The Prophet and the Fatherland. 190th anniversary of the birth of Nikolai Danilevsky day or

The outstanding Russian cultural studies, sociology, geopolitics, one of the founders of the civilizational approach to history, he believed that the Russian Federation has a special role in the history of the world's population. Argued in his own well-known book "Russia and Europe" and that "Europe is not only something alien to us, but even aggressive that its interests are not only not be our interests, but almost always directly opposed to them."

Discussions on this topic does not subside until the present time. So are the West and Our homeland closer together or confrontation between us still there? Can now exist peacefully different civilizations or rivalry between them will inevitably?

These questions try to answer professionals.

Oleg Nemensky, a political scientist

Yes, we — other

— Nikolai Danilevsky — thinker who gave the statements of our identity. His book "Russia and Europe" — book of self-knowledge of Russian culture. It will retain its value until such time as there is a Russian reader. The problems raised by Danilevsky, already alone for themselves — part of Russian culture, and inseparable from it.

Main memory, which appears when reading the book now: "But nothing has changed, everything is as before so!" And that, surely, the main secret of Danilevsky — he was able to describe prepyadstviya Russian and world politics of his time, so that many of his thoughts do not lose their relevance. By the final adjustment Danilevsky became popular again, all 90 years felt like lack of awareness of the Russian Federation it is happening. Quotes from Danilevsky then become something like the opposition stepped totalitarian liberalism.

Our business with the West year of the year confirm his words, that "Europe does not acknowledge us," and "liberalism of the Russian Federation does not reduce hostility to it." But Russia is unlikely to ever have to look at the European culture and politics as aloof and flegmantichno, as desired Danilevsky: Europe has always been important for us. But, yes — "we are different."

An important term used Danilevsky is "identity". The concept is very Russian, the other languages are not translated correctly. Originality he appears as an essential value, the protection of which — an important mission of the country. "Elements of identity bring the richest fruits and borrowing habits and characters lead to a loss of self-identity" — these words Danilevsky, perhaps the quintessence of Russian conservatism.

The fundamental inspiration of his work — not a statement of the hierarchy of civilizations revealed to them, and their ryadopolozhennost, lack of comparability. Its cultural-historical types have very different reasons — religion, culture, politics, and social and economic order.

The Slavs by Danilevsky — "heirs of Byzantium." And this can be seen as an approach to the Slavs, far from the usual ethnographic. You could even say that the Slavic cultural-historical type by Danilevsky — a civilization cultural heirs of Byzantium. And so it is logical that there are included Greeks and Romanians.

It seems that cultural studies is the notion of identity for us quite strangely. We do not know how to build their identity on the basis of perceived cultural heritage. Because there is a feeling that Danilevsky hitherto poorly read our society. But he is not only a monument of his era, and a burning creator.

Alexander Repnikov, historian

"Soft" war of our time

— In the twentieth century, the dream of peaceful coexistence between peoples of different countries and more than once frustrated by the cruel geopolitical reality.

Countries, like people, are vying among themselves, enter into alliances, establishing and tearing of the case. The world is changing: yesterday's enemies are transformed into agents and vice versa. Presence in foreign policy "eternal friends" and "eternal enemies" is very relative.

Bulgarian people have always had warm feelings for the Russian — and it was for that! — But during the first and second world wars Bulgaria was an ally of Germany. United States, together with the Soviet Union attacked the Third Reich and the Land of the Rising Sun, but this did not prevent them to start a war after the defeat of the cool common enemies. In the USSR before Gorbachev appointed a "new thinking", the media were full of criticism of the U.S. aggressors, after a while things have changed, but not enough who then realized what would eventually lead "detente international tension." Replaced by the vector relationship, the propaganda machine braked. While on the other hand, the South American media did not cease to publish cartoons of the evil Putin's awkward way of "Russian bear" occurs frequently in the European press.

Danilevsky with his prophecies of the Slavic Union was utopian. In general, the idea of it at least partly embodied in the twentieth century, but not because it was dreamed creator. When in 1918 the Bolsheviks transferred the capital from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the press commenting on this, notice that they unwittingly fulfilled the desire of the Slavophiles. Something similar happened with the thoughts of the Slavic Union. In 1955, the South American researcher H. Cohn wrote: "Danilevsky was deeply convinced, like Stalin seventy-five years later, that the Russian people pursuing standards, return to militant and plutocratic spirit of the West. Danilevsky and Stalin were united in one basic belief: they are considered as a symbol of Russian democracy and social justice. " It turned out that the Eastern bloc joined in the twentieth century, not the Orthodox ruler. In general, the union was short-lived by historical standards. Another redistribution done without the bloody wars that are similar first and second world, but was not bloodless and did not lead to the "end of history" as predicted in the West.

Competition between countries can not be stopped, you can only make it more "soft." Military, political, economic competition is preserved in the criteria of globalization.

Andrew FURSOV, historian, political scientist

The ambitions of the living corpse

— During the time that has elapsed since the release of the well-known book Danilevsky Our homeland and West not become close to each other quickly, the opposite. The last 20 years have revealed this clearly. It would seem that over Communism democratic West Russia had to accept with open arms — at least, it could be expected on the basis of the Western rhetoric of cool war. Nothing like that. West continued coming, despite promises by taking into NATO first former socialist countries of Eastern Europe, and then the former Baltic republics of the USSR.

In general, the position of the West openly explained to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said in an interview: do not fool yourself for a head, we (the West) did not fight against communism, and from Russia, like it is called …

This means that the struggle of the West against Russia will continue — as long as there is the West and our homeland, and the brutal side stands the West.

The whole history RF from the XVI century (that's when the West appeared two plans to establish control over Russia — Habsburg and British) — a reflection of Western anger.

In particular, a sharp temper the struggle of the West, more precisely its core against the English of, acquired after the Napoleonic wars, when it was clear who the main enemy of England. From 1820's to the 1870's, the West (to the British joined the French) fought against Russia as a geopolitic
al rival. Since the 1880s adds another line — geo-economic struggle against the Russian Federation, the desire to control its resources.

This round is almost crowned success at the turn of 1910-1920's. But a team of Stalin, using Intrawest controversy, turned the project "world revolution", the Cardinals defeated the guards and made her reddish empire. From now on, the struggle of the West against Russia appeared class line.

After the destruction of the Soviet Union the main line in the fight against the West of — Financial: eagerness to gain control over resources and squeeze out as much money tribute.

What is the cause of foreignness of Russia and the West? Apart from geopolitics and geo-economics, there is a civilizational, religious moment. Hatred of Catholics and Protestants and the Orthodox Church to the Russian Federation — is the hatred of Representatives 2-Judaize Christianity to that version, which is closer to the original model. Well, now there is an added post-Christian hostility, dehristianiziruyuschegosya complex to the Christian.

Do I need to grieve over that "we all wrong for them?" Do not, under any circumstances. West in terms of civilization — a living corpse. Decline of Western Europe in the hole stories occurred. Anyone concerned about the ratio of dead to the living? Most importantly — keep in mind about their own cultural and historical self and not allow crawlers from abroad, and their fifth column to impose upon us wrong identity (under the guise of tolerance), other people's values and sense of historical guilt.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: