to win the right to conservatism? While trying to crush per se in the bud.
VIEW: What are the mood in French society now?
N.N. The conservative majority suffered deep disappointment when their opinion was completely ignored - in Paris, two million people came out against the law equalizing same-sex marriages with the traditional family, it’s like six people would have gathered in Moscow. And this is the most terrified of F. Hollande. He now has such a tiny rating, which has not been noted in the entire history of observations by any president even in the most depressive years of French politics. Therefore, France, I think, is going to give birth to something new.
But the trouble of any system, especially for a long time functioning, is that it is petrified structured, everywhere and on all cells with labels, so that it is very difficult to get out of them. And, unfortunately, the language of new political leaders is still clichéd. They must cross in all corners, swear allegiance to all liberal ideas so that they are not accused of being undemocratic. But when a minority is allowed to stomp on something that is expensive to the majority, this is no longer a democracy, it is an anti-democracy. This is a kind of oligarchy. Even 22 a century ago, Aristotle pointed to the perversions of democracy - ochlocracy (the power of the crowd), behind which the oligarchy handles affairs.
VIEW: The crisis in Ukraine related to the refusal of European integration, again raised the question of the reintegration of historical Russia, of the collection of the Russian world. Are we ready for this challenge now?
NN: It seems to me that it is unwise now to politically emphasize the collection of the “Russian world”. This only works for already convinced supporters of Slavic unity, and others set the tone in Slavic countries. It is necessary to work differently but deeply, overcoming the negative attitude towards Russia, which is spread in Ukraine by targeted propaganda of the media, and by our own "rashki" accusers! We have not done a tenth in Ukraine of the fact that there is one American foundation working to educate Ukrainians in the spirit of Russophobia. Of course, we cannot but be interested in Ukraine. It would be unnatural if we were not worried about a country whose people not so long ago detached from the all-Russian tree, which passed along with us the whole story with which we considered ourselves to be a single historical flow, a country in which half of the population has relatives in Russia. Not to mention the fact that if the Ukrainian economy collapses, then, as Putin rightly said, you still have to pull it out of the swamp to us.
Do not forget that the eternal goal and direction of all arrows of pressure from the West to Russia for several centuries is to push us to the north-east of Eurasia, from the region of the straits and the Black Sea, from what made Russia a great power. And Ukraine for this tidbit. Like Georgia, with its earlier Abkhaz coast and the port of Batumi. The Eastern question has not gone away - as in the XVIII – XIX centuries. Great Britain, urging Persia to continue the eternal war with Russia, sponsoring the Basmachis from the southern underbelly of Russia, Turkey as their support in the policy in Transcaucasia, where now is an independent Azerbaijan ...
I recently organized a conference in Rome, where the future NATO Secretary General, the former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, also spoke. A handsome man, a gentleman, at first he glorified how our ambassador loves, what friend Sergei Lavrov is to him, what a wonderful Putin, and that without Russia, nowhere. And then he gave absolutely clear to all the sisters by the earrings: Assad should leave, only peacefully, Georgia will be in NATO, just not soon, more Azerbaijanis live in Iran than in Azerbaijan. The latter caused affection from the Azerbaijani ambassador, who was nodding his head. I realized that NATO even uses a mine laid by the Musavatists and the Bolsheviks when Azerbaijan was called a republic in Baku, creating the basis for influencing people living in Iran in the province with almost the same name (Azarbajdzhan), speaking the same language, but having a completely different ethnic background. In other words, NATO will treat the “interests” of Baku in Iran with “understanding” if Baku takes the side of the West to put pressure on Tehran. And Azerbaijan enjoys full support in all matters from Turkey - the main tool of the West against Iran ... And this was said - even in the form of a hint. Nothing of the historical burden has disappeared anywhere.
The complexity of our time is that, along with purely modern phenomena that are pushing to pursue a policy in one direction or another, all the old inherited factors and geopolitical aspirations are also in effect. And it turns out a tangle. They talk about geo-economics - put a map of pipelines on the map of color revolutions, and much will become clear. Or the idea of ringing the Mediterranean - it has occupied everyone since the struggle of Carthage with Hannibal and Ancient Rome, for it is impossible to become master of the world without controlling the Mediterranean Sea. And Rome became an empire, only defeating Hannibal and taking control of both coasts. This tried to make the Arabs, Napoleon, Mussolini ...
That is why the geopolitical picture is so complex - in the ultraviolet rays it is one, in infrared it is another, and through a simple prism it is the third. And only together gives us the opportunity to understand. Russia now has the opportunity to pursue its wise and multi-vector policy, despite all the difficulties: far from being the first economy in the world that is marking time, internal problems ...
VIEW: The lack of agreement in the elite on the path of development of the country, on how far you have to go to meet the huge public demand for social justice ...
NN: Yes, the people want more justice. But in the past ten years, he hated the bureaucracy even more than in the 90-e years - the oligarchs, about which even the anecdotes are not told.
VIEW: Do not the oligarchs themselves inflate and so justified dissatisfaction with officials - in order to put pressure on the government, and even intercept it?
NN: The oligarchs must understand that nowadays, in order for tankers with oil to go through the straits, they must be accompanied by imperial guns. And for this you need a strong state - otherwise we will be ousted from everywhere. We had the most advantageous contracts in Libya, Algeria - and now all this is in doubt.
As for our elite ... I'm not a proponent of a return to the command economy ... But the market regulates subtle nuances when a functioning and self-reproducing economy, a structure has already taken shape, and yet it does not exist, and the role of the state is enormous. We export capital on a monstrous scale, and rustled about the fact that the official did not even have a small innocent account abroad ... To whom does he interfere? But influential private structures with huge assets exported abroad really become vulnerable to external pressure, they are less interested in the success of their state. It is necessary, with the help of both economic and non-economic measures, to ensure that our financial and economic elite are interested in a strong state that will protect it. Here the United States, for example, wars are ready to lead for its producers, the Caribbean crisis can arrange for the market for chicken legs.
VIEW: But the United States can also be viewed as a tool in the hands of transnational capital - so the question is who is defending whose interests. Chubais offered a liberal empire, and Khodorkovsky, too, for a strong state — only they need it to protect the interests of the oligarchy.
NN: We, as ordinary citizens, are interested in a strong state, which is on guard of the law, in a social state, which, as a strong one, takes care of the weak. There is nothing communist in this - it is all in the Gospel commandments. The social price of the Courchevel blush is too high, it is neither godly nor undemocratic. Democracy implies equal opportunities - this is not equality, it is equal opportunities in any profession to achieve a decent level. In our country, the Gaidar doctrine laid down such a system of economics, when whole multi-million categories of working people are programmed to lead a miserable existence. And these are not the ones that the state allegedly doesn’t need - Gaidar offered to forget about them altogether, but those without which the state would perish, in which up to 40 percent of the population are employed. And only in recent years began to invest in the army, medicine, education. When the situation has already reached the limit, these professions have lost prestige - and when they lose the prestige of the profession in the institutions of self-preservation of the state, then this is a terrible danger. Now the state is beginning to correct this situation - it comes to the rescue, no one is left in the lurch, but the economic structure itself remains unchanged. And without a conceptual change of guidelines, without structural changes, and therefore, without state intervention in the economy is not enough. Otherwise, we will always catch up with someone and save the drowning.
For example, I am completely and completely with those who are horrified by the proclaimed reform of the Academy of Sciences. Thank God, it seems to be frozen. Being a great scientific power is a very big achievement. If you lose it, you will not be able to recover. Before the Second World War, Germany was a great scientific power - now the Federal Republic of Germany has overtaken fascist Germany in everything, proving that it is possible to achieve the highest well-being of its citizens and the heights of industrial development without the seizure of foreign territories. Only one thing she did not restore — a great science that cannot continue itself without continuity and continuity. There are concrete, wonderful applied scientific studies, but the full cycle of scientific research is now only in the US and here, and China has been building it lately. We have a lot destroyed in the country, but if we destroy science now, then we will end. The material is all recoverable, everything can be acquired - after the 300 years of the Mongol yoke, when half of the results of labor were paid in tribute, Russia in a short time turned into a huge empire.
VIEW: This year, interethnic tensions heated up, breaking through here and there, including in Moscow.
N.N .: When we talk about the humiliation of the Russian people, that the alien people are oppressing, then you need to understand all the reasons for this complex phenomenon. Here is the legacy of the Soviet demeaning of the Russian people against the background of intensive investment in the national republics, here is the result of the post-Soviet ideology and economy. Large-scale deindustrialization, the destruction of industry in Russia led to the decline of small cities, and that is where the situation is worst. Professions and spheres where the average Russian person realized himself - a local doctor and teacher, an engineer and a skilled worker, major, these spheres were not financed and were doomed to decline by the very type of 90's economy. Working capital reigns, trade, former specialists have lost quite prestigious jobs. And in trade, representatives of another culture are moving forward, and even with their own tradition of solving all professional, family and social problems through clan-clan ties. They became competitive in an unproductive economy. And with a healthy economy, only qualified people can work in production. And an illiterate newcomer, an intermediary in the trade will not be higher on the social ladder and in income than the local indigenous engineer.
Not only for the sake of the economy, but also for the sake of improving the socio-demographic situation, we need powerful industrialization! The reclamation and restoration of the prestige of the profession and the salary of the “Russian average engineer” will in itself contribute to restoring the balance in interethnic relations. So it is possible, without any emphasis on interethnic relations, to level out the absurd imbalance, when an illiterate greensmith is richer than a professor at a local pedagogical institute, and therefore behaves accordingly, disdains, neglects customs.
I am not against the word “Russian” - this means civil status. We are all citizens of Russia, of all nationalities. But culture as a product of the spirit gives rise only to the national - a combination of language, ethnic habits, fairy tales and historical experiences, the way we behave at weddings and funerals, up to culinary. Skinheads have no future, because they know only “against whom”, but do not know “for what”. And such a degradation of the national feeling to a zoological “friend or foe” does not at all indicate a hypertrophied exaltation of the national in the country, but, on the contrary, the consequences of its constant infringement. The collapse of the USSR, the liberals, gloatingly declared the natural outcome of the imperialism of the barbarian Russian people, and Russia the failure of world history. Loving your Fatherland among the educated class is completely unfashionable. There has been a marginalization of the national consciousness; it is not very decent for a civilized person to talk about it, as our ever-hating and despising "pseudo-intelligentsia" believes. But if the body is kicked, it makes very ugly sounds.
The national spirit, the love of one's heritage, sanctified by the highest values, is the impulse to historical creativity. And if there is no consecration in high gusts, then the national feeling, which is immanently inherent in man, degrades into a zoological, ethnic one. In principle, this is absolutely not typical of the Russian people, otherwise we would not have built such a state. I feel sorry for people and the type of Novodvorskaya, and the type of skinheads, these are two sides of the same coin ... So we should not forbid us to call ourselves Russians: love of one’s own is not hatred of another. Only he who loves and values his heritage is capable of respecting the same feelings of others. A bad Russian will become a bad Russian - his homeland will be there, where taxes are lower. We, with our huge history of expanding our state, drawing hundreds of nations into orbit, have earned the right to a more complex, multi-status coexistence of Russian and Russian, not merged, but not separately! We need to talk more about this - the more the elite and the government is wary, even obviously sympathetic, talk about it calmly and respectably, the more we give this topic to those who begin to measure their noses without being any carrier of national culture and values. In Europe, all this is given to the marginalized - and they are called "nationalists." Although what, for example, is the nationalist killed by Pim Fortine, the leader of the Dutch xenophobes, who for some reason are called "right" by liberals? What value of the centuries-old Dutch culture did he express - a Trotskyite and a pederast? Purely zoological, yours is a stranger, and this is a dead end. The great nationalists of the past created modern European nations and were not at all hostile to other nations.
The specificity of our time is that whole communities of different civilizations coexist in today's states and societies (photo: ITAR-TASS)
The specificity of our time is that whole communities of different civilizations coexist in today's states and societies (photo: ITAR-TASS)
VIEW: Similar forces, pseudo-nationalists with a liberal lining, will gain popularity more than traditionalists, conservative nationalists?
NN: Europe is ruled by a postmodern, almost Trotskyist, left-libertarian elite. Previously, the propaganda department of the Central Committee preached a Marxist-Leninist utopia: to give everyone an equal piece of bread, then the nations would merge and dissolve. Approximately the same thinking is now in the propaganda department of Brussels: it is necessary to give everyone the same democracy and human rights, and everyone will be equally aware of the meaning of life. In both universalist projects there is completely no consideration of completely different religious and philosophical pictures of the world among different peoples and civilizations.
The specificity of our time is that in today's states and societies entire communities of different civilizations coexist. In Europe, there are no longer states with a single religious-philosophical picture of the world; by the way, in them, in former times, alien minorities always behaved very respectfully - they either formed a closed community or integrated. And now there is nothing to integrate, for Europe, as the bearer of the Christian picture of the world, surrenders to postmodernists. The preaching of value nihilism, erasing the verge of good and evil, beauty and ugliness, sin and virtue, but at the same time the buttons of washing machines, kaballisticheskie lines of the Internet. In such a purely technocratic civilization, but without culture as a product of the spirit, there is no need to integrate, you can successfully reproduce a piece of your own civilization, which is what all newcomers in European countries do.
The ruling elite silences any respectable voice, immediately labeling an extremist - if it is a little bit closer to the center than it is, in fact, it is left-extremist. We do not have to go this way - we have a great experience, unknown to Europe. Do not be afraid of the word "Russian" - all this land is watered with our blood. The Russian people will survive, retain their dignity, faith in their future, their self-sufficiency and self-worth in world history - all nations in our state will flourish who have tied their destiny with them and remain loyal to the common path.