HOW MUCH WESTERN ARE EUROPEANS?

Pope Paul II

The Key to future is in the East

Ключ будущего - Восток

La chiave del futuro è l' Oriente

La clef de l'avenir, c'est l' Orient

Die Schluessel  der Zukunft ist im Osten

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We hope  we  have  succeeded in showing, as we purported to do, that, all over their history, Europeans and Russians have been very similar, and have influenced each other in a decisive way. We would like to add that this consideration is applicable also for the present days.In this regard, the similarity is still more evident, at least for what the exterior side of each country’s life. Reading the newspapers of a certain number of European countries, including Russia, or watching at their  television programmes,  you find the same themes, the same habits, the same fashions, the same trends. It is true that this is happening all over the world because of globalisation. However, if you consider the United States, the Arabic countries or other Asiatic countries, like, for example, Kazakhstan or Iran, you will perceive much more differences. For instance, you find, in newspapers, a lot of cultural articles, and, in the television programs, information tends to be more formal, the debates are very sophisticated.

Most observers find that the most important difference is political in character.

Paradoxically, in the precise moment when they would have had an outstanding occasion to enhance their identities, feeling “just Europeans”, the peoples of West Europe have started to consider themselves as “Westerners”(what they did not do before).

But are West Europeans real Westerners? Do they share the fundamentalistic expectation of a providential New World Order? Are they really so individualist, so effectiveness-motivated, as they like to describe themselves? Do not have, also they, some, or many, “Eastern” weaknesses, like the “vice” of nostalgia, like a certain inclination to communitarism and to romanticism?

Is not Europe somewhere in the middle, between East and West?

Pope John Paul II, in recovering the old idea of Ivanov-Razumnik, that Europe must breath with its two lungs, hinted precisely to the fact that Europe possedes huge cultural resources that link it to the West, but that these resources have been less and less exploited over the years, because of the growing and growing hegemony of Europe's most Western parts (England and French), and, latwer on, eve, of America.

As we have seen in all preceding posts, links of Europe with the East are the heritages of ancient civilisations (Danube Civilisation, Peoples of Kurgan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolic Civilisations, Persians,Israel, Ellenism, Peoples of the Steppes, Constantinople, Islam, Sarmatism, the Third Rome,  Marxism, Russian Culture, a.s.o).

The contributions of most of these civilisations to the European, and even, to the Western, ones, are underestimated. Danube Civilisation, Kurgans, Anatolic civilisations, Sarmatism, are even ignored. Persians, Peoples of the Steppes, Constantinople, Islam and Russia are criticized as barbaric and tyrannic, the messages of Egypt, Israel, Ellenism, are misinterpreted. Even the positive contributions of Germany, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia are minimuised, whilst the ones of  America, England and France are overestimated.

Yet, the ethnic basis of all Europeans comes from the steppes, ancient cultures and Christendom come from the Middle East, Christian and Jewish philosophies are practically ellenistic philosophies re-worked by Islam, Eastern Europe occupies more than a half of Europe.

In present times, the tentative to "westernise" the world seems less realistic than in the past. China, India and South America, thanks to their growing economic strength, are re-opening a genuine research about the great non-western cultures. Islam is heading towards being the most numerous world religion. All are laying the basements for asking to be heard at world level  about the decisions on the future of humankind.

America itself studies attentively these developments, and many Americans are studying how to accomodate with a leading role of China.

If Europe wants to escape its present decline, it must participate in this worldwide effort to reconsider world cultures. Its pretension that its model is applicable worldwide is partially motivated by the consistence of federalism with multiculturalism. However, it is not sufficient even now for giving a voice to Europe in world affairs.

As Martin Jacques puts it, Europe risks to be cut out of world decision for its

incapacity to understand other cultures. The late Ramon Panikkar pretended that, in order to establish a true dialogue with the other cultures of the world, the West must undertake a "cultural desarmement". Present days West Europeans are far from knowing whence to start for understanding Islam, China and India.

This is paradoxical, because they have all the opportunity to know foreign cultures, which are present in their cities. We say more. They should be obliged to study certain basic elements of their own culture, such the Persian Origin of the idea of "progress", the Islamic origin of Christian theologies, the role of Central and Eastern Europe in the history of European Constitutionalism, the role of  monarchic and soviet russia in shaping basic ideas of European Federalism, such as the "Concert of European States" and  Regional Federalism.

