The alternative to the current non-sovereign Europe, as we imagine, can only be a sovereign Europe. No other way of putting this question is able to unite people with different opinions on the future of Europe. This is why it is important to say: “Listen, let us first win the right to discuss different options of our future and to make these options come to life in practice. This is the first stage for which we must unite in the struggle for sovereignty. Because all of us – right-wing, left-wing, centrists – want to have the possibility to put our very different visions of the European future into practice. So let us first agree that we don’t have this right today as a real right. Let us then unite to win this right. Having won it once and for all, let us compete, convincing the society that it is our vision of the European path that meets the expectations and hopes of the different peoples of Europe.” But with the U.S. presence in Europe – can Europe be sovereign without Russia?
Not even in nightmares could I have imagined that first a small Ukrainian “Essence of Time” squad, and later quite a large military unit under our flag will be fighting in Donbass when we gathered here last year. By the way, Italians, Spaniards, representatives of many other peoples have joined our unit. Donetsk, Lugansk have become the new Spain, with international brigades. This is not a myth, this is the reality of our time.
You say that new ideology is not possible. It seems to me that it is already being formed. Tatjana Ždanoka says that there always is a solution. The people who taught me were putting this a bit differently: “Yes, there always is a solution. But sometimes more will is required to find a solution on a new stage.” And the will is depleting. Tatjana Ždanoka has told us that Europeans are prepared for war and Russia must know this. I think, no matter how strange this may seem, Russians are prepared for war more than anybody else. They don’t want to go to war at all, but they are prepared. There is much evidence to this.
The ruble/dollar ratio in Russia is half of what it was. Twice as much rubles are now needed to pay for a dollar. Since there is a lot of import in the country, the standard of living decreased accordingly. At the same time, the support of Vladimir Putin has increased dramatically and reached a fantastic high. But if everyone is saying that the current conflict has lowered the standard of living and Russians are voting for the President like never before, how do we call this state of the Russian society? It is an anti-consumerist state, isn’t it?
Meaning, it is a state in which prosperity, temporary fortunes and well-being do not have a decisive meaning anymore. The true values, fundamental values which are found beyond consumerism, including existential values gradually come to the fore in Russia and Russians are voting for these values. Look at Putin’s approval rating and think what it means in the European sense. I repeat, the government has decreased the standard of leaving by half; at the same time, the support of the government has doubled. Why? Because Crimea, and because there is a sense of an existential threat. Which is why the statements that Europe is prepared to go to war cause my, I apologize, deep irony. Consumerist European society cannot fight a technologically developed society, which Russia still is, in case that society is serious about assuming the position beyond consumerism.
Regarding the new ideology (what is there to fight for, why go to war?)… I have recently seen a video which gained a lot of attention lately. Russian priests rest outside and sing Soviet songs together. Since it was always assumed that the Russian Church is against Communists due to their recent history and this is absolutely impossible, the video has been seen all over the country. They sing: “Joyous wind, go sing us a song…” (a famous song from a famous Soviet movie written in 1936 – Editor).
We are now holding preliminary consultations regarding a mutual “Essence of Time” and “All-Russian Parents’ Resistance” congress in Moscow (the congress was held on July 12, 2015 – Editor). We would like to see people from different countries on this convention. If the consultations succeed, then the question of a left-wing-conservative alliance will be raised on a quite reputable conference for the first time ever. Meaning a real alliance of the left-wing forces, including the Communists, with conservative forces, including the Church.
Long before the congress the members of our party were approached by a quite influential priest in one of the largest dioceses of Russia. He told them: “Gather a congress on the synthesis of Christianity and Communism immediately. Immediately, it will be late three months from now.” After which he asked a copy of our newspaper to familiarize the Orthodox priest community and the flock with it. If someone had told me nine months ago that such a reaction of the Orthodox Church elite was possible, I would have just shrugged. But the process of shaping of a new worldview philosophy in Russia is developing very quickly — thanks to Ukraine. Because it is the events in Ukraine that caused what all of us call the “Russian turn”.
Russia took the cue from the West after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the Russian elites wanted this. Today, a part of the elite and the majority of the society talk about the “Russian turn”. What the turn will be like? I personally was deeply concerned by the extremist far-right forces convention in Saint-Petersburg exactly because, even though the “Russian turn” is inevitable, its content might be very diverse. Only the left-conservative turn will save Russia. An extremist far-right turn will only kill it.
What is Europe to us? We understand that each European country is a big “cooking pot”, with its individual boiling “soup”. But every cooking pot has a lid, and that lid is very pro-American. There is the soup, but the lid something different. And we all understand how important these lids are, how powerful they are, how influential they are, how much influence they have on things Giulietto Chiesa talked about here. However, the soup is important too, the lid doesn’t define everything anymore.
I think that the only question that Europe faces today is the sovereignty question. Left-wing, ring-wing, centrists – everybody started talking about the sovereignty. The real sovereignty. Europe is not sovereign, which prominent representatives of the Russian elite many years later saw for themselves. But it must become sovereign. And it can become sovereign.
What do I mean when I say “sovereignty”? I don’t mean one or another course Europe will head. I mean the ability of Europe to set the course it wants, to move in one direction or another according to its own decision. Europe might continue heading the same course the United States are heading. But it must have the ability to set a different course. When a little ship has its own engine it might head in the same direction the large ship moves, but it can move in a different direction. But when the large ship is towing the little ship, the little ship has no right to set its own course. Meaning, it has no sovereignty.
“Stratfor” director’s, Mr. Friedman’s, provocative revelations were discussed here: according to him, all of US foreign policy was directed at preventing at all costs the allied merger of Russian and European, first and foremost German, resources. But Mr. Friedman is not the person who has direct political power. And he has “opened up” only now. Some time before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in the end of 1990, I had the opportunity to meet with a quite respectable adviser to George Bush Sr. Who, unlike Mr. Friedman, had both real status and real influence. We have talked for a while, and in the end of our conversation he said: “Sergei, perhaps you are right (we were talking about the inevitability of Germany and Russia becoming closer in the case of inconsiderately US-supported disintegration of USSR). Perhaps you are right. But if the unification of Germany and Russian will start, it will lead to a nuclear war in Europe.” I want to emphasize one more time that this person was not only the president of a certain foundation, but also had power granted by his high official status.
Now, if the ship is being towed towards a certain whirlpool, then the ship which has an engine can set itself free of the tow, turn its engine on, and, by setting a different course, avoid the whirlpool. If there is no whirlpool ahead, this ship might decide to stay towed. It’s up to the ship to decide in this case. Meaning, the European society. It’s up to it to decide what is advantageous for Europe. But if the society decides that it is advantageous not to follow the United States, this society must have the possibility to put this decision into practice. Now there is no possibility for such a decision. It means that Europe is not sovereign.
The alternative to the current non-sovereign Europe, as we imagine, can only be a sovereign Europe. No other way of putting this question is able to unite people with different opinions on the future of Europe. This is why it is important to say: “Listen, let us first win the right to discuss different options of our future and to make these options come to life in practice. This is the first stage for which we must unite in the struggle for sovereignty. Because all of us – right-wing, left-wing, centrists – want to have the possibility to put our very different visions of the European future into practice. So let us first agree that we don’t have this right today as a real right. Let us then unite to win this right. Having won it once and for all, let us compete, convincing the society that it is our vision of the European way that meets the expectations and hopes of the different peoples of Europe.”
Next the most sensitive issue comes up: can Europe, even if it will become different, be sovereign without Russia? Mister Kohl once received me among other representatives of Russia. During the private conversations that we had it was said that unification of Russia and Europe, Russia and Germany will make the military presence of the United States on the European continent unnecessary. And that the Americans are about to leave. This happened, if I am not mistaken, in 1993. So? Did the Americans leave? Did Europe approach the sovereignty which is impossible without them leaving?
