Evgeny Davydov. Europe forever

Europe forever
Evgeniy Davydov

Date of publication: October 8, 2001

Why is public opinion a moving thing? Just recently, the overwhelming number of Russians, at least those interested in politics, cursed America for the bombing of “brotherly” Serbia. Now the sympathies of our population are on the side of the Americans, and almost everyone agrees that the terrorists should be dealt with first. Well, in circumstances like the current ones, such lability is well explainable from a psychological point of view. And yet, while humanly regretting the hundreds of deaths in New York and Washington, we should not, in the traditional Russian style, headlong embrace those who were offended into tight hugs. We should not forget that politically our country (as, indeed, any other) faces the most important strategic goals, which under no circumstances can be sacrificed to momentary motives.

Two Wests

In everyday practice, we quite often operate with the concept of “West”. As a rule, we mean the economically developed countries of Western Europe and North America. If you think systematically, then any combination of concepts (factors, facts) will be justified only from a certain angle. Therefore, when solving complex problems, the ability to differentiate is no less important than the ability to compare.

For a number of years now, some analysts, both here and abroad, have been laughing at Russian foreign policy: Russia, they say, is trying to drive a wedge between America and Western Europe. Don’t these Russian simpletons understand that the Western world is more monolithic than ever, and all attempts to expand their field of political maneuver are doomed to failure in advance?

In general, such reasoning is not worth listening to. However, something vaguely (as in Plato: “shadow of shadow”) resembling a rational grain is present here too. Russia indeed sometimes seeks to consolidate with European countries, using their position (for example, regarding the notorious “space shield”) as an additional argument in debates with the United States. It is very significant that no attempts have been made to rely on the United States in business relations with Western Europe. So, it turns out that there is still room for maneuver. And when the United States rather shamelessly decided to unilaterally denounce the ABM treaty, its European allies delicately, but still quite clearly, declared: there is no need to be rude. Of course, Russia wanted more. And she did not achieve any victory (although, it seems, our leadership did not really know what outcome of events could be considered a victory). But in this example, there is at least the possibility of an eventual expansion of space for Russian political maneuver. Which is completely ignored by idle fools who, in the spirit of the Cold War, insist on the monolithic nature of the West.

On the website of some American magazine, declared as “analytical”, an article was posted by an American “political scientist”, Ph.D., professor of sour hamburgers at some ordinary university. The author dug deep: he discovered the structural commonality of the foreign policies of Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine maneuvers between Russia and the West, raking in free gas and electricity with its left hand (if you face the Black Sea), and Western loans and other “lifting” with its right hand. Russia, they say, is trying to separate America and Western Europe, vilely pitting them against each other, so that, by playing on their contradictions, milking (in the broadest sense) both sides. In the end, the author makes a profound conclusion that such a policy is unrealistic. Sooner or later, impoverished Ukraine will no longer be given money for poverty, and the insidious Russia will never be able to split the single bloc of America and the European West.

This Brzezinski-style paranoid Russophobia is very characteristic of the American square-nested way of thinking. Which once again demonstrates to us: we won’t expect anything worthwhile from America . And it's clear why.

Monopoly vs cartel

By the end of the 19th century, when “powers” ​​were being constituted to one degree or another geographically and politically throughout the world, the politics of national egoism finally triumphed throughout the planet. All states did not hesitate to use armed forces to protect what their rulers considered to be the national interest. It’s scary to say: England and France found themselves on the verge of war over a remote and unattractive, both strategically and economically, corner of Sudan. Undoubtedly, all the contradictions that led to the First World War were just a trifle compared to its catastrophic consequences and victims. The quintessence of national egoism was the aggressive regimes of Mussolini and Hitler, who did not hesitate to make any sacrifices in the name of the interests of the “nation.” The Soviet Union behaved in the same way in the international arena, hiding militant Russian imperialism under the slogan of proletarian internationalism.

The United States has long remained aloof from European political processes. Having turned into one of the world's economic leaders by the beginning of the last century, America remained a baby in the field of big politics. The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed back in 1823, effectively “locked” American foreign policy within the boundaries of the Western Hemisphere. Having taken part in the First World War (in 1917 - 1918), the United States again retired to its “beautiful distance.” It was only during the Second World War that America became fully involved in global political processes.

European countries in the first post-war decades demonstrated that the experience of the past had taught them a lot. England bloodlessly “set free” its colonies, which it simply could not afford or have the strength to maintain. France showed less political wisdom, but the result was the same. Without much regret, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain lost their colonial possessions. It turned out that being a great power is unprofitable and too troublesome. Europe, politically sophisticated and heavily damaged during the world wars, understood this.

The United States has also gained some experience. They got their feet wet in European “high society”; overseas diplomats learned a lot from their colleagues from the Old World. But in essence, the trends of political development that prevailed on the European continent in the second half of the twentieth century remained alien to the States. The Americans, like bad students of Hegel, felt themselves to be a “historical people.” They decided that their time had come. Well, no one learns from other people's mistakes.

In fact, America, like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, began to implement a policy of national egoism. Only by other methods. She did not have to rely on blatant political blackmail, like the Duce, or on a successful blitzkrieg, like the Fuhrer. In an effort to take a dominant position in the world, the United States, confident, however, in its own virtues, cleverly (for all that, sincerely believing both in the Soviet threat, which was by no means a complete fiction, and in its own rightness) played the “Soviet card”, sending the policies of Western European states in the right direction. Having correctly calculated their forces, the States entered into an economic battle (the “Cold War” plus the arms race) with an initially weaker enemy, and even burdened by a wild economic system - the USSR. After the memorable collapse of the latter, the States really turned out to be the only superpower. What American rulers have dreamed of for many decades has come true. They hoped that such a situation would guarantee US economic prosperity, political stability and foreign policy security. And prestigious considerations also played a role.

At this time, Western Europe, licking the wounds of war, gladly shifted most of the burden of the Cold War, with all its attendant costs, to the overly enthusiastic Americans. Having barely established a tolerable functioning of the economy, she began to integrate. That is, precisely what is diametrically opposed to national egoism. The matter, of course, has not been and is not without certain frictions, but the successes achieved by Western Europe over the past four decades are impressive. They have learned to conduct dialogue very well here . We trained on each other.

Thus, on the foreign policy front, America is likened to a super-monopoly, like Microsoft. This is a giant, selfish, powerful structure that looks down on everyone and thinks that it doesn’t need anything from anyone. Western Europe is more like a cartel of middle-market companies, accustomed and ready to negotiate on reasonable terms. With whom should we conduct a dialogue in this case?

It is very significant that Thatcher was the first to extend her hand to Gorbachev. That is, not Reagan.

Dr. Freud and geopolitics

From numerous personal meetings with residents of various Western European countries - Belgians, British, Germans, Spaniards, etc. - the author of these lines has expressed a deep conviction: in Europe, public opinion is not against Russia. Moreover, we are recognized as our own, as Europeans. But Americans are treated somewhat differently. They say they are far away.

This position has obvious historical roots. Europeans have long realized the need to live on the same continent with Russia, whatever that may be. It’s been two hundred years since we in Europe are considered savages who don’t understand human language. And, although we have had such oddities that the whole world became terrified, Russia remains a significant factor in European politics. Of course, not decisive, but still noticeable. And in the western part of our common continent they understand perfectly well that political and economic stability in Russia is to their advantage. (After all, any mess in Russia will primarily create a threat to the security of Europe.) Of course, they think the same in America, but for them this is a question of a much more speculative nature. The United States thinks much more in terms of "nation." And the American nation is geographically separated from Russia by oceans. The inherent narrow-mindedness of Americans is in many ways comparable to the Monroe Doctrine: everything that does not concern the United States itself and its immediate environs is not very important if it does not touch the United States to the quick, like the latest terrorist attacks. We in Russia, as a rule, have little idea of ​​how busy America is with its internal affairs. And don’t let the activity of the State Department, trying to look into every night vase in the world, deceive us. In fact, America thinks mainly about what is happening on its own territory. And foreign affairs are on the distant periphery of her interests. It’s just that the actual power of America is such that even the movement of its left little finger resonates in the most distant corners of the world.

In addition, the United States is burdened with severe complexes towards Russia. They were, figuratively speaking, greatly frightened as children. Everything happened exactly according to Freud. At its very entry into big European politics, the still childishly naive States were faced with a rather difficult situation. One of the Entente participants suddenly concludes a separate peace with the enemy, and a bloody civil war breaks out on its territory. Of course, Great Britain and France were not happy either, but European diplomats were accustomed to various scrapes. And the inexperienced Americans immediately decided: it’s better not to deal with these guys. Fate brought America and the Soviet Union together within the framework of the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War. However, there was no trust between the allies. The rogue Stalin, of course, could not be trusted, and Churchill understood this, but America was once again convinced of the correctness of its own conclusions. And then there was the Cold War, and generations of Americans and Russians were brought up by official propaganda in the spirit of mutual hostility.

Political stereotypes do not disappear overnight. Especially in such a conformist country as America. They (like us, by the way) at the top, especially among the military, are full of influential, die-hard “patriots” who do not want and cannot accept the realities of the modern world. A narrow outlook combined with a low educational level is a combination typical of an American politician. For example: Carter, Reagan, both Bushes. There is nothing to talk about with such people. You need to maintain good relations with them, but making friends is pointless. We did not understand this for a long time, which caused new friction. At first, the new Russia demonstrated to the Americans that they were allowed almost everything, but over time it suddenly turned out that we also had some interests of our own. “No, you can’t understand these Russians. In general, they’re all “commies” there. And it’s better to stay away from them.”

America will no longer give Russia a steamship.

* * *

“No one is waiting for us in Europe,” home-grown “Eurosceptics” tirelessly repeat, spinning some Eurasian nonsense out of their fingers. But despite the fact that Russia includes vast expanses of Siberia and the Far East, our country belongs to Europe both in its way of life, in the type of national consciousness, and in cultural terms. There are, of course, their own characteristics, but Germans and, say, Italians are also very different from each other. Of course, there is no need to quarrel with China and Japan, but in the foreseeable future they will not be able to become Russia’s main political and economic partners.

In Europe, of course, no one is waiting for us. But no one even thinks of pushing away. We are already in Europe . For now - only geographically. And we need to more actively seek common ground with our neighbors on the continent. And these points, at least due to geographical proximity, will definitely be found. But in America there’s definitely nothing going for us. Because they need almost nothing from us. But Europe needs it. Yes, at least the same gas.

America has repeatedly set its European allies up. The latest example is Kosovo and the Albanian issue in general. Now the United States is pushing Europe into conflict with the Islamic world. Of course, it’s worth punishing the Taliban and other scoundrels, but who will pay for it and how? France has long taken a special position in relation to the United States. How long will other Western countries continue to dance to the tune of the United States is a matter of time.

An economically united Europe is an extremely powerful conglomerate. And under certain circumstances, it is he who can become a good help for the reorganization of our industry and agriculture. And at the same time to solve our foreign policy problems. Only if we don’t want too much and for nothing. So that the scenario “Let Dunka go to Europe” doesn’t work out. We need to come to an agreement. And they, unlike the Americans, know how to negotiate.