For Russia Pushkin, not Dugina

In Paris, the appeal of the emigrants "Solidarity with genuine Russia" was prepared

The declaration of the descendants of the Russian nobles “ Solidarity with Russia ”, prepared in Paris by Prince Dmitry Shakhovsky and his like -minded people, caused indignation among many Russian emigrants. It seems incomprehensible to them that the people whose ancestors were expelled from Bolshevik Russia are now solidify with the regime, which is headed by people from the Soviet secret service, the regime who unleashed the war in the neighboring state. On the website of Radio Liberty, Prince Shakhovsky was answered by art historian Alexander von Gan (Germany) and mathematician Alexander Muravitsky (USA).

On January 2, a new appeal was published " Solidarity with genuine Russia ":

Emigrant associations, media and youth organizations in Paris, London or New York play for Russia Pushkin and Sakharov, and not for Russia Dugin and Zyuganov. <...> Calling themselves in a letter to the heirs of Russian emigration and supporting today Vladimir Putin’s policy as the main argument put forward that the Ukrainian leadership is carrying out a military operation in the Donbass. But they should know that Russia is an aggressor: after all, those armed people who captured Crimea and today destabilize the situation in the Donbass, Russians. They should know that the current Ukrainian leadership is conducting a defensive and anti -terrorist struggle and, unlike the previous government, provides for political decentralization. They should know that the inhabitants of the Crimea are not Russians, but Russian -speaking and that they are deeply regretted today about joining Russia, as evidenced by their reluctance to return Ukrainian passports. They should also know that according to the survey, three quarters of the inhabitants of Donbass want to stay in Ukraine. From the press and the Internet, they know that Russia's policy in relation to Ukraine was convicted by most UN members and that Russia was deprived of the right to vote in PACA. They know that President Poroshenko repeatedly called for the cessation of fire and peaceful settlement and that these calls were not heard by Ukrainian separatists united with Russian mercenaries. "

The theologian and historian Antoine Arzhakovsky , a descendant of Russian emigrants of the first wave, who prepared the appeal in Paris, answered questions from Radio Liberty.

In Paris, the appeal of the emigrants "Solidarity with genuine Russia" was prepared

- Why did you decide to answer Prince Shakhovsky and his like -minded people?

- Because just the conscience wanted to react. We have loved ones who support Putin’s policy, and for us this is a painful question. But we do not want emigration to be represented as a whole in Russia. I would say that on the contrary, most people in Russian emigration, any generation, from the descendants of the first emigration to today's emigrants, basically do not support not only the war, but also the Kremlin’s policy towards Ukraine. Therefore, it was important to say and react quickly.

- But still, there are quite a few descendants of the emigrants of the first wave, which suffered from the Soviet regime, suddenly began to solidarize with the modern government in Russia, with the state, which was headed by the KGB officer. Under the letter of Prince Shakhovsky there are many loud surnames. How do you explain this phenomenon, why do they sign this letter?

The fact that Crimea always belonged to Russia is a lie. My ancestors, who lived in Sevastopol before the revolution, knew well that in fact Crimea was a colony.

-Firstly, I would like to say that the majority of parishes of the Orthodox Church in France are not in the framework of the Moscow Patriarchate. The same in England and in America. This question is 15 years when there was a letter from Patriarch Alexy II, who proposed to create a single Orthodox church in the West and, basically, this did not work. Because we do not want to live in a church that would be determined only by blood or language, this is filism. We believe that if there is baptism, it is still from the Russian Church, Ukrainian, Romanian, or Bulgarian, or Antioch - it should be the Local Orthodox Church, and not the Russian Church. So this issue has long been resolved: basically, this was not accepted. Now people like Dmitry Shakhovskaya, who in the early 2000s agreed to the proposal of Patriarch Alexy, want to move on, compromise not only with the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as with Putin. But the situation is dramatic, more than 5 thousand people died in Ukraine, many Russian soldiers died there, and they cannot be indifferent, they must decide. They are poorly related to Western civilization, they believe that this is the collapse of democracy, many of them support Marin Le Pen or extremist parties, they believe that there should be an alternative to European civilization, which they consider to be a decadent, and this alternative they consider Putin. Once again I say that this is a minority. Basically, Europeans and among them Russian emigrants support democracy, the European community. Since, despite all the difficulties, we have a legal state, we have a world, not a war.

-Russian-Ukrainian relations is one of the main topics of your research. Could you talk about the book that you just wrote?

- I wrote a book because, although I am already the third generation of Russian emigration, I lived for 20 years in Moscow, I worked in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, and then in Kyiv. I have many friends in Russia and Ukraine. Of course, we are very suffering from this war. I would like to offer truthful, objective information. As a historian, I also wanted to explain why historians from Russia and Ukraine could not find a common language. This, in my opinion, is due to misunderstanding of mythology. Mythology is, on the one hand, it is very important to write a story, but it can be dangerous if it is clearly not to separate the myth from the rations, from the logo. And because for me the main priority is a reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine, I, as a historian, decided to write a book about relevance, what happened in Ukraine is a “revolution of dignity”, but also a war and show that the world is possible. This book was first published in French in June, it is now supplemented in Russian and is free on the Internet . I would like to have a dialogue today between historians and politicians from Ukraine and Russia. What is important is a dialogue. If there is no dialogue, it will be scary not only for Ukraine, as it is now, but also for Russia. We see that 2015 can be tragic for Russia.

- Many believe that good neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine will never be restored. Are you not so pessimistic?

The government in Russia is not democratic - it is pure kleptocracy, it is organized theft.