Studying the elements of East which are in Europe, and even in Western Europe, constitutes the first step for understanding that Western culture is not the only culture. Only after this step, Europeans will be ready to understand China and India, and discuss with them on an even footing.

Therefore, the dialogue between Western and Eastern Europe is so important. Where, by Eastern Europe, we intend, in first instance, Russia, but, immediately afterwards, Euroislam nd Turkey, Eastern Churches, Judaism, all Slavic, Ugro-Finnic,Baltic, Kartvelian and Illyric nations, a.s.o.. 

COORDINATING IMMIGRATION AND VISA

Popilation Density Worldwide

Demography, a common concern

 Демография, oбщая забота

La demografia, preoccupazione comune

La démographie -un souci partagé-

Demographie, ein gemeinsames Besorgnis.

One of the most stringent questions of present-days Russia has been its continuity with the former Russian Empire .

Contrary to Portugal, Spain, England France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy, whose empires extended beyond the Oceans, Russia Empire was built up into the “empty” areas of Eastern Russia, of Central Asia, of Siberia and of the Arctic Circle.

This characteristic of the Russian Empire facilitated integration, because of the similarity of living habits of the sedentary inhabitants of Western Russia and the ones of the Eastern Steppes, which, from another point of view, were very limited in quantity, and were allowed to continue their traditional way of life notwithstanding the annexation to Russia and the influx of Russian (or other European) colonists.

From another point of view, the very cold climates of these territories rendered difficult, since the beginning, their full-fledged colonization, which was reached, to a large extent, thanks only to forced work and to military. This fact impeded Siberia to experience the strong economic growth which, during these years, characterized similar countries, like Canada, the US, or Australia, an economic growth implying, reversal, the almost complete annihilation of native inhabitants.

As it is well known, one of the characteristics of the Stalinist terror was the one of continuing and developing the Tsarist practice to mass deport delinquents and political prisoners to Siberia, for utilizing their workforce in an area where free Russian would not have gone. This system was described by Aleksandr’ Sol’zenitzin, as “Archipelag Gul’ag”. All Siberia was scattered, in that period, of “GuLag” , and even the so-to-say “free” inhabitants of Siberia were often political exiles, and, in any case, could not freely cross the internal border between Siberia and Russia proper (“prepiska”).

With destalinization. the number of political prisoners in the GuLag (“Zeky”) diminished, but the system of “Prepiska” was not abolished.

Only with Perestrojka Russians were allowed to cross freely internal borders. This meant that millions and millions of Russian citizens stormed westwards.

To them, we must add ethnic Russians fleeing from the Republics and Center Asiatic immigrants to Russia.

The present demographic situation of Russia is economically and strategically rather unbalanced. In general, there has been a strong demographic decrease, due, from one side, to family attitudes similar to the ones of Western Europe (like Italy, Germany or Sweden); from the other side, to the unique economic collapse of the Eltzin era (we must keep in mind that just now, after 20 years, the standard of living of Russians has come back to the one of the former Soviet Union, when also the  much poorer Republics were taken into account for statistical purposes).

Secondly, there has been a strong immigration, in the last 20 years, into Russia proper, and especially into Moscow, which, now is the largest city in Europe after Istanbul. This population is largely constituted by citizens of the former Republics, which Russia is just now starting to naturalize. 25 millions Ethnic Russians live outside the Russian Federation, most of them in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but with strong presences in Latvia, in Transnistria, in France, Germany and England.

Large areas of the Russian Federation, also of European Russia (like Chechnya) have been voided from ethnic Russians, and live according to Asiatic standards (Islam, Shari’a).

The face of Siberia is changing dramatically from day to day. The defrost of the Polar Circle is revitalising the climatic conditions of some millions of years ago (as described in the Indian and Persian sacred books: Veda and Bundahishn).The ice is disappearing, the climate is becoming milder and milder, especially in the south of Siberia and along the Pacific Ocean. This fact does not just transform Siberia into one of the largest arable lands of the world, but, also, is facilitating the economic activities which already were established in the region (minerals and fuel extraction, navigation).

The riches of Siberia grows from day to day, almost without the need to do anything. Unfortunately, Russian people do not love (for historical reasons) to live in Siberia, notwithstanding the enticements of the Government. So, these huge economic opportunities which Siberia is offering to Russia are not sufficiently exploited at the moment,in spite of the activism of the Government and its efforts to revitalise Donji Vostok, Novosibirsk and Yamal.

