Dmitry Semushin: Our homeland — the European Union: the results of the crisis of civilizational identity

Dmitry Semushin: EU - Russia: results of the crisis of civilizational identityThe ensuing Christmas holidays in Europe given the time and opportunity to re-obmozgovat results of the last 20/21 December 2012 Brussels summit, Russia and the EU. This "constructive disagreement summit" clearly marked with its own "inconclusive." Speaking of this fundamental political event, the German weekly Spigel stated: "Despite the developing economic ties, our homeland and the EU crawl politically, and neither side knows what to do about it." EU Observer columnist Dan Steinbock causes the process that, in the post-crisis era of the modern criteria appeared "crisis of understanding." The leading French newspaper Le Monde estimated it to be an emerging "identity crisis" in Europe and in Russia. EU exhausted crisis, says Le Monde, and stands in front of the possibility of indecision bold political and economical integration. Our homeland, in turn, is in a state of stagnation, natuzhivayas because she does not know where to go. Due to the obvious difficulties in our relations with Europe and we make out the problem of "identity crisis" in Russia.

In this regard, we have directed attention to an opinion poll, the results of which were posted Deutsche Welle in June 2012. Poll affected area beliefs Russian people about the European Union. Most of the Russians in 2012, according to a survey of German agency DW-Trend, have become more cool treat to the European Union. (1) Apparently, this is a common reaction to the crisis in Europe, we have considered the creator of the publication. According to a survey of signification, 47% of Russians in 2012 opposed the accession of Russia to the EU. In 2011, the figure was 36%. But for all that, as it turns out, the share of adherents Russia's entry to the EU for the last year bit increased from 36% in 2011 to 38%. Errant increase, which would seem to be negligible. But more curious else — something that only the unimportant part of the Russians agreed with the territorial expansion of the EU and strengthening the European position in the world. So Makar, a significant part of the Russian people who campaign for Russia's entry into the EU, directly opposed to the territorial expansion of the EU. A similar divergence in another, as it is difficult to name an identity crisis. Identities are what? From our point of view, civilization.

Its main strategic partner of the EU considers the U.S., and China and Russia. But apart from the strategic partnership, the EU operates and the concept of "foreign ally." In a similar position the United States are considered not only a "strategic partner" of the EU, and "strategic ally." With all of this alliance EU affairs additionally secured with the U.S. alliance with the latest state-level individual Member States of the EU. Allied foreign policy architecture of the European Union and the United States doubled, and the structure is complicated by political and military alliance NATO. And in European NATO countries are bound by the military-political alliance with Turkey. But for all that the latter, in spite of all his half century samples, the question of full membership and remained standing on the threshold of the European Union. Turkey — not Europe. Turkey can not not get the recognition from their own European partners because of their own civilization alien to Europe.

In contrast to the United States — a strategic ally of the EU and NATO through the 21 th member state European Union, our homeland, announced a "strategic partner" of the EU, has a broad scale level of relations with the EU Member States — from a privileged partnership to cool hostility. In all this there is no precedent of foreign alliance between Russia and the EU member states.

In similar foreign policy realities of relations with the EU, the birthplace of our popular in the 1990s, but very unrealistic story about the ability of Russia's entry into the European Alliance developed on the basis of the EU criteria and rules, offered to translate "strategic partnership" with the EU with some economic uncertain political prospects Alliance, received the title of "European Alliance" or another "Big Europe." The project is meant to mutually beneficial integration criterion in the "harmonious society economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok" The EU and Russia.

On the one hand, the West in the "European Alliance" could discern a certain davneshnee geopolitical aspirations of — remove the U.S. from the continent of Eurasia. This kind of suspicion under the circumstances, when Russia try to "put the squeeze", guaranteed the trouble of "Greater Europe". On the other hand, we note that the offer of a "European Union" was made in the presence of a wide range of relationships (not allied) of the Russian Federation to the individual Member States of the EU. Specifically, this event is the beginning meant that the Russian project "European Alliance" awaits the fate unenforceable Project, but due to the specificity of the functioning of the EU itself. Here it should be noted that the idea of forming a "common space" in general terms the EU has adopted in 2003-2005. But then the European Union ruled a natural enthusiasm to expand their markets in the East. That's why a statement of intent was reinforced (understatement) not defined "road map."

In 2009, to give a new impetus to the idea has been proclaimed the "Partnership for Modernization". In 2004-2008 in the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation was even a respective department and there was a special representative of the President on Relations with the EU — Yastrzhembsky. In September 2010 he was posted analytical report "Towards European Union" of Sergei Karaganov international discussion club "Valdai".

The "Greater Europe" was presented in Germany, Vladimir Putin, during his tenure as prime minister, during a visit to Berlin in November 2010. In 2010, in a memorandum on the results of the meeting between President Dmitry Medvedev and Angela Merkel in Meseberg Russian side even put forward a proposal for a joint committee of the Russia-EU on issues of foreign policy and security.

Recently the presidential election programm "Greater Europe" was repeated Feb. 27, 2012 Russian presidential candidate Vladimir Putin in his article "Our homeland and changing world." (2) "Our homeland — an integral, organic part of Greater Europe, the general European civilization. Our citizens feel European ", — stated in it.

In the first decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin after his assumption of office — "Decree on measures to implement the foreign policy" of 7 May 2012 strategic goal "to the creation of one economic and human space" from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean defined by the individual Fri decree. Paragraph "g" of the said decree affected plan "Greater Europe", but in the text above paragraph "e" examined "the development of multilateral cooperation and integration processes in the Commonwealth of independent states as a key area of foreign policy Russian Federation." In 2012, the value of Russian foreign policy is the integration of the post-Soviet space, the construction of the Customs Union, the Eurasian Economic Community and the Eurasian Union, but the European partners are trying to assure that th
e projects "Greater Europe" and the post-Soviet integration do not contradict each other.

The program creation "European Union" has been proposed in a difficult period of international relations, in almost all caused by the global financial and economic crisis. The creators of the project "European Alliance" / "Big Europe" in 2010, it appeared that the crisis contributes to its advancement. But do not take into account the creators of the incident that crises are usually accompanied by their fickle worsening state of selfishness and the weakening of solidarity. It was natural to expect that the crisis of solidarity and trust will generate faster eagerness to solve problems by resources neighbors. So, it happened in 2011 and 2012, adding to the already existing conflicts Arab Spring, Libya, and now Syria's war. The potential for conflict by the band Our homeland — the West throughout 2012 only grew, and the principle of political conditionality continued to be the principal foreign policy implements the EU towards Russia.

Meanwhile, in spite of these realities, our homeland has shown its political will to implement the project "European Alliance" / "Big Europe":

— under the theme "Partnership for Modernization" Our homeland demonstrated its practical intrigued to stabilize the financial situation in the eurozone.

— Our homeland after joining the WTO the EU has shown its will to the economic policy of free trade, like inviting Europeans to create a "Greater Europe".

The "Alliance of Europe" / "Big Europe" Europeans touted as "lechuschee means" from the "Decline of the West" — transformation of Europe into a peripheral player in the global arena. With the latter thesis Europe could hardly disagree, because changing the basic interests of the partners in a bunch of Russia-EU it is not anticipated. EU as previously interested in the development of Russian market and gaining direct and indirect access to natural resources on the territory of Russia. Our homeland, in turn, is interested in the technological modernization of nuance own economy through cooperation, including in the energy sector. In this situation, the EU began to offer the RF mode "WTO plus", whereas our own homeland cautious estimates even started his role in the WTO.

The ideology of "Alliance of Europe" / "Big Europe" we can judge from recent publications Russian Council for international affairs (INF) on the relations of Russia and the EU. Namely, a good illustration is the article from the December 10, 2012 Head of the Sector of political problems of European integration IMEMO Sergei Utkin. (3) Very typical of its title: "Our homeland and the European Alliance: a natural partnership." From the title you may decide that a "strategic partnership" Russia and the EU has a natural, that is, almost by nature due to the nature. Obviously, it should not be. In a similar spirit as the ideological justification of the project "European Alliance" / "Big Europe" sustained publication INF deputy director of the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences Alexei Gromyko "Our homeland between Europe and Asia. "(4)

"Our modern home — says Alexey Gromyko — feels, thinks and acts as the main European power." But her "European", according to Gromyko, is not related to the state of relations with the European Union, as our homeland, according to him, is actually Europe. Building a foreign policy Our homeland is controlled by its performance that own more developed and densely populated part of it goes to Europe. Because our home — one of the biggest components of European civilization, concludes Alexei Gromyko. Then his opinions clearly crawl with the presentation of the Europeans, for whom Europe is not a geographical concept, formally speaking from the English Channel to the Urals, and the cultural and historical, in other words — of civilization. As part of this kind of common European mentality Europe may end just beyond the eastern outpost in the outskirts of Vienna. From the perspective of Europeans living in the paradigm of "Charlemagne", Poland — this is not Europe, not to mention any of Romania. Because the thesis Alexei Gromyko that our homeland is an integral part of European civilization, is unlikely to agree to the Europeans themselves. So trivial civilizational differences between Europe and Russia justified by different factors and, in fact, lie in the plane of the base culture. And to overcome these differences through simulation alone, self-identification and self-hypnosis is not realistic. Moreover, despite all the rhetoric, in terms of civilization Our home for the past 20 years since 1991 compared with the previous period does not come close, and away from Europe.

Despite the obvious, to prove his own thesis about the identity of the Russian Federation and the European Alexey Gromyko finds typological connection between them, where it can not be, and specifically, in empire building. He writes: "Our homeland and many other European powers in the past lined empire that stretched far beyond the geographical boundaries of Europe. Entire history of the latter has been a string of actions to expand and penetrate into other areas of civilization." But then the Europeans imperial expansion of, inter alia, in relation to himself by — to Europe, referred to the phenomenon of a different type, movable other motives. Because, obviously, they can not agree with this kind of expression Gromyko: "When our home was on the east and south, it brought with it the European way of thinking, and European culture itself being one of its sources." And what about carrying our homeland, as she walked to the west? — I would like in this case, ask Gromyko. With all this we should not forget that the most ambitious imperial expansion by locality Our homeland performed in the era of the Capital of the kingdom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which, as you know, was a self-sufficient on their perception of the world and build their European identity through the Byzantine legacy.

Very typical and subsequent expression Gromyko: "In the XXI century has kept our homeland in the main European character of its own attitude — certainly as the fact that it has a catchy originality concluded in the abundance of ethnic groups, cultures and religions. This last — not a burden a unique competitive advantage in comparison with other European countries. " That is, the "Europeanness" of, perceived by the same amount in a "unique" — it's only your own "attitude" self-identification, but the structure of the real body of, from the standpoint of the Europeans will not be perceived as "unique" and State has no character, as in Europe, ie, imperial in its nature. Speaking about the "European" uniqueness of, Gromyko sees it different from other countries in Europe that "its own territory lies mostly in Asia." But from the standpoint of the Europeans' own areas "of in the Asian countries are its colonies, the right to the possession of which may be challenged. So Makarov, that Gromyko portrayed as a "European uniqueness" of, based on the belief of the Europeans is a testament to her specifically "non-European".

The identity of the Russian Federation and Europe can, in the views of Gromyko, originally manifested in the external policy of Russia. Thus, the need to strengthen the eastern vector of foreign policy of the Russian Federation does not mean distancing it from Europe, as it was absurd "to distance itself from itself." But the thesis of the identity of RF and Europe, we note immediately relieves the burning problem of the political fate of Ukraine and Belarus, the fight for the fate of the Russian parts of
the world. European identity of the Russian Federation and Europe means that some buffer between them is not.