-I am not so pessimistic, because I have friends in Ukraine who understood one very important thing this year: that Ukraine has decided as a nation-state, two-cultural, two-linguistic, I would add-as an ecumenical country, where the difference between Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants is not as great as it is usually seen from Russia and even from France. Until the 17th century in Ukraine, there was a real ecumenism between the West and the East, since Ukraine adopted the Florentine Cathedral of the 15th century, while Russia did not adopt, and this lasted until the 17th century. Therefore, it seems to me that since this year, thanks to the “revolution of dignity”, Ukraine has defined itself as a special country, a nation-state, which is two-cultural, two-linguistic and ecumenical, this allows Russians to have new prospects, allows you to see that it is possible to have a legal state, it is possible to be part of the European community, it is possible to be open, and also be Russian. There will be difficult years now, because I see that the majority of the population in Russia supports the Kremlin, supports the Moscow Patriarchate and so on. But we, in Russian emigration, know that in the 1920s and 1930s and before Solzhenitsyn there was a real revival of Russian thought, what is called the Paris Theological School-Bulgakov, Berdyaev. In fact, they are unknown in Russia, in Russia they know Ivan Ilyin, but did not read Berdyaev after the 1920s, they knew Berdyaev until 1922, when he was expelled. But they do not know Berdyaev’s answer to the Eurasians, they do not know the sophiology of Bulgakov as the basis of the ecumenical movement. The Orthodox were very active in the ecumenical movement, and now the Moscow Patriarchate, on the contrary, is against ecumenism. Alternatives, of course, are fragile, but high -quality, and I am convinced that this is the future of the Renaissance of Russia.

- That is, do you think that in Russia it can go according to the same scenario as in Ukraine, the same “revolution of dignity”? Do you, as a professional diplomat, think that such a scenario is possible?

-It will be different, because the stories are different. But I am convinced that it is impossible to continue to live, as in Russia now. The government is now not democratic in Russia - it is pure kleptocracy, it is organized theft. And there has been a spirit since the 1990s-the condemnation of communism, this happened in Poland, happened in the Baltic countries, now this is happening in Ukraine. There must be a condemnation of communism, of course, a new prospect will appear with this for the development of the Russian idea, Russian culture, but in a good sense, not in the concept of Patriarch Kirill and Putin.

- There is another question of Crimea. Many in Ukraine are sure that Crimea will sooner or later return to its composition. Do you think so too? And how do you cover the Crimean question in your book?

-Firstly, I try to answer ordinary propaganda, which believes (Putin recently said about this) that Crimea always belonged to Russia-this is just a lie, it is a myth, you need to tell about it. My ancestors, who lived in Sevastopol before the revolution, knew well that in fact Crimea was a colony. There, probably, the Russians worked well, like the French worked well in Algeria in the 19th century, but still it was a colony. My great-grandfather Klepinin was one of the first to create a guide to Crimea at the beginning of the 20th century. There is still Klepininskaya steppe. This is the first. The second is what to do today. Of course, everyone understands that it will be very difficult for Crimeans to continue to live, because an economic and political crisis is already. So you have to solve the future of Crimea, even if it is very difficult. Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that once it would be necessary to offer a new referendum, but already with the participation of Ukraine, with the participation of the UN and other international observers. It seems to me that there is no other way. It will take time, but it seems to me that it will be profitable for everyone, first of all to Russia, because it is very difficult, as we see today, remotely lead the Crimea.

- Your letter has just been published. There are interesting reviews and new people who want to sign it?

- Yes, I received good reviews. There are people who also want to sign. Danila Struve and I are preparing a new letter, which will also be signed by other representatives of Russian emigration. It is important today not so much to polemicize, but to try to have a dialogue with representatives of Russian emigration, who feel bad in the West (generation of Shakhovsky and so on), but also have a dialogue with the Russians in Russia, in order, firstly, to remind of the legacy of Russian emigration from Berdyaev to Solzhenitsyn, to resemble these words “live not by lies”, as the basis of the whole Russian intelligence. The main thing is a dialogue by the new perspective for the modern Russian state.

- I know that you are preparing the French version of the letter, you want to know your position in France ...

- Yes, because we live in one global world, the future of Russia and the future of this war between Russia and Ukraine are important to everyone. Therefore, of course, there are many articles in the French press, and everyone understands that the role of Russian emigration as a laboratory of new ideas and alternatives for future Russia is very important. Therefore, we will publish this letter in French.

-Prince Shakhovskaya said in an interview with Radio Freedom that the French press completely distorts the situation in Russian-Ukrainian relations, especially the Mond newspaper is exclusively anti-Russian. You will not agree with him?

- I can't agree. We have freedom, there are different newspapers, there are different magazines. The newspaper "Figaro" has different points of view. This is a healthy democracy. I would say that our journalists are trying, on the contrary, to hear as much as possible those who support Putin. Helen Carrer d'Ankoss, Jacques Sapir, people who have lost realism are always invited to different television battles, to different newspapers. So I would not say that the French press is ideologically tuned against Russia. Many journalists frankly want peace and dialogue, love Russia, like us all. We just cannot agree to a new quality of information called propaganda - this is what it seems to me a new phenomenon of 2014, which is now clear for everyone. It is impossible to say: there is information from Russia and there is information from Paris or Berlin. These are two types of information. On the one hand, journalists who can freely check the facts, and on the other hand, is what is called propaganda, what Orwell perfectly described in the book "1984". In my book "Russia and Ukraine: from war to world" I write a lot about this new phenomenon of returning propaganda to Europe. After the 1930s, they thought that this was already the end, no, mythology is actually now the main criterion for information in Russia.