Moreover, Russia is justifiably  afraid of the fact that other countries could try to appropriate Siberia’s resources. It has already experienced similar situations in the period of occupation, by Japanese and Czechs, of Siberia, during the Civil War, as well as the uncontrolled export of oil revenues by the Oligarchs during the Eltzin period.

In the last period, some Western Politicians (like Madelaine Albright), have accused Russia to be “greedy”, because they want to keep Siberia only for them. This has just increased the worries of Russians. On the other side, Chinese, Korean and, even, Japanese, immigrants are settling alongside the Chinese border, in that Region of Donji Vostok, which, before the “Unequal Treaties” with China in the XIX Century, constituted the core provinces of the Manchu (Jurchen) dynasty.

The attitude of the Russian political world towards the Siberian question is split. The tentative to have immigrant Ethnic Russians resettling in Siberia has substantially failed. American oil companies have been substituted with the more acceptable  Europeans, like the Italian Eni and Enel,  German enterprises and, lately, the British BP. The Russian State has been obliged, even in the absence of more palatable solutions, to accept even “land grabbing” by Indian, Chinese, Indonesian and Arabic agro-alimentary conglomerates.On the other side, there are concerns about the growing resentment against foreigners in public opinion, and about the possible birth of a Siberian autonomism.

The best solution remains  to share the resources with Europe, and, especially, with Italy and Germany, and this is precisely the direction towards which the Authorities are pushing. However, for being able to carry out this policy up to its end, two prerequisites would be needed:

-    a better  knowledge of the existing opportunities, by a larger number of potential investors and settlers;

-     a higher shared level of confidence in a common future for Europe and for Russia.

In the last period, Russia, having realized that Europe is only partially ready to follow it in the Siberian adventure, has modified also its stance towards China, re-orienting dramatically its own exchanges and collaboration in the direction of China (although  the  contract whereby  one half of Russian production will be directed towards China has not yet been signed), and, in general, is re-launching a policy of open doors for investments of any possible nationality.I.a., arge areas of Donij Vostok (as well as a lot of Chinese-Russian  border territories) will be devoted to  Russian-Chinese Joint-Ventures.

However, the most important question concerning Siberia is not yet fixed.Siberia is one of the largest countries , and contains most of natural resources of the world, but  Russia is  not in  a position to populate Siberia with a sufficient number of citizens conceiving themselves as Russians.Russia alone, with its 150.000.000 inhabitants, has not the required demographical strength  for filling Siberia. Not even Europe, by itself, has this capability. However, a new geo-political complex (“Eurussia”), characterized by a multipolar and pluralistic identity, could develop a new “mixed” Siberian people, with its own identity, which could satisfy these “demographic” needs. In fact, both Russia and  Europe, are the target of a continuous inflow of immigrants, from Eastern Europe, but also from the Middle East, from Africa and from South America. In case Siberia would develop, as it is possible, all of its natural resources, including agriculture and tourism, and the standard of living there would  become higher, there is no reason why the immigration influx, under the joint control of Europeans and Russians, could not be diverted, at least partially,  towards Siberia. This would suppose that Russia and Europe join their destinies more deeply, and that they develop a joint identity, which will be shared also by the "New Siberians".

We understand very well that this seems to be a very long and difficult task, for a far-away future. We agree that the task is not simple. It requires strong synergies between, from one side, Russia itself, and, from the other side, at least a selected group of European interests - including some politicians, some industrialists and intellectuals -.

The first step is already under way: it is the existing agreement on visa simplification, which should open the doors to the "Eurasiatic Visa-Free Area ", under discussion since a long time, but presently very controversial. Not only the Baltic States are traditionally contrary, but also there is a trend, both in Russia and in Europe , to tighten immigration policies.For the above reasons, a parallel, if not preliminary, step, should be  to further foster mutual interrelationships, in industry and culture, with special reference to Siberia. Another  step would be to create a Europewide network, aiming at removing prejudices existing towards Russia in general and Siberia in particular, and promoting concrete joint initiatives.
The Russian Ambassador with NATO in Brussels, Rogozin, has correctely remarked recently that, when the Chairman of the EU Commission Barroso

RUSSIA, THE LAST EUROPEAN EMPIRE?

European Empires

  An Empire or a Commonwealth?

Империя или Содружество народов?

Un impero o una comunità di popoli?

 Un empire ou une communauté de Peuples?

Ein Kaiserreich oder eine Voelkergemeinschaft?

To the extent that Bolsheviks had resumed war against occupying foreign forces (Russia, German Army, Freikorps, Baltic, Polish, Ukrainian Asiatic, Czech nationalists, Anglo-Americans, Japanese), they gave the impression they were fighting for the salvation of the Russian Empire (irrespective from the monarchic or republican form of the same).

The same happened with World War II and even with the Cold War, where the strength of the Soviet empire seemed, under certain points of view, to vindicate the loss of the Russian Empire. And also, after so many years, it appears that the idea of a “Russian Empire”, something larger than Russian nationality, is still on the agenda (for instance, in the Russian Media). In fact, already present days Russian Federation (“Rossijskaja Federacija”) is larger that simply the Russian “Nation” (“Ruskaja Nacija”). The Russian People (“Ruskij Narod”) is larger than Russia Federation, and the so-called Sovietic citizens (“Sovietskie grazhdane”) are a further concept than the “Russian People”. Moreover, independently from any contrary political will, Russia still exerts a, direct or indirect, influence on the whole of a larger “post-Sovietic space”. So, we can say that, whilst Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian empires have disappeared, the Russian still exists, even if in a different form.This situation is not very different from the British “Commonwealth” and the French “Francophonie”.

At the beginning, the connection between the new Bolshevik Russia and the Russian Empire was not clear at all. In fact, the “Trip in the Armored Train” of Lenin, as well as the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, which are the founding events of the success of the Bolshevik movement, were based on a paradoxical deal with the German Empire, whereby Russia would have accepted the creation of new Republics (Finland, Poland more the Balts, Belarus’, Ukraine and Transcaucasia), in the areas occupied by the German Armies, where local nationalists had declared their independence under German sponsorship.

Secondly, it seemed ominous that, after about half a century of rhetoric of self-determination by nationalities, from the side of the socialist movement worldwide, precisely in the “Fatherland of Socialism” the nationalities would have been repressed. Thirdly, it was necessary to recover at least a part of those nationalist leaders which had exerted the power during German occupation, some of them being Marxist. Fourth, most of the Republics did not constitute a “nation” in the Western sense of the word, because they were inhabited by dispersed ethnic entities, including, inter alia, Russians, Germans and Jews.

So, in any case, it was necessary, for managing local administrations, to create a sufficiently consistent local interfaces in the Republics. According to Marxist rhetoric, to create local national bourgeoisies, which were conceived to be similar, from one side, to the Westerns national bourgeoisies, and, from another side, to what the fledging ruling classes of the Republics purported to be.

Stalin, also being himself a Transcaucasian Revolutionary (half Georgian, half Ossetian), was chosen to solve the “nationalities problem”. In reality, the implementation of the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk was not simple, and, for a certain period - corresponding, roughly speaking, to the Russian Civil War -, the Republics remained substantially independent, even if occupied, from time to time, by different, Russian and foreign, armies.

In all that period, the relationships of Russia with other Eastern European Countries (especially Baltic countries, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania, Georgia and Armenia) where heavily influenced by the different situations created in the new bundle of Republics, as well by their evolutions following to independence, civil war, Russian-Polish War, “Dekulakization”, Ukrainization, Russification, 2^nd World War, changes of administrative borders, end of the Soviet Union.

CRIMEA: THE FIRST EAST-WEST CONFRONTATION

Crimean War

Deep-Rooted Reasons for Hostility

Глубоко засевшие причины враждебности

Profonde ragioni di ostilità

Des raisons d'hostilité profondement enracinées.

Tiefgreifende Feindlichkeitsgruende.

The cultural confrontation among Slavophiles and Westerners, can be utilized as a background scenario of Russia’s cultural and political life up to the Soviet Revolution. The reformist “Russian Thinking” around Černyševskij and Herzen, comes out of a Westerner background, whereby the reforms are seen as a partial imitation of Western Europe or of America. On the contrary, most of the literary, and/or musical, and/or pictorial productions (such as Dostojevsk’s, Tolstoj’s, Ciaikowsky’s, Serov’s, Nestorov’s, Rerih’s, Malevič’s, Strawinsky’s) are deeply rooted in the Slavonic tradition.

The strengthening of the hold of the Russian Empire on its Asiatic territories (Caucasus, but also Central Asia and the Artic Regions) had increased the interest of Russian intellectuals for the Asiatic Roots of Russia (the Scythians, the Tatars, the Finns, the Persians, the Turks), but also their sympathies for the subjected peoples, whose origins, histories, traditions, languages, were investigated at that time.