Oh, and completely original explanation gives Gromyko, deepening contradictions between Russia and the EU. It turns out that "the closer you live together, the more there is not only positive, and negative situations that need to be solved by a compromise to learn." "The amount of conflict with European partners built up with the strengthening of Russia's interaction with the place the EU, as you progress, not regress in the economic, social and cultural ties" — says Andrei Gromyko. So Makar, the current sluggish conflict, as he believes, is caused by convergence, rather than divergence of reaching the Russian Federation and Europe.

It seems that there may be, from the standpoint of the Russian side of the ideological justification of the project "European Alliance" / "Greater Europe", we can say at the end of 2012 that he was not intrigued by the Europeans. The German weekly Spiegel December 20, 2012, stated: "In Europe, the proposal is not to find a lot of support." In Europe, in practice, have noted the contradiction of its latest strategy of the Kremlin, including in the field of ideology. December 12, 2012 in an article by Charles Klouver Financial Times "The concept of" Russian civilization "is outrageous," said that the newcomer Kremlin's policy in the field of public policies based on the concept of "cultural-historical type" Russian geopolitics and ideology of Pan-Slavism Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822-1885 ). Klouver noted that in recent public policy strategy in the multinational Russian society Our homeland is described as an independent "unique civilization." According to Financial Times, "A new approach is addressed first conservatives and nationalists, which basically hear that question quickly the imperial rather than civilian society, and that our homeland belongs to the good of Western civilization."

Speaking about the results of the last EU-Russia summit, Research Director of German-Russian Forum and recognizable political scientist Alexander Rahr, without naming right Russian project "European Alliance" / "Greater Europe", in practice, subjected him to a low-key criticism. Rahr said that in 90 years in the West existed performances, as if our home for a day or a day can become a democratic state. Such perceptions Rahr described as "totally inadequate," adding that Our homeland "usually sees herself as a state in Europe, but the other — the Byzantine, not Roman." Specifically, here is "the problem of inconsistencies on common values," which is a very strong irritant in relations between Europe and Russia. Rahr said: "The West must realize that the real or genuine, our homeland, if read in its historical context — is the one that we litsezreem now, not our homeland 90s." This method pointed to the failure of the Russian Federation Russian project "Alliance Europe"/" Greater Europe ", based on the idea of civilizational identity of Russia and Europe.

Another method of demonstrating opposition to the Europeans "Greater Europe" — a lack of progress on the visa issue. The reason for this is not superficial, as some believe, referring to the Cool War era, and the base character. Europeans simply do not believe the Russians "their own." On the basis of belief, self-sufficient civilization identity of Europeans and our homeland Europe — these are different worlds, things that should govern on the basis of center and periphery. There are so obvious signs when the Europeans displayed by Russian assertiveness in advancing even plan to wheel in a relationship visa issue has already looks indecent. One MEP even referred to the expectations of the Russian Federation visa "patience of a saint." Another such "patient saints" for the EU, of course, is Turkey. In the end of "identity crisis" the concept of "strategic partnership" Russia-EU summit in the past had been subject to erosion. In Europe, talking about the fact that our home is not ready for a "true partnership" with the EU. A European Commission President Barroso held a similar condition on the summit press conference openly described as "dependent on need."

The ideological concept of civilizational identity of Russia and Europe, planted in the project "European Alliance" / "Greater Europe", from our point of view, is a striking example of an identity crisis among the Russians. It's a shame that this "identity crisis" was so clearly demonstrated by the Europeans. The phrase "Europe — our common home" for her repeated quite often have long been taken seriously. But the creators of the project "European Alliance" / "Big Europe" seems to believe in the "common home". And at this point once again confirmed clear — "European house ", which dreamed Gorbachev, destroying his own, and has remained in the area desires. And the Europeans at the last summit once again confirmed this.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: