Jacob Kulnev, Major General, the hussar: "Mother Russia is so good that in some place let it fight."
Svetlana Alexievich, the Nobel laureate: "We have fought all the time or were preparing for war."
Two very different people from different epochs, different professions, speaking out on the “peaceful sky over Russia” issue, are surprisingly unanimous. They do not believe in this very "peaceful sky." I want to hit myself in the pockets (do not ring?) And ask - why? Why Russia is all its history forced to fight? What is the root of the problem? Maybe the problem is really in some particular aggressiveness (totalitarianism) of the Russian state? Maybe it, like ancient Assyria, simply cannot live without wars of conquest? Maybe free and prosperous neighbors pose an ideological threat to her?
Russian history is certainly very interesting from the point of view of military campaigns, battles, re-equipment and military-technical innovations. Just a holiday of some kind. But it is precisely this aspect of Russian history that is often subject to serious criticism from many, many authors. As an example, the countries of Eastern Europe are the Czech Republic or even Austria. While, to be honest, very poor and not at all free Russia heroically expanded the frontiers of the empire, architecture, mining, science, painting, and civil society developed in these countries.
And the lag, even at the end of the 19 of the 20th century, was truly enormous. Even when they came to liberate, the Bulgarians, who were moaning loudly under the Turkish oppression, the Russian soldiers and officers were confronted with the amazing fact that the Bulgarian peasant, crushed by the oppression of the Janissaries, lives richer and more prosperous than the Russian liberator.
By the way, the history of the liberated from the Turks in Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania does not give any grounds for optimism, rather, it is an example of political failure. Even the liberated Serbs were politically and economically oriented, oddly enough, to Austria. And in general, the German princes began to rule Bulgaria.
As we all know, in 1945, a Soviet soldier finished off fascists of all colors and liberated Europe. III Reich had a huge military potential, was, perhaps, the most advanced scientific and technical power - it suffices to recall guided bombs and jet bombers. And yet, he was literally wiped off the face of the earth. The Red Army did not leave Hitler any chance.
Theoretically, after that, Russians in Europe, in any case, in its eastern part, should have been looked upon simply as supermen. And in the "western lands" of Poland, Soviet veterans of the Second World should simply feed and treat for free. I would, on the site of Poles living essentially on German soil, paint monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators with golden paint, invite veterans from Russia every year and give them vodka.
Do not invite and do not pour. And what is most offensive is that the Red Army and the Soviet occupation are exposed in every way (apparently, they smoothly prepare for the return of Danzig). And it's not even about Americans - the whole of Eastern Europe is very negative about the very liberation. Both Estonians and Romanians do not have warm feelings for the Red Army. Sad but true. Why is this so? Why did our soldiers die?
The same Poles and Czechs see liberators in the Americans. Not even in the British, but in the Americans, who did not release them. Funny enough, what brings political correctness. We see it, we take offense at it, but we don’t ask ourselves a question - why is this so? Why even defeated Germans in Eastern Europe are much more respected than Russian winners?
One of the explanations, quite logical that I met - a Russian soldier who liberated Europe from the horrors of Nazism in 1945, was far less free than any European. And it is much poorer than this European, “liberated from the horrors of Nazism”. A clean-shaven, well-fed American came by jeep, dead tired, covered with dust, dirt and worn-out military uniforms looked very different.
This is what is bad, they tell us. Even at the end of 80, the USSR, which had a huge military potential, could not provide its citizens with a set of consumer goods comparable to the European one. The economic, technical, cultural backlog did not allow to see the leader in Russia, did not allow to be guided by it.
The following strategy is insistently proposed: domestic development of Russia, economic growth, infrastructure development, improving living standards, shooting soap operas in industrial quantities, staging performances, but when we pass all of them during the peaceful competition, we will automatically become the leader and the people will reach out to us .
In principle, at least theoretically, this scheme is quite logical. And even pleasant. The standard of living is growing, there are no sharp political conflicts, respect for the Russian state is growing by leaps and bounds. And all is well, and everything is wonderful. The picture is fun. But it will not.
Just look at the situation with Georgia - the standard of living in Russia is much higher than in Sakartvelo. I don’t even speak about technology, the economy as a whole and soap operas. According to this theory, Georgians should reach out to Russia, look at it as a leader, and so on. It seems to be so, but it does not. I understand - return South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then we'll talk.
With Ukraine, in general, the situation is even more interesting - one language, one culture, but two states and two levels of life. The classic situation, as with West Germany and East Germany. Or as with North Korea and South Korea. Back in 2013, when there were tense negotiations in the triangle: Brussels - Kiev - Moscow, it was possible to say with certainty: Russia won the economic competition with Ukraine. Completely and absolutely.