Russia was defined more and more as a “Eurasiatic” reality. “Asiatic” subjects enter into the repertory of artists, such as Shagané, Hadij Murat, the Fire Bird, Shahrazade, the Finnish folklore of the North.This attention is not much different from the praise of Mohicans by Fenimore Cooper, or the one of "strong men" of East and west by Kipling, and, fimnally, the participation of Ann Besant both to the induistic revival and to the independence struggle of India.

But also the idea of a community of destinies between Russia and Europe remained at that times strong, albeit Russia felt not be  well understood , and even to be rejected, by Europeans.

Many made an effort to become more European, for being better accepted, as in the case of the Occidentalist, or of social reformers like Caadajen. Others, like Ivanov-Razumnik (who converted to Catholicism as suggested by De Maistre), stressed that Europe needed Russia. He launched the idea of “Europe’s two lungs”, an idea which will achieve so large a resound after having been adopted by John Paul II himself.

The conflict between “Slavophiles” and “Occidentalists” will be synthesized, finally, after the October Revolution, by Blok, who, in his Panmongolizm, will submit, to Europeans, a dramatic alternative: either to accept, brotherly, the Russian as a part of the European family of people, or to find them hostiles, allied with “the Mongolic World” (now, we could think of China and of Islam).

During the XIX Century, Russia did not abandon the “Greek Project” (i Megàli Idèa”), albeit the independence of Greece was not achieved thanks to Russia (or, at least, not thanks to Russia alone); the newly independent Greece became open, besides Russian influences, also German and English connections.

The peak of anti-Russian feelings was reached between the 1848 Revolution and the Crimea War. Russia had intervened, upon request of the Austrian Emperor, in Hungary, for stopping the liberal and nationalistic unrests.Moreover, the Croatian Ban Jelacic, the Ruthenian  peasants and the Bohemian Pan-Slavists    had all supported the Emperor against the revolutionary, so causing all together the suppression of the revolts in the Austrian Empire. From this fact, Marx and Engels draw the pretext for a violent attack against the "peoples without history", responsible, first of all, to have supported the Russian and Austrian Emperors against the revolutionary movements. In 1853, there were not only the left-wing extremists, but also the bourgeois liberals governments of France and of England to be worried of the momentum gained by Imperial Russia by its presence in the Balkans  (including the occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia) and its support to Balkanic nationhoods.

The "Crimean War" consisted, in reality, in a vast encirclement of Russia by British, Franch, Austrians Turks and Sardinians, which took place along the Danube, in Ucraine, Crimea, Caucasus, the Baltic, the White Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The adhesion of the Kingdom of Sardinia was unequivocally motivated by the will of the liberal Cavour Government to join the liberal cohalition of Western constitutional monarchies, abandoning the traditional Russian friendship. The conservative opposition, led by Count Thaon de Ravel, refused to vote in favour of the war. The latter contributed heavily to the self-consciuosness of Russia, to the weakening of Austria, to the assertiveness of the Balkanic countries and to the strenthening of national feelings in Caucasian nationalities.

The Western alliance pretended from Russia the acceptance of some points, what Russia refused to do:

1. Russia was to give up its protectorate over the Danubian Principalities;
2. It was to abandon any claim granting it the right to interfere in Ottoman affairs on behalf of Orthodox Christians;
3. The Straits Convention of 1841 was to be revised;
4. All nations were to be granted access to the River Danube.

At the end of the war, these points were accepted by Russia only partially, and never fully complied with.

Wallachia and Moldavia, formerly under a strong Russian influence, united under the name of Romania, into a new state, where French and Italian influences are decisive, up to the point that the same Rumanian language is “purified” from many of the preceding Slavonic influences, so that the heritage of the Romans is put in the forefront.

Russia interests concentrated on the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans, such as Bulgarians and Serbians, which Russia helped in their efforts to become independent from the Turkish Empire. These efforts, which were at the origin of the “Balkanic Wars”, contributed to creating the background for World War I. 

Of course, not just Russia, but the whole system of powers of the Europe of that time, are equally responsible for the Balkan Wars and for the subsequent World War II. It has to be remarked that the Russian Tsars were active in the diplomatic scene, for fostering a movement for Peace and Disarmament (the Hague Congress for Peace was promoted by Tsar Nicolas II).

The policy of the Russian Empire in that period is rather contradictory. In fact, it had to manage too many contradictory tendencies. From one side, Russia was a very powerful, cultivated, and even rich, country, whose rates of growths were higher than the ones of Western Europe. From another point of view, riches was very unequally distributed, and this created strong social contrasts. The land reforms carried out at the end of the XIX Century, whilst fostering industrialization,also as a consequence of the Crimean War, had not solved the problem of a sound farming class.