Now regarding Ukraine. I think that several points are not in the focus of the European attention. And we don’t know how to bring them back into focus.
First point. Yanukovich was overthrown with blatant violations of the Constitution. Not with some violations, with unimaginable violations. The impeachment committee wasn’t gathered – they didn’t have enough people to form the committee. The prosecutor wasn’t involved. There was no Constitutional court decision. Yanukovich wasn’t allowed to officially reply to accusations. Finally, there weren’t enough votes for an impeachment. Which means this is not just a violation of the Constitution, this is the collapse of the Law itself. And the collapse of all political parties. “Party of Regions”, the Ukrainian Communist party – all of them collapsed. Who appeared on the political stage? Who are these people? What and whom do they represent?
Second point. Any constitution is held together by the social contract. The Ukrainian Constitution was formed and accepted by the peoples of West Ukraine, Central Ukraine, Crimea and Novorossiya. But all of these rules of the game were changed in one hour. What social contract is there to talk about now?
Third point. All international agreements were violated. A decision was made on the resignation process of Yanukovich. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had signed it and immediately violated it. (Sergei Kurginyan refers to the Agreement on settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine, signed by the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich, Maidan leaders and EU representatives: Foreign Ministers of Poland, France and Germany. According to this document signed on February 21, Yanukovich agreed to comply with all demands of the Maidan. The radical leaders of the Maidan, however, refused to accept the peaceful resolution of the conflict and continued the bloodshed in order to remove all power from the current authorities. Meaning, they took power in the country by means of a coup d’etat – Editor).
Fourth point. Nobody wants to recognize the scale of ideological statements made by Ukraine. Bandera, Shukhevich, Shtepa, Dontsov and others were recognized as heroes by the Ukrainian state. It is the glorification of Nazi ideology, with the difference being that Russians in it are treated the same way Jews were treated in the German Nazi ideology. Of course, there is quite a peculiar treatment of Jews there as well… “Throw the Russians to the other side of the Dnepr river, throw the Jews into the Dnepr river!”, “Moskals and Jews – out of Ukraine!” But Russians in Bandera Nazi ideology are the main enemy, the subhumans, monsters which are subject to “creative violence”, that is, genocide.
Tell me, what country in this world would philosophically react to a government that appeared by violating the laws of its own country, that speaks only the language of genocide, that arms itself with an ideology based on genocide?
Fifth point. Can one resurrect Bandera, Shukhevich, the “1st Galician” SS division without resurrecting Nazi collaborators everywhere? And we already see SS marches in the Baltic states and in other countries. Isn’t this pregnant with rebirth of Nazism – first with a number of tongue-in-cheek caveats (that it is not exactly Hitler’s Nazism), and then without any caveats? The process is obvious! It is just as obvious as the revision of the results of World War II – we are told that the communists and Russia, who have made such sacrifices in this war, are not victors, that it’s not us who liberated Eastern European countries, that it’s not us who prevented the genocide of the Polish people. It is madness when Polish politicians embrace people glorifying the Volhynia massacre. Russia has reacted to this madness quite gently.
Now — to the forming left-wing-conservative alliance. This alliance formed in Russia a long time ago and I am grateful to the organizers that we are able to take our time to speak about here: rarely the opportunity to speak about strategy presents itself in modern politics. But since it exists, I will take this opportunity.
In 1994, in Greece, I got to visit a convention where Trockyists, fascists — everybody was together. And everybody wanted to unite against globalism. Where did this eclecticism come from? What does it mean? Does it strengthen the capabilities of the so-called anti-globalism or does it dramatically weaken these capabilities? Can we draw a parallel between this anti-globalism and the provocations conducted by the so-called Red Brigades? And in what direction does the European and world communism move in general? Not Eurocommunism, but the world communism, including the European one? It seems to me that it is moving in a suspiciously wrong direction. And that it doesn’t move there on its own, someone moves it there.
I want to explain this. Soviet communism, despite what they might say about it, was very conservative. It was moral: good, evil, ethics, conscience were at its foundation. It was culturally classical: socialistic realism became the successor to the cultural classic. It was based on family values, it was humanistic.
The Soviet Union was speaking of the new humanism, but not anti-humanism. Finally, with all the complicated relationship it had with the Church, the Soviet Union never broke away from its Christian roots. Those who started moving Communism the wrong way rejected the classic, the value of labor, family and everything else. All those who rejected this were put in a single pile and labeled “left-wing”. And this pile was doomed in advance on being nothing more than a pile, without being able to transform into anything possessing structural capabilities. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said, a cathedral made of rocks has a higher meaning. But a pile of rocks can’t have this meaning.
So can we arm the current alliance of different powers with higher meaning and turn the pile of rocks into a cathedral? We need a new conceptual framework to do so. Because the new situation cannot be comprehended using the old conceptual framework, no matter how good it was. The old framework was oriented on the “communism – capitalism” opposition.
But we live in a new reality. What we see is an extraordinary mutation of capitalism. There is no classical capitalism anymore. There is no imperialism which Lenin discussed, no ultra-imperialism Kautsky talked about, there is no schizo-capitalism which is discussed now. There is the mutacapitalism, the mutated capitalism which renounced its essential qualities. It renounced itself for the sake of world dominance. It renounced the ideals of the French Revolution, the ideals of bourgeois revolutions: liberty, equality, fraternity. It renounced the great ideals of Enlightenment, it renounced everything.
Today the confrontation between Putin’s capitalistic Russia and American capitalism is an attempt to oppose classical capitalism to mutated capitalism. The Russians say, “How can this be, we have absorbed the writings of Balzac, Hugo, we understand that Europe had some sort of an ideal of justice, that Europeans had morals, had classics, that they have read Engels’s “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” — and they have betrayed their own values, they are destroying the family?! What capitalism is this then, what are you doing with religion, where is the former Christian capitalism?” The modern Russian conservatives, including religious ones, say that they do not accept such a mutation. It is no coincidence that such powerful protest was caused by the attempt to implement a Barnevernet-type foster family system in Russia (the system according to which children are taken away from their families under false pretexts by social services – Editor). Russians recognized this as an attack against the family, the bourgeois classical family. And said that this will not happen in Russia. An alliance of secular and religious people appeared and this Barnevernet-type system was rejected. But this is just a symptom, a small part of a bigger rejection.
Russians don’t want to recognize the unethical character of capitalism, renouncement of the ascension of humans. Soviet poet Voznesensky once said: “All progresses are reactionary if the human is collapsing”. Russians reject the madness of the world, the injustice and the collapse of the international law. And today we really see a forming alliance of the conservative-capitalistic powers, including the Church, and those whom we, “Essence of Time”, represent, meaning, the people who urge for renovation of communism. More than that. The Church itself (to be more precise, a part of its representatives of quite a high status) now insists on accelerating the synthesis of Orthodox Christianity and Communism.
Many people talk about liberation theology, everybody is looking at Cuba, at a certain new synthesis of the ideals of — note! — Christianity and — note! — religions which emphasize that humans must ascend, not descend, and communist ideals. But even the people who hold on to capitalism in Russia talk about the classical capitalism. Meaning, they say that a bourgeois state is a nation state and the project it has inside is called Modernity. Renouncing Modernity in favor of Post-Modernity means mutation. This is not capitalism anymore, and, to name it correctly, it is fascism, which will sooner or later banish all Christian ideals, fascism, which had always gravitated towards radical forms of pagan cults, which will inevitably return to these cults and which wants only one thing — to prove that people are fundamentally unequal and then create this inequality. And it will inevitably turn to radical forms of Gnosticism in which pneumatics (fully humans), psychics (half-humans) and non-humans (hylics) exist. It will turn to this scheme, since, in order to rule, it needs to destroy the majority of humankind. Destroying the majority of humankind is possible and desirable for it, since the majority of humans it recognizes to be non-humans.