But for some reason this obvious fact did not cause the Ukrainians any desire to unite. The same can be said about Belarus. Even with the Baltics, Russia won economic competition, but there was no love, no respect, no desire to follow Russian standards. Just look at the situation from the outside - the more in Russia a new, good, interesting is created, the higher the degree of hatred from the “Baltic tigers”. Paradox?
Yes, being taken to the extreme by need, they are ready to take “Russian totalitarian money,” pursing their lips in disgust and wearing medical gloves. Even quite reasonable Finland, in which a high standard of living directly depends on trade with Russia, looks at Moscow only as a source of money such as colonial Nigeria, and, of course, a source of problems. Correct me, but even completely sane Finns are politically and culturally oriented towards Brussels and Washington. Russia is a rich, but dangerous and restless Nigeria.
So the "theory of space ice" or the theory of "economy instead tanks" does not work. Before the sanctions, Russia lived extraordinarily richly (if we keep in mind the entire time of its existence). We have never lived so well! Toward the close of this glorious era, the Russian dictator issued a loan for Yanukovych in the amount of fifteen billion dollars and arranged a Coliseum with gladiators in Sochi.
But the democratic leaders ignorantly ignored these “chariot races and the eating of Christian virgins by lions”. And in response they staged (simultaneously with the show in Sochi) a show in Kiev. This is how the "beautiful era" ended. We honestly tried to play by their rules - they sold oil, bought finished products from them and took loans from their banks. What's wrong? We did everything right on the way to this very “cultural-economic” victory on points.
But Angela Merkel did not come to Sochi, and Francois Hollande did not come. Vladimir Putin practically scraped the chests of the imperial treasury to the bottom, arranging this children's matinee for the elect, but the “elect” did not come. They did not want to.
For the sake of interest, I propose to personalize a European in personal communication. To ask him: what, in fact, should Russia do for Europe to recognize in it a leader? That's right, not to accept as a “Polish plumber”, but to recognize the leader? Well, after the third glass of tea, in order not to drive the poor European into the stupor at all.
You see, ignoring the invitation to Sochi and the support of extremists in Kiev was the answer of Europe to the proposal to “compete in the economy”. By the way, if Putin has found money for merrymaking and for helping hapless Yanukovych, then Europe has no money for something like that. Do we really beat them in the economy? Joke.
For the sake of interest, let us assume: the standard of living in Russia is higher than in France, the Russian cosmonauts built a manned station on the moon, Russia makes the best electronics in the world and airplanes ... Well, and so on. Now attention, the question: “Will Europe then recognize the leader in Russia?” The answer, I think, is obvious.
Even today, when we are definitely surpassing the Germans in the field of creating underwater and spacecraft, rocket technology, they look at us like the Zulus. "And we have a Mercedes" - the standard answer. And our possible flight to Mars will not change anything. “Russian savages flew to Mars, but they have no democracy and Mercedes.” The correct emphasis in the word "Mercedes" on the second syllable, the second syllable - "tse".
All this would not be so critical, if the planet Earth would be more. Square more. And minerals. Or if the Germans and I lived on different planets. But we all live together and have to interact. And they do not respect us. At the end of the 19 of the 20th century, the Japanese defeated China and were going to take away from them the interesting pieces of territory. But the European powers, united, prevented this. That is, the Japanese got something, but not as much as they wanted. Cause? "They are not white people."
Here we have the same situation with the Crimea, Kosovo and the United States. Americans, even the president, are white people. Russians are not. Therefore, the "Kosovo Serb Chainsaw Massacre" is a "special case." And in Crimea everything should be according to the laws of Ukraine, otherwise sanctions. You see, one of the reasons for this whole conflict around Ukraine and Syria is the low status of Russians in terms of the West. Russians should pay and repent for the crimes of Stalinism, and not try to pursue geopolitics.
Russia had serious interests in Ukraine (I will not list), and openly stated this. Honest and dignified position. But from the point of view of the West, she did not have the right to this, she has not and should not have it. Therefore, Russia's interests were ignored, and an armed conflict erupted in Ukraine. That is, Russia was not “authoritative” enough to be considered at the negotiating table with its opinion, but it was able to declare those “selfish interests” with force actions.
That, in turn, caused a storm of hatred from the “global community” or a group of particularly arrogant politicians who declared themselves demiurgists of this location. You see, they are trying to conduct politics as if no Russian state is on the map. “Passengers of the bus are wondering - there is emptiness, they rush there, and there my portfolio, it makes them terribly angry.”
For “1-e message of Western civilization to Muscovites” says: “Get out of our planet!” In this section, the ideas of Tsiolkovsky become very relevant.