The Tsar swinged between the tough defense of traditional autocracy and timid tentatives of reforms in the direction of a parliamentary monarchy, from avant-garde initiatives in the field of internationalism, such as the Hague  Congress, to military escalations, such as the ones in the Balkans.

The policy of Russia-bashing from the side of western goverments and intellectuasls went on. The fact that, contrary to what happened in France, Italy and Austria, liberal reforms had not been implemented during the largest part of the XIX Century were explained, as always, by the innate autocratic spirit of Russians. However, as always, many of the faults identified by polemists in Russia were, or false, a shared with many other European countries.

As an example, the myth, according to which the Russian Empire had to be considered as the main enemy of nationalities in Eastern Europe is not correct. It is true that a strong conflict arose since the beginning with Poles, who did not accept the partial autonomy role of the Kingdom of Poland. It is also true that the Empire forbade the Ukrainian language and the transliteration, into Latin characters, of Baltic languages. However, also Prussia and Austria had annexed large parts of Poland, where they had suppressed any form of autonomy, whilst Russia had been even helpful with Belorussian and Lithuanians, for asserting their own nationhood, after long centuries of dominance of the Polish language, aristocracy and clergy.Not to speak of the violent repression, by England, of Irish autonomy.

TURKS FROM YAKUTIA TO KOSSOVO

The first Turkish State had its center in Altai.

Центр первой турецкой держави находился на Алтае

Il centro del primo Stato turco si trovava nell' Altai

Le centre du premier état Turc se trouvai sur l' Altai

Das Zentrum des ersten tuerkischen Reiches befand sich auf dem Altai

We can consider the Turkish and Mongolian invasions as a last phase of the “Migrations of Peoples”. Both Turks and Mongols have their origin in Greater Mongolia, which stretches from present-days Beijing to the Altai mountains in Russia, from Dunhuang, at the China-Xinjang border, up to the whole Baykal area, in Russian Siberia. The “Sacred Mountains” of both Turks and Mongols (Orhon, Ogodon, Kunlun) lie in the present-days “Buriatian Mongolia” a Republic which is member of the Russian Federation.

The Turks are a very broad group of peoples, where most of the nationalities of present-days Siberia and of the Central Asiatic Republics, more Tatarstan, Gagauzia and Azerbaidjan belong, the Turkmenes living in Iran and Iraq, more, obviously, the Turks living in Turkey and in the Balkans. It seems that some American Indians also speak Turkish languages. According to some sources (the “Continuity Theory”), Turks have never moved from these areas, where they have been present, in a form or in another, since Pre-history, creating a great number of empires (“Blue Turkish” Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Uighur Empire, Magyar Kingdom, Seldjuk Empire, Othoman Empire, Timurid Empire, Mughal Empire, Safawid Empire).

According to Slavophiles, and, especially, Eurasiatists, Turkish tradition constitutes an important part of Russian tradition.

Because of the presence of Turks in the Balkans since the XIV Century, and, especially, for having conquered Constantinople, Turks may be considered also as an integral  part of European Identity.

The history of Turkish peoples started with the “Blue Turk” Empire, in the 6^th Century after Christ, and with the graved inscription of Minister Tonyükük, where the decision of the Turks was clearly expressed to keep out of China, remaining in their northern steppes.

The presence of Turkish peoples (Bolgars, Chazars, Cumans and Pechenegs) in Russia was strong since the Middle-Ages. The “Poem of Prince Igor”, the most well-known Russian Middle Ages epos, is devoted to a battle between the Princes of Kievskaja Rus’ and the Pechenegs Polovcí. Its structure and many details hint to a tight interconnection between the worlds of Kievskaja Rus’ and the one of Pechenegs, which result to have had family ties between each other. In the Balkans, the Pechenegs (Besenjoek) were present (in present-days Romania), fought in Hungary’s Civil war in 1043, and partially settled in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Turkmenes were the first Turks to arrive belonged to the so-called “Emirates” of Western Anatolia in the 13^th Century, a civilization which constituted an exceptional introduction to the Turkish Byzantine cultural synthesis. In that period, Tamerlane destroyed the Seldjuk Empire and defeated also the Ottoman Sultan. Shortly later, the Ottoman power resurrected, and the Turks were able to make conquests in Thracia, as well as to challenge all Christians princes of the Balkans. In the famous battle of Kosovo Polje, the Turks defeated the Christian several princes. From that moment, their advance in Europe was no more containable. At a later stage, they took over the heritage of the Mongol rule in Russia and connected, to their Sultanate, Bessarabia, Ukraine, Crimea, Ciscaucasia  and Caucasus.

The Southern part of Russia, as well as Ukraine and Moldova, were deeply influenced by the presence of the Ottoman Empire, which was an active player in Ukraine’s politics from XV^th to the XVIII^th Century, both through the direct control of Southern Ukraine and Caucasus, and in its satellite Crimean Khan. I.a., the most influential Empress of the Ottoman Empire, Roxolana (Harüm Sultan, who inspired also to Süleiman the Magnificent, the nicest love poetry of Ottoman literature), was an Ukrainian, as it is hinted by her nickname, which, in Latin, indicates the inhabitants of Ukraine (from a name of an ancient Scythian tribe).

The wars of Poles, Austrians and Russians for delivering Europe from the Turkish control constitute an important part of European history, and even of the first projects of European unification. The migrations of the Cossacks between Poland and Russia may be explained to a large part as a direct consequence of the Turkish question. The links between Russia and the Balkans have a strong connection with Turkey: the Crimea War was a part of the “Ottoman Question”. Many of present-days disputes (Bosnia, Kosovo, Crimea, Caucasus) come out from this heritage.

MONGOLS: BARBARIANS OR CIVILIZATORS?

kazan.the Capital of Russia's tatars

Role of Mongolians and Tatars still Disputed
Rоль монголов  и Татаров - спорная
Il ruolo dei Mongoli e dei Tartari è  controverso
Le role des Mongols et des Tatares est controversé
Die Rolle der Mongolen und der Tataren ist bestritten.

According to a traditional Russian historiography, the Mongolian and Tatar invasion of Russia was a dark period, from which Russia has derived no advantage, no heritage at all. However, different historical schools, starting from the XIX Century, have stressed the high degree of civilisation of the Mongol and Tatar Empires, their fundamental role in organizing a unitary political and economic space in Eurasia, and, at the end, their contribution to Russian identity. In particular, the Japanese Shiratori had pointed out that, Throughout the whole history of Eurasia, the Kiba Mingoku (Kurgans, Aryans, Proto-Sinic,Uralics, Huns, Avars, Mongols, Tatars, had always powerfully contributed to spreading the new achievements of civilization towards “peripheral" areas, such as Japan, China, India, Middle East and Europe.  Trubeckoj has stressed that the “Heritage of Gengis Khan” included the ability to create a big centralised State stretching from Ukraine to China, from Mongolia to Iran. This centralised state had fostered intercontinental commerce and had accelerated the transfer of Eastern technologies to the West. The Russian identity has retained, from the Tatar Rule, certain aspects which our contemporaries do not appreciate, like the strong taste for hierarchy and for military organisation, but other which are less criticized, such as their ability for large scale exploration and for international trade. The Russian language includes, among the most important of its words, expressions which are, either Tatar, or transmitted by Tatars, such as “Dengi” (“Money”), “Kulak” (“Rich peasant”), “Kozak” (“Wandering Rider”), a.s.o..

In present-days Russia, the heirs of Mongols and Tatars have their own political representation, in the sense that the Tatar Republic and the Mongolic Republics of the Kalmuks, of Altai, Tuva and Buriatian Mongolia, are autonomous members of the Russian Republic. Present day contribution defines the Russian Federation as a multicultural state. Moreover, the Crimea Tatars have their specific representation within the Ukrainian autonomous Republic of Crimea.

 

EURASIATISM: A PROPHETIC MOVEMENT

Von Ungern-Sternberg

Between Asia's Revenge  and Theocracy

Между реваншом Азии и теократии

Fra rivincita dell' Asia e teocrazia

Entre revanchisme asiatique et théocratie

Zwischen asiatischem Revanchismus und Theokratie

The ambiguous role of Scythians, who, as observed already by Herodotus, were partially a wild warlike people of the steppes, and, from another side, an integral part  of the European family of peoples, was broadly utilised as a metaphor for describing the Russian people itself. A literary circle was created under the denomination “the Scythians” by authors like Blok and Ivanov-Razumnik. Blok’s poem “Skify” summarised this point of view.

Blok’s “Skify” includes a quotation of Soloviov’s “Panmongolism”,devoted to the same subject: 

“Pan Mongolism! The name is monstrous 

Yet it caresses my ear

As if filled with the portent

 Of a grand divine fate.  

While in corrupt Byzantium 

The altar of God lay cooling 

And holy men, princes, people and king

Renounced the Messiah -  

Then He invoked from the East 

An unknown and alien people, 

And beneath the heavy hand of fate 

The second Rome bowed down in the dust.

We have no desire to learn 

From fallen Byzantium's fate, 

And Russia's flatterers insist:

 It is you, you are the third Rome.  

Let it be so! God has not yet 

Emptied his wrathful hand. 

A swarm of waking tribes 

Prepares for new attacks.  

From the Altai to Malaysian shores  

The leaders of Eastern isles 

Have gathered a host of regiments 

By China's defeated walls.  

Countless as locusts 

And as ravenous, 

Shielded by an unearthly power 

The tribes move north. 

O Rus'! Forget your former glory:

The two-headedeagle is ravaged, 

And your tattered banners passed 

Like toys among yellow children.  

He who neglects love's legacy, 

Will be overcome by trembling fear...

And the third Rome will fall to dust, 

Nor will there ever be a fourth.” 

The “Scythic” movement was, under a certain point of view, an anticipation of the Euro

-Asiatist orientation, which saw, in Russia, a particular kind of civilisation, 

sharing, partially, the European Identity and, partially, the Asiatic one.

In fact, the idea of Eurasiatism derived from concrete convergence between exoteric learnings, like the ones of Blavatsky, Rerih and Gurdjev, “White” warlords, like Semionov and von Ungern-Sternberg, and Japanese politicians and military, like Ugaki Kashunige. These theses resembled also the ones of the Japanese historian Shiratori.

Semionov and von Ungern Sternberg tried to create an independent Mongolian power and to restore the Qin Dynasty in China, as instruments for launching a worldwide monarchistic counter-offensive against the forces which were destroying the Chinese, Russian, Turkish, German and Austrian empires. 

It has also to be recalled that the Qin Empire, which had just been dissolved in 1911 but was restored for a very short period in 1917, was a multiethnical empire dominated by the “Peoples of the Steppes” (Manchu, Mongols, Uighurs and Tibetans). For this reason, the paradoxical pretention of von Ungern-Sternberg (a German-Baltic Russian citizen born in Austria), who, being the ruler in Urfa -Ulaan Bator-) , claimed to be a reicarnation of Chingis Khan, was no absurd as it could be considered now. The Dalai Lama himself proclaimed him even as a reincarnation of the God Mahahkala. In any case, in that period, warklords were struggling, in Russia, in Germany, in Hungary as well as in China and in Central Asia, to restore the ancient Empires.

The best known Eurasiatist author was Prince Trubeckoj, who, writing, in the ’30^ies, in Harbin (Manchuria), Sofia and Prague, and following the above suggestions both from Russian and Japanese cultures, emphasized the Mongol and Tatar heritage in Russian identity (“Nasledije Chingis Khana”), challenging the “arrogance” of Western Europeans, who, according to him, had always refused to recognize the dignity of civilisation to the cultures of Eastern Europe and of the steppes. In so doing, Trubeckoj utilized not only the ideas of the Scythic movement, but also the ones of other admirers of the Peoples of the Steppes, like Enver Pasha.

These ideas were not so insulated. They echoed the theories of British and Russian diplomacies, struggling, along the XIX Century, to control Persia and Afghanistan, as the key to the whole Asia. Kiplings work, and the British "inventor" of Geopolitics, Mackinder, thought that those who had the control of Central Asia had the control of the world.

Also today, the followers of Mackinder, such as the American democratic politician Zbygniew Brzerzinski, maintain that the control of Central Asia is pivotal for the control of the World. This has been a focal argument in favour of the wars in Afganistan.  

It is clear that, in general terms,  “Euro-Asiatism” stressed the role of the Peoples of the Steppes in the creation of the Russian identity. The brand “Eurasiatism” has been invoked for covering several different types of cultural and of political discourses, going from a natural, imperial and hegemonic role of Russia in the Eurasiatic continent, to the need of a federation of all peoples of Eurasia, up to simple remembering, to Europeans, of their Asiatic origins, thus challenging “West-European arrogance”, and fostering a dialogue with Eastern cultures.

Today, when several peoples of Asia are in the forefront of  the transformation of world economy, so that the balance of power is shifting eastwords across the Eurasiat Continent, the ideas of Eurasiatists seam to yeald a renewed success.