The Russian spirit of symphony, unity of people, opposes such ideas and intentions. All Russian dreams — both religious and secular — oppose them. One might say: “What Russian spirit are you talking about after what was done to you in the past 25 years!”
I want to say that everyone who thought that Russians are done with after the tortures which were called reforms, after attempting to force us to repent, after attempts of destalinization, after forcing the Russians into consumerism have failed. Many Russian girls and boys whom I know very well think just like the people of their age thought 40, or 80, or 100 years ago, speak the same language, read the same classic literature. And they have that clear, precise feeling that someone wants to take their Motherland away from them, that Europe doesn’t want to accept Russia in one piece, that they want to destroy Russia. This feeling rises in Russians everything what Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions arisen.
The Russians weren’t defeated in the end of the of the 20th century — they were tricked. Russians believed in the good which the West brings, that the certain ideals of the West are right. Now, once they have understood that these ideals have absolutely nothing to do with reality, they are ashamed that they believed in this. A new Russia is born.
Putin, thank God, is a very careful politician, he is one of the most careful politicians in Russian history. Nobody wants any kind of “hot” war. Everybody wants peace. Everyone is acting extremely carefully. The Americans have provoked Russians to march up to Kiev, the Russians didn’t do that. The Russians believe in the strength of the Ukrainian people which can settle everything itself. The Russians are acting extremely carefully, but new and new provocations emerge. There are lists of “undesirable” people in Ukraine and the physical termination of people from these lists has already began (opposition newspaper editor Olga Moroz was murdered on March 15, 2015; opposition politician Oleg Kalashnikov was murdered on April 15; opposition journalist Oles Buzina was murdered on April 16; another opposition journalist, Sergei Sukhobok, was murdered on the night of April 12-April 13; several other Ukrainian opposition politicians “committed suicide” with no apparent reason, but the Western “human rights activists” seem not to care about this series of deaths at all – Editor).
We are being told that Ukrainians make such lists for Moscow, that there are acting terrorist units. The radicalism of the Ukrainian side is growing and growing. We ask them: come to an agreement with your own people. Come to an agreement, like they do in Scotland, in Catalonia, come to an agreement in humane ways. But instead they use weapons of mass destruction: “Uragan”, “Grad” multiple-launch rocket systems – not against some terrorists that are not there, but against civilians. They don’t shell the military, they shell the civilians. We host two million refugees from Ukraine on our territory and almost a million of people from Western Ukraine who hate Russia, but flee to us because they don’t want to go to war. They were shouting that they are ready to fight until the Russian warrior spirit was awakened.
They say there are many people with a questionable “credit history” in the militia. Meaning, people who have joined the militia with the intention to make a fortune. This is not true. Of course, the militia are not angels. Different people have joined the militia, there are questionable people there as well. I have recently met one of the most questionable militiamen. And he told with fantastic sincerity: “Did I come here to make money? I came here so that my grandfather could see from heaven that I am fighting fascism”. I can tell when people pretend and when they speak sincerely. After all, one of my professions is a theater director.
I repeat, a new left-wing-conservative ideology is forming quickly.
The Soviet flag and the icons… Orthodox monks singing Soviet songs… The synthesis has started to form. We need to help complete this process. Because if it will be disrupted, then the “Russian turn” might become extremist far-right and ultra-conservative. Which will involve very serious disasters.
Source (for copy): http://eu.eot.su/?p=3583
This is the translation of the final article (first published in “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 131 on June 10, 2015) of the speeches delivered by political leaders during the “Sophia” Club round table on the topic “How to protect Europe from the American crisis?” which took place in Sophia, Bulgaria, on April 25, 2015.