From a purely geographical point of view, the problem seems to be very clear: Russia since the beginning in the XVI century accession to the territories east of the Ural Mountains, is a country that is part of the European continent, as part of the (much larger) — in Asia. However, immediately raises the question of substantial originality and uniqueness, even this state of affairs in the world today …
1. For the rest of the giant Eurasian continent wholly owned either Europe or Asia (3 percent in Turkey, located on the European continent — the only "exception to the rule"). At the present time, even in Russia itself to this question often gives the ability to upset many Russian people answer that sums up can be summarized as follows.
The government, formed about one thousand two hundred years ago and was originally called Rus, was a European (or rather, the Eastern European), but starting from the XVI century, it, like many other European countries — Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and t . etc. — has made a large-scale expansion in Asia, making its huge territory in the colonies. (However, the Western European states turned to their colonies land is not only Asia but also in Africa, the Americas and Australia.) After the second world war (1939-1945) the state of the West gradually somehow "abandoned" from the colonies, but Russia still has enormous space in Asia, although after the "collapse of the USSR" in 1991, over a third of the Asian part of the country's territories became "independent states", now the Russian Federation (RF) owns all the same 13 million square meters. km. Asian territory, which is the third part (!) of all space and Asia, for example, almost four times the area of modern India (3.28 million sq. km.).
About that are (or have been) included in the Asian territories of the Russian colonies, will be discussed below. First, it is advisable to put another question — about the vast space of Russia itself.
Sufficiently widely held notion that overly large area with a relatively small population, first, evidence of the extraordinary "imperial" appetites, and secondly, is the cause of many or even (eventually) do all the troubles Russia-USSR.
In 1989, all of the giant Soviet space, is 22.4 million square meters. km, 15% of the globe (sushi) — lived 286.7 million, ie 5.5% of the then population. And now, by the way, the position of lazhe, so to speak, compounded: approximately 145 million current residents of the Russian Federation, — less than 2.3% of the world's population — occupy an area of 17.07 million square meters. km (whole area of the Russian Federation), 11.4% of land area) that is almost 5 times more than like "believe" … So, those who consider Russia a country that seized unreasonably vast territory, now have at- appears to be particularly strong reasons to advocate this view.
However, even the most well-established point of view does not always correspond to reality. To prove this, we have to once again give a series of numbers, but not all readers have a habit and a desire to understand the digital ratios. But in this case, can not do without numbers.
So, Russia is 11.4% of terrestrial space, and its population is only 2.3% of the population of the planet. But, for example, the territory of Canada — 9.9 million square meters. km., ie 6.6% of the land surface of the planet, and lives in this country only a 0.4 (!)% of the population (28 million people). Or Australia — 7.6 million square meters. km (5% of the land), and 18 million people
(Less than 0.3% of the population of the planet). These relations can be expressed as follows: in the Russian Federation on 1 sq. m. km. the territory has 8.5 people, and in Canada — and only 2.8 in Australia — only 2.3. Consequently, one person in Canada have three times more territory than the current Russian Federation, and even in Australia almost four times as much. And this is not the limit: in Mongolia for 1.5 million square meters. km 2.8 million people live, that is, on 1 sq. m. km are five times less people than in Russia.
On this basis, it is clear that the allegation of excessive abundance of territory, which is owned by Russia — biased myth which, unfortunately, is implemented and in the minds of many Russian people.
No less important is the other side of the case. More than half of the territory of the Russian Federation is a little further south or north of the 60th parallel of north latitude, that is, in a geographical area, which, in general, considered to be unsuitable for a "normal" life and work of people: these are located 58 degrees north of Alaska, northern territory Canada, Greenland, etc. Telling fact, Alaska is no less 16% of the territory of the United States, but its population is only 0.2% of the population of this country. Even more impressive is the situation in Canada: its northern territory is about 40 percent of the total area of the country and their people — only 0.02% (!) Of its population.
Absolutely nothing happened to the ratio in 1989 in Russia (referring to the then RSFSR) just south of 60 degrees north and lived 12% of its population (18 million people) *, that is almost 60 times greater proportion than in the corresponding U.S. territory and almost 600 (!) times than in the northern regions of Canada.
And it is in this aspect (and not in the sole "abundance" of the territory) Russia really unique country.
One of the main sources of statehood and civilization of Russia Ladoga city at the mouth of the Volkhov (to the same source, as proven by modern historians, the original, Kiev began to play a major role later) is located exactly on the 60th parallel of north latitude. It is important to remember that the Western "colonizers", taking root in the countries of South Asia and Central America (such as India or Mexico) have found it highly (though quite different than the Western European) civilization, but when he reached up to 60 degrees (in the as northern Canada), would find there — even in the XX century — a truly "primitive" way of life. No planet tribes that lived in these latitudes, with their climate conditions, failed to create any advanced civilization.
Meanwhile Novgorod, located not far south of 60 degrees by the middle of XI century is the focus of a sufficiently high civilization and culture. It may be argued that at the same time being on the same latitude of the northern part of southern Norway and Sweden were civilized. However, thanks to the powerful Gulf Stream warm sea **, as well as the general nature of climate and Scandinavia, by the way, the UK (oceanic, not continental inherent Russia »***) winter temperatures in southern Norway and Sweden by 15-20 ( !) degrees higher than in the other located at the same latitude land and snow cover, if occasionally happens, it is not longer than a month, while at the same latitude in the area of Lake Ladoga, Novgorod snow is 4-5.5 months! In contrast to the major Western countries, Russia needs during more than half a year of intense heat their homes and industrial premises, which means, of course, are very powerful labor costs.
* It is possible that today, after the "reforms" very valued part of these people left the north.
More precisely ** North Atlantic.
*** It is worth mentioning that the winter in the Kuban steppe, located about 2000 km south of Scandinavia, though longer and more severe than in the southern parts of Norway and Sweden!
It is equally important to both. In the history of the advanced civilization of the West has played an enormous role water — sea and river — transport, which, first of all, many times "cheaper" to land, and second, is able to carry much heavier loads. The fact that Western countries are surrounded by ice-free seas and rivers are penetrated, who either do not freeze, or covered with ice in a very short time, in many ways defined the unprecedented economic and political dynamism of these countries. Of course, in Russian waterways were of great importance, but here they operated an average of just over half a year.
In short, the current millennium ago, near the 60th parallel of north latitude and the continental climate of Russia statehood and civilization is truly a unique phenomenon, and when to put the question "in theory", it does not matter how it should be, because nothing like this has not taken place on other similar areas of the planet. Meanwhile, in the judgment of the Russian unique conditions in which it has developed and evolved, taking into account the extremely rare, especially when it comes to certain "advantages" of the West in comparison with Russia.
But it's not just the fact that Russia has created its civilization and culture to the climatic conditions of the 60th parallel (to the same continental), that is not so far from the Arctic Circle. No less mnogoznachitelen the fact that such major Russian cities as Smolensk, Moscow, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, etc., are located approximately at the 55th parallel, and in West Europe north of this parallel is, apart from the Nordic countries, one only Scotland, also "insulate" the Gulf Stream. As for the U.S., their whole territory (almost deserted except Alaska) is located south of 50 degrees, while even the southern center of Russia, Kiev, located to the north of this degree.
In a present Russian territory south of the 50th parallel are 589.2 thousand square meters. km — that is only 3.4 (!)% of the space (these southern lands inhabited in 1989, 20.6 million people — 13.9% of the population of the RSFSR — not much more than in most northern regions). Thus Russia has developed on the space, dramatically different from that of the space on which civilization developed in Western Europe and the U.S., though it is a matter not only of geographical, but also geopolitical differences. Thus, the enormous advantages of waterways, especially the freezing of the sea (and oceans), which is washed by the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc., as well as the United States, the foundation is a geopolitical "superiority."
Here, however, can or even should be asked about why the territories of Asia, Africa and the Americas, located to the south of the Western countries (including the U.S.) in the tropics, and obviously in many ways "behind" of Western civilization? The most concise answer to this question is appropriate as follows. If in the Arctic (or at least close to it) the geographic area required a huge effort for the basic survival of people and their activities are essentially limited to these efforts, in the tropics, where, in particular, the earth bears fruit all year round and do not need requiring large labor protect against the cold of winter shelter and clothing, survival was given as a "gift" and there was no urgent incentive for the development of material civilization. But the countries of the West, located mainly between the 50th and 40th parallels, represented, from this point of view a kind of "middle ground" between the North and the South.
2. The above described "public" information, but they are, as already mentioned, it is rarely considered in discussions of Russia and — most tragically — in comparisons of its history (and present existence) with a history (and modern existence) in Western Europe and the United States. Ironically, the vast majority of the ideologues who talk about certain "advantages" of Western civilization over the Russian, raises and answers the question only in socio-political terms: any "lagging behind the West in the field of economy, life, culture, etc. trying to explain or (in the case of ancient Rus) "feudal fragmentation", or (at a later stage), on the contrary, "autocracy" and "serf", "imperial ambitions" and finally, "socialist totalitarianism." If you think about it, these interpretations are based in fact a kind of mysticism, since, according to them, de-Russia had every reason to develop as well as the countries of the West, but some sinister forces lurking firmly from the very beginning of its history at the top of the state and society, suppressed or mutilated the creative potential of the country …
It is in this spirit of "black" mystic interprets the history of Russia, for example, the notorious Gaidar in his work "The State and Evolution" (1995 and subsequent editions). In conclusion, he states the need to "shift the main vector of Russian history" (p. 187) — I mean her story!
Among other things, he finds it necessary to "give up" on the whole "Asian" in Russia. In this formulation of the problem most clearly stands deliberate failure of the views of such an ideology. The fact that the "failure" of all "Asian" means exactly the negation of all the country's history in general.
As already mentioned, the start of accession of Russia to her in Asia (ie, the trans-Ural) only at the end of the XVI century, but the shared history of Eastern European Slavic and Asian nations began eight centuries earlier, in the time of the occurrence of the state Russia. For many of the peoples of Asia then led a nomadic lifestyle and are constantly moving over a wide plain, stretching from the Altai to the Carpathians, often engaging in outside Russia. Their relationship with the Eastern Slavs were diverse — from fierce battles to completely peaceful cooperation. How difficult is this relationship, it is obvious from the fact that certain feuding Russian princes are often invited to help Polovtzy came in the middle of XI century Zauralye and settled in the southern Russian steppes.
Moreover, even earlier, in the IX-X centuries, Russia has entered again into complex relationships with other Asian nations — the Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Torquay, etc.
Unfortunately, many of the "antiaziatski" minded historians have introduced into the mass consciousness of the idea of "Asians" just as almost deadly enemies of Russia, however, over the past decade has been created a lot of thorough research, which show that this view does not correspond to the historical * reality. Even a certain part of the Khazars (Kozar) that were part until the last third of the tenth century in a very aggressive towards Russia Khazar Khanate, joined the Russian, as evidenced by the heroic epic, one of the most renowned character — Michael Kozarin.
False means, alas, and the situation, recreated in all well-known "Song of Igor's Campaign", where supposedly depicts the fatal irreconcilable struggle Polovtsian Khan Konchak and Russian Prince Igor, while the history of the conflict is crowned marriage to the daughter of his son Igor Konchak became Orthodox (as, incidentally, synKonchaka Yuri, married his daughter to the Grand Duke of Russia Yaroslav Vsevolodovicha).
How early and was strongly linked with Russia Azy, the oldest evidence of the existing Western European report on the Russian state — made in 839 (1160 years pazad!) From the Frankish "annals" record, according to which the government of Russia is called "Hakan," that is Asian ( Turkic) title (Hagan, later the title had the great princes of Russia Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav the Wise).
So, for eight centuries before the time when Russia came to the Urals, to Asia, she came to Asia to Russia and then do not come here again in the face of many of their people — up to the Mongols in the XIII century.
In this regard, one can not say that, sadly, to this day widely biased — very negative — view of existing in the XIII-XV centuries, the Mongol Empire, but at the end of the last century, one of the largest Russian orientalists and peace B. Barthold (1869-1930) denied digested with Western myth of the empire as a purely "barbaric" and able only to destructive actions.
* See A detailed review of these studies in my book "History of Russia and the Russian word. The modern view "(M: 1997, second revised edition-M., 1999).
"Russian scientists — stated Barthold — for the most part followed in the footsteps of Europe", but contrary to the latter, "the Mongols brought with them a very strong state organization … and she had a strong impact in all areas included in the Mongol Empire." VVBartold lamented that many Russian nstoriki talking about the Mongols "definitely hostile, denying them any culture, and the conquest of the Mongols only spoke Russian as barbarity and the yoke of the barbarians … The Golden Horde … was the cultural state, and the same applies to the state, a little later formed the Mongols in Persia, "which in" Mongolian "period" took first place in the cultural importance and stood at the head of all the countries in terms of culture "(see this in detail in my above-mentioned book" History of Russia .., ")
Strongly negative assessment of the Mongol Empire (as, indeed, all of the "Asian" in general) has been introduced into Russia from the West, and the reasons for this will also be discussed. It is necessary to give here a judgment about the Mongols of one of the most prominent figures of the XX century Asia — Jawaharlal Nehru: "Many people think that because they were nomads, they had to be barbarians. But it is wrong, the view … they have been developed public way of life and they have a complex organization … Peace and order have been established throughout the vast stretches of the Mongol Empire … Europe and Asia come into closer contact with each other. "
The last consideration Nehru rightly, very important. At least remember that Europeans first made the journey to the depths of Asia, only after the Mongol Empire, which united territories in Asia and Eastern Europe, and thus create a strong Eurasian geopolitical unity.
However, this kind of statement makes many Russian people rejection, because when you create the Mongol Empire was conquered by Russia and subjected to brutal attacks and violence, but the history of the movement as a whole is unthinkable without conquests. That's geopolitical unity, which is called the West evolved since the turn of VIII-IX centuries, during the equally brutal wars of Charlemagne and his successors. Established as a result of these wars, the Holy Roman Empire subsequently divided into a number of independent states, but without this empire could hardly emerge Western civilization as a whole, its geopolitical unity. And it is extremely significant that the later Western countries do not unite once again — in the Empire of Charles V and Philip II (XVI century), and Napoleon (the beginning of the XIX-th).
Eurasian Mongol Empire was divided in the XV century (just as Western European) to a number of independent states, but later, with the end XVIveka, Russian tsars and emperors to some extent reduced the Eurasian unity. Similarly, as in the West, this recovery has not been without wars. But highly meaningful that the rulers of merging with Russian former constituent parts of the Mongol Empire occupied a high position in the Russian state. So, after joining in the middle of the Kazan Khanate XVIveka his then-ruler, a descendant of Genghis Khan Ediger, received the title of "King of Kazan" and took second place — after the "Tsar of all Russia" Ivan IV — the official government hierarchy. But after joining in kontseXVI — early XVII century Mongol Khanate of Siberia Chingizids — all sons of the famous Khan Kuchum — came with the title of "princes of the Siberian" of the Russian government (on this, see my book "History of Russia …").
These historical facts, unfortunately, are little known, and without their knowledge and understanding can not understand the real nature of Russia as a Eurasian power — in particular, address the question of whether the Asian part of Russia of its colony.
Having been in the beginning of the XX century in the Asian part of Russia, the British statesman George Curzon, who ruled India 1899-1905 years (with the title of "Viceroy"), wrote: "Russia undoubtedly has a remarkable gift of faith and seek friendship, even those she subdued by force … Russian fraternizing in the full sense of the word … He does not shy away from social and family interaction with alien and inferior races ", to which the British were never able to (2).
In its own way this argument is remarkably professional "colonizer." He clearly ns is able to realize that the peoples of Asia have not been and will not be able to Russian or "alien" or "inferior" because, as already mentioned, from the commencement of the state "Rus" are added, despite certain military Conflicts close and equal relations with these peoples, in particular there have been numerous marriage among russkoi and Asian nobility.
Meanwhile, people in the West, invading the XVI-XX centuries in Asia, America, Africa and Australia, perceived the "natives" just like people (or rather, "subhumans") "alien and inferior races." And the aim of realizing the West since the end of the XV century conquest of the American, African, Australian and most of the Asian continent was not having any moral constraints pumping material wealth of the world.
However, quite a wide circulation have the same interpretation of fate attached to the Russian territories of Asia. But here seems to be private, but very significant fact. Twenty-odd years ago, I met a young political activist in Guatemala, Rafael Sosa, a passionate fighter against colonialism in all its forms. He arrived in Moscow because he saw vpey sort of bastion of anti-colonialism. But after a while he — probably after discussions with any "dissidents" — with his usual bluntness told me that he cheated at their best hopes for Russian exploit and oppress a number of Asian nations, that is, the colonizers themselves. I tried to convince him, according to no avail.
But then he made a long journey to the Soviet Union and returned to Moscow, with the same directness asked me to apologize because convinced that people in the Russian 'colonies' live no worse, and often much better than in central Russia, meanwhile the level and quality of life in the Western "metropolitan" and dependent on them (even if only economically) countries differ enormously and with complete clarity.
Of course, the problem of colonialism still has both political and ideological aspects, but the fact that the "Asian" peasants, workers, civil servants, artists, etc. had (and have) in our country as or better standard of living than the Russian people of the same social categories * indicates a deliberate failure notion of Russia as the Asian territories of the colonies, such colonies of the West, where such a situation is unthinkable.
It should also be noted that the Russian attitude to Asian nations Russia is presented in the form of a dramatically more favorable than the attitude of the British, the Germans, the French, the Spaniards found themselves less to the "strong" nations of Europe itself. Britain — a country of the Britons, but this nation has been razed to the ground by the British (England), the same fate befell the state Prussians occupied a significant part of the future of Germany (Prussia), and a lot of people drugihzapadnoevropepskih.
In Russia, however, have been assimilated only some of the Finnish tribes in its central part (around Moscow), but they had neither the state nor any advanced civilization (in contrast to these Prussians). However, disappeared more Pechenegs, Torquay, Kuman ** and a number of other Turkic peoples, but they sort of disappeared in the semi Golden Horde, and not because of any Russian influence.
About a hundred of Asian nations and tribes that have survived for centuries in the territory of Russia (and later the Soviet Union), — strong evidence of ethnic and religious tolerance inherent in the Eurasian power.
In this regard, important to recall that the Asian warriors throughout the ages took part in repelling the attack on Russia-Russia from the West. As you know, the first powerful attack the West took place back in 1018, when the combined Polish-Hungarian-German (Saxon) army managed to capture Kiev. Polish Prince (later King) Boleslaw the Great made his campaign as if only to sit on the throne of his son-in Kyiv (the wife's daughter) Svjatopolka (Damned), which deprived the government of his half-brother Yaroslav the Wise. However, by logging in Kiev, the invaders plundered its coffers and took thousands of Kiev in slavery, and. according to the report, "The Tale of Bygone Years", even himself Sviatopolk joined the fight with his treacherous "friends."
* For example, expressive figure: in 1989 in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, more distant or far more significant (1.6 times!) The proportion of households than in the USSR, had cars.
(See Social Development of the USSR. Statistical Compendium. M., 1990, p. 144).
** It is highly significant that the great Russian composer Polovechens AP Borodin gave a kind of immortality in the world renowned "Polovtsian Dances."
Polish chronicler of French origin, known as Gall, narrating the events of 1018, found it necessary to announce that in a war with the army on the side of Boleslaw Russia took part, and Asians — Pechenegs. This seems to be contrary to our annals, for it speaks of an alliance with the Pechenegs Sviatopolk. But it is quite possible that in the internecine struggle Svjatopolka and Jaroslav Pechenegs were on the side of the first, and when the war against the enemies who came from the West, Pechenegs fought to them, for what, and told Gall, a Russian historian kept silent about the role of the Pechenegs — perhaps even of reluctance in any way detract from the merit of Yaroslav the Wise.
The situation is similar with information about the victory in 1242 of Alexander Nevsky over to Russia invading Teutonic army. German hronistGeydenshteyn report that "Alexander of Kostroma … received in aid of Tartar auxiliaries … won the battle," but our record does not tell about it.
Gall, and the accuracy of the information Geidenshteyna finds support in the fact that during the Livonian War, 1558-1583 Heavy's, when Russia defended their native north-western borders in the fight against the Germans, Poles and Swedes, in our army, as it is known with certainty, important role played Asian warriors and at one time even the entire Russian army commanded by Khan Kasimovskiy chingizidShah Ali (in Russian Shigalev).
We can not say more about the particular part of the population of Russia — Cossacks, which is conclusively proven in a number of recent studies, there has been a "mixed" Russian-Asian origin (indicative that the word "Cossack" — Turkic). For a long time the Cossacks were in a fairly complex relationship with the Russian authorities, but eventually became a powerful component of the Russian army, Napoleon in 1816 stated, "… the whole of Europe in ten years may be Cossackskiy …"
Truth, this "prediction" was not justified, because Russia has never had the intention to conquer Europe (See more about this in detail in my book: Russia. XX-th century. 1939-1964. Impartial research experience), but the words of Napoleon eloquently about the possibilities of the Russian-Asian Cossack army with which he faced in Russia.
Rarely pay attention to the fact that the West since the end of the XV century, with the relatively a short time, and even without much strenuous effort anyway subordinate all continents (America, Africa, much of Asia and Australia), however, despite the many powerful invasion of our country (the first is said to have taken place in 1018 — without nearly a thousand years ago), I could not conquer it, even though it is not separated from the West or the ocean (or at least the sea) or ridges.
This is appropriate to discern the root cause of West russophobia inherent in the literal meaning of this word (that is, the fear of Russia). Russophobia imbued, in particular, the famous Frenchman de Custine's book "Russia in 1839" *. Since the widespread but it is much reduced and biased translations in the Russian language, it is considered "anti-Russian", in every way, they say, defamatory Russia. In fact, this was a very observant Frenchman (with all possible reservations) shocked the power and greatness of Russia, in particular, it made a huge impression fact, which we discussed above — the creation of such a mighty power in the Northern Territory as the Earth: ".. This human race … to be pushed to the very Pole … war with the elements is a severe test, which
The Lord wished to subject this nation, darling, so that one day raise it above many other ".
Custine said shrewdly about the other side of work: "It is necessary to come to Russia to witness the result of this horrific (ie generating russophobia. — VK) of the European mind, and science with the spirit of Asia" (Russian-Asiatic "Cossacks as already mentioned, the "terrifying" and Napoleon himself) ..
It must be admitted that the French traveler clearer and deeper understanding of the place of Russia in the world than many Russian ideologists of his time and our time, considering all the "Asian" in the domestic being something "negative", from which we must escape, and only then , they say, Russia will be in the full sense of the word civilized and cultured country. This kind of representation is based on a false conception deeply about the world in general — what an outstanding performance in his book "Europe and Mankind" (1920), a remarkable thinker and scientist Nikolai Troubetzkoy (1890-1938).
He wrote that "the European-educated" people "chauvinism and cosmopolitanism represented … opposites, fundamentally, radically different points of view." And emphatically replied, "It is necessary to closely scrutinize chauvinism and cosmopolitanism to be noted that the fundamental difference between the two is what it is … two different aspects of the same phenomenon, chauvinists assumes a priori position that the best people in the world is exactly his people. Culture created by its people, better, more perfect all the other cultures …
Cosmopolitan denies the differences between nationalities. If such a distinction is, they must be destroyed. Civilized humanity must be united and have a common culture … But let's see what is the content cosmopolitans in terms of "civilization" and "civilized world"? The term "civilization" they mean the culture that developed in collaboration Roman and Germanic peoples of Europe …
Thus, we see that the culture that, in the opinion of cosmopolitans to dominate the world, there is a certain culture of ethnographic and anthropological one, as that unit, which dreams of domination chauvinist … The only difference is that the chauvinist takes a stronger ethnic group than the cosmopolitan … the only difference is in degree, not in principle … the theoretical basis of so-called … "cosmopolitanism" … it would be better to call openly obscheromanogermanskim chauvinism (3).
There is no doubt that "the Roman-Germanic" civilization of the West to create a kind of optimal geographical and geopolitical conditions (as mentioned above), and has many obvious advantages in comparison with other civilizations, including Russia. But it is equally certain undeniable advantages of these other civilizations that, incidentally, recognized many of the ideologues of the West. However, sometimes such confessions are very svoeobraznyyharakter … above quoted judgment J. Curzon, who ruled India and lamented that unlike the Russian, "the British were never able to" get "loyalty and even friendship" by the people "alien and inferior races . " That is, the British saw the "superiority" in Russian pragmatism of their behavior in Asia, although in general it is the West is clearly superior to other civilizations for their pragmatism, and in the mouths of Western ideology, this "praise" is quite high. The fact is however, that, as already mentioned, for Russian is not typical of what people's perception of Asia ("alien and inferior races"), which plainly spoke the British statesman.
And now back to thinking of Nicholas Trubeckogo. What he calls the "cosmopolitanism" in our time is determined mostly as a commitment to "universal values", but in reality, then in this case it is just and only about Western values that have de absolute superiority over the values of other civilizations.
It is highly significant that the Curzon interpreted the Russian attitude to the people of Asia as a unique expression of pragmatism, he obviously seemed unthinkable prevailing unity of the thousand-year history of the Russian and "Asians". And, concluding reflection on the place of Russia in the world, it is appropriate to say that it Eurasian unity is indeed universal, or, to use a word of Dostoevsky, universal human value, which, hopefully, yet to play a beneficial role in the fate of the world.
Vadim Kozhinov: 1939 — 1945 War and Geopolitics
Historical Ivan the Terrible — a victim of its own rukopozhatnoy intellectuals and kindness
A few words about the premises of the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940