If anyone does not remember, World War I began with the fact that Austria-Hungary decided to "punish" Serbia, which was under the supreme protection of the Russian tsar. Russia tried to just ignore. Yes, there were many more different reasons, but this is the essence. The world was very close to war, no one argues with this, but the "spark of ignition" was the reluctance of Kaiser Willy II to reckon with Russia's interests. Fundamental reluctance.
World War II. You will laugh, but it was precisely after Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and Bulgaria that the relationship between him and Stalin deteriorated sharply. Hitler simply decided not to take into account the geopolitical interests of the USSR. This made the war inevitable. Déjà vu, aren't you?
It hurts me to talk about it, but when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, from the birth of Christ, the conflict with Russia became inevitable. But you will agree how easy it was to avoid conflict, given the interests of Russia in this small Balkan country. Imagine someone in a half-empty bus puts on your leg a heavy suitcase, while genuinely smiling at a “Hollywood” smile. Then a conflict arises, on the basis of a “sudden personal dislike”.
It was absolutely clear that Russia cannot but respond to the situation in Serbia, Armenia, and Ukraine. For one quite simple and understandable reason - these countries are very close to us, and practice shows that it is impossible to hide behind the pillars. Plus, these countries are very closely connected with us historically, which is often actively denied by their politicians.
Russia's response was immediately followed by high-profile accusations of "imperial ambitions." The circle is closed, the trap is shut. I think some readers have had a similar situation in life when they are frankly trampled into the dirt, and having received a tough response in response, they are accused of “lack of culture” and “bad manners”. That is, in this case, the case is in the hierarchy of human society. You get kicked and you have to smile. And thank "for science."
We, gentlemen, have fallen into a rather strange situation: Russia is the largest and richest country in the world, Russia has the second most powerful armed forces on the planet. Russia is a country of ballet, rockets, sudden Greek amphoras and thermonuclear weapons own development. But they treat us in the West a little worse than Romanian Gypsies. Their human rights, at least in Romania, nobody calls into question. The Russians in old Russian Narva are second-rate people.
That is, the Gypsies from glorious Romania are one thing, and the Russians from Narva are something else. What do you think we need to do in order for Russians from Narva to be recognized as full-fledged Homo Sapiens? To tell the truth, I do not know and can not even imagine. For example, what percentage of the EU population should be lost? What am I talking about? Oh sad. About sore.
I am not educated enough to understand whether Russia can change its status at all - without a big war or even with a big war. No more Spanish Empire, British Empire, French Empire. The last two flourished before World War II, but they are no longer there. But the Russian Empire (a country with a territory in 17 with more than millions of square kilometers can only be an empire) remained, albeit in a stripped-down form.
From us it will not turn out small and cultural Czechia. You can not even try. But Romanian Roma, undemanding to social status, of us also fail.
The problem of Russia, from my point of view, is not in “excessive aggressiveness”, but in not very successful wars of the second half of 19, the first half of 20, centuries. Recall the Crimean War, the last Russian-Turkish, Russian-Japanese, World War I, civil war, World War II. Feel what I'm getting at? The empire in these wars suffered losses and suffered defeats. Tsushima and the surrender of Port Arthur provided the empire with a revolution. Heavy losses and inept top management during the war with the Kaiser, exploded the second and third Russian revolutions. The war with Hitler did without revolutions, but it was insanely expensive.
We can not live in peace, but we can not even afford such a defeat. That is, do not be afraid of accusations of militarism and the desire to intimidate everyone. We must be afraid of failure in the combat capability of the army. Such failures cost Russia very dearly. The version of history, where Russia defended Sevastopol in 1854, and Admiral Rozhestvensky defeated Admiral Togo, would have been completely different.
It's not about stupid kings and talented revolutionaries. The inability of the empire to “project” its power inevitably calls into question the viability of such an empire. When the Anglo-French could not repel Suez from Egypt, two great empires ended at once. Sic transit gloria mundi. The empire does not hold shy.
That is, the tragedy of Russia 17 of the year we owe not so much to Ulyanov-Lenin, but to the military leadership of the empire, who did not supply an army with shells either in Manchuria or in Galicia, and who lost millions of soldiers. Do not make Lenin a superhero, he was not, I beg. With the not so critical level of nepotism, insanity and corruption in the empire, October and February of 17 would have remained just months in the calendar. Perhaps marked by the success of Russian weapons.
I apologize for the evil sarcasm, but the preservation and especially the expansion of the empire means "small victorious wars." By the way, after the Cold War, even the vast Czechoslovakia, the Americans broke into two occupation zones. In Russia there would be much more.