Kirill Kobrin: Three European Sisters

We begin this text epic, likening the countries to people, as was customary in the blessed times of steam machines, orientalist painting and heroes of wars for national independence.

At first there were two of them. They fought all the time: in the XII century, in the XIII-M, XIV-M, XV-M, XVI-M, XVIII-M, XVIII-M and XIX. The last time they managed to fight so much that they still write novels about this, make cinema, compose operas. In 1815, they decided to make peace and after that several times even managed to fight together, on one side. Mutual distrust, however, remained; The phantom pain of the former enmity led to the fact that they again almost began to fight because of the miserable African village. But there was. In the last century, they, as allies, fought twice as well, until the world at the interstate level reigned in Europe.

The third joined them in the last third of the 19th century, as soon as it was created. To do this, she first had to fight with one of the above, and then - two times with them both. Both times it ended sad for her; In the latter - especially, it was even divided into two parts. After that, the big wars on the continent ended.

Such a way would very suit any representative of “magical realism” when describing the three most powerful powers in Europe-England (now Great Britain), France and Germany. Our conditional Marquez or Llos (or their European epigon, like Pavich) is quite in the spirit of romantic ideas of the 19th century about the “peoples”, “states”, as people-would have led the narrative, cutting all smaller and smaller circles, until it would be in the bedroom of some ruined French marquis or at the presentation of the completely Fellinsky circus.

The look, of course, is barbaric, mythological, but the temptation is great - the behavior of the three main powers of Europe fits completely into the simple scheme of the epic story, in the same way as it was understood in the 19th century, Wagner, for example. How attack cavalry Ney under Waterloo Not flight Valkyrie ?

Mythology looks beautiful (although, frankly, doubtfully) in cinema and fiction, it is quite comical in politics and political thinking, especially today. Reasoning in the style of “Germany wants that”, “France prevents that”, “Britain does not intend to this” resembles a Chekhov character who reads the newspaper intently, saying: “Eh, Austria, Austria, all these are your tricks.” Pike vests can be admired, but it is strongly impossible to allow them to power. Even before the "fourth power."

The idea of ​​the state (and the “political nation” inhabiting it) as a living person who has its own character, inclinations, whims that develops, growing up, ages and then falls into miserable seniority, historically limited the classic bourgeois ages, the same 19th century (and the beginning of the 20th). This is the heroic era of nationalism, when to hook the flag over a haggard settlement in the upper Nile was considered so important that because of this one could start a large European war. Political thinking of the "century pair", an ideological steampunk, in short.

Total disasters of the first and Second World War were generated by such thinking, only in the latter case something new mixed with it - racial hatred and totalitarianism. However, Totalitarianism was rushed into the clothes of the 19th century - Nazi conversations about the "living space" and the Stalinist Empire (especially the post -war) confirmation of this.

I think that it can be determined exactly when all this romanticism (and Nazism and communism are the product of the era of “late romanticism”) ended in Europe, when-at the level of “big politics”-his last word was said, from which something completely new began. Fifty years ago, on January 22, 1963, the Elisean Treaty was signed; Its name is not related to the ancient Greek afterlife, but to the very specific Champs Elysees in Paris, where, in fact, the German Chancellor Conrad Adenauer and French President Charles de Gaulle put the end of the almost Shakespearean enmity of the two countries. The words were said from the previous era: de Gaulle called Europe (the one that lay on the human side of the “iron curtain”, of course) a crew in which Germany is a native horse, and France is a coachman. You can forgive the elderly presidents of the Dickens-Flobert images; The main thing should be understood - with old words they called completely new approaches.

In short, another century has come, in which the “state X” is not a collective body with its sympathies, antipathies, passions, age, etc., but a complex structure, balance of various interests of various categories of people. This balance is based on a pragmatic economic and social interest. Economically - it is necessary that production grow and expand exports so that the financial system does not hesitate; Social interest requires that a significant part of the population receives benefits from the existing order and live calmly, without much discontent and shocks.

And if so - given, moreover, the need to coexist with the fits of hell under the name of the USSR, and to be together (albeit at some distance) with the most powerful power of the world, the USA, moreover, take into account the presence of a huge world, which has recently been “ours”, and now God knows what - France and Germany must not fight, but to fix the alliance. The Union involves mutual obligations (always a compromise product) and the possibility of expansion. This is how two types of politicians have laid out an ideological base for the European Union. This ideology is simple, it is not based on the desire for domination, but on the desire to live, finally, calmly, relatively fair and not quite poor. For beauty, of course, all this was covered by Alexander Kozhev by Hegelian ideas, but even here we see the celebration of the new Franco-German friendship: German Hegel in the interpretation of the Frenchman of Russian origin Kozhev. In general, "European culture."

The third main country of Europe, Britain, this Common Sense bastion , was not ready for such a manifestation of common sense; Apparently, I am not ready now. At first, for almost twenty years, she looked down incredulously at the European Union, which took shape on the foundation of the Champs Elysees; During this time, almost all the benefits of the anti -romantic approach were dismantled by continental participants in the agreement. Then reluctantly entered, and then not to the end, leaving the currency and internal borders with the EU. This was explained by the reluctance to limit their own freedom of action, getting involved in some other people's affairs there.

This was brought by a typically British base - classical skepticism and even utilitarianism, in short, the entire island ideological tradition of the New Age, from Bentam to Mill; Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein were also useful. It turned out to be a paradox: praising common sense and fighting with continental ideological “talkers”, British politicians voluntarily returned to the romantic era, telling stories that “the traditions of our culture do not allow” and “and we have been looking at the continent with skepticism”. In short, "Britain does not intend."

And this week, Steampank finally triumphed. David Cameron said that he would hold a referendum on EU membership if he wins the 2015 elections. The leader of the country with a slowly worthy economy, whose several million citizens live on that very dubious continent, a country incredibly dependent on foreign investment and pumping money in City, spoke as if the portable version of Churchill for the post-poster era spoke. It seems that Cameron (and especially the rightrs who made him make this scandalous speech) too seriously perceived the historical masquerade of some royal races in Askot. The British dreadnoughts no longer plow world oceans, and the British authorities are trying to restore order among Muslims not in India or in the Middle East, but in East London.

Romanticism has long ended, Captain Nemo died and cartoons are being removed about him in Hollywood.