... "saving the nation" -- numerically, physically, and morally -- is the utmost task for the state. - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Reading certain Europeans is always an unpleasant reminder of just how sharply we Americans need to crane our political necks in our encounters with the continental right. A recent interview in the Moscow News Alexandr Solshenitsyn is a fascinating case in point. Ranging over topics such as building democracy, xenophoblia and ethnic violence, foreign policy and international relations, and the role of the state, the interview must be read in its entirety.
In his discussion of democracy and the role of the state, Solzhenitsyn's views are refreshingly free of nuetral and purely procedural vision held by most American conservatives - for whom the goal of politics is the establishment of some abstract "liberty":
Addressing the 10th National Assembly, Metropolitan Kirill pointed out, quite justly, that “realization of freedoms should not jeopardize the existence of Motherland or offend against people’s religious feelings or ethnic sentiments” and that sacred things are values on par with "human rights." Unlimited "human rights" is exactly what our cave-dwelling ancestor had: Nothing could stop him from snatching meat from his neighbor or finishing him off with a big stick. That was why every society needed governing authorities and ruling elite. Throughout the centuries, they retained full "rights" while the rights of the masses were severely limited. We have been hearing all this talk about "human rights" ever since the Enlightenment era; they have been secured in a number of countries, but not always within the bounds of moral values and principles. Yet for some reason no one has ever urged us to defend "human obligations." Even calling for self-restraint is considered to be ludicrous and absurd. Meanwhile, only self-restraint, self-denial can guarantee a moral and reliable resolution of any conflicts.
Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn shows himself in the interview as someone still living in the narrowly nationalistic world of the 20th century, in which the peoples of the West exhausted themselves in a series of internecine wars which are mainly responsible for our current predicament. His interviewer, Vitaly Tretyakov "gets it" -
Tretyakov: I, for one, believe that unless the three principal subjects of Euro-Atlantic (Christian) civilization -- specifically, the North American Union, the (Western) European Union, and the East European (Russian) Union -- form a strategic alliance (with supra-state bodies), our civilization will disappear sooner or later.
Solzhenitsyn, however, rejects this view:
Solzhenitsyn: Unfortunately, the global political process is not moving in the direction that you have just outlined. The United States has been deploying its occupation troops in one country after another.... There is no substantial difference between NATO and U.S. actions. Seeing that Russia today poses no threat to it, NATO is systematically, persistently expanding its military apparatus -- to eastern Europe and to the south of Russia.
Russia is being encircled with a view to destroying its sovereignty.
Even worse, he seems to see Russia as having more in common with the Thrid World than with the rest of the West:
Solzhentisyn: A more accurate description of this world conflict would probably be this: The Third World vs. the Golden Billion. It has been caused by the global divide between the rich and poor. (Saudi Arabia and some other countries are not an exception here: They are only using the West's run-away secularism as an easy target. This triumphant secularism in fact arouses the utmost indignation in the Muslim world. As for Russia, it is evidently getting rid of this secularism and of course can hardly be referred to as part of the Gold Billion.) The "clash of civilizations" theory covers up the widening gap between rich and poor in the world....
At any rate, Russia must not allow itself to be drawn into any global conflicts.
Solzhenitsyn also expresses anger at the weakening of Russia during the break-up of the Soviet Union and voices almost irredentist claims against the Ukraine in particular:
...Russia must not cast Ukraine’s multimillion Russian population to the whims of fate, abandoning it, and cutting off all links with it.
The relations betwwen Europe and the US, on the one hand, and Russia on the other are complex. Attempts to cast post-Soviet Russia in a liberal free market mode are a grave mistake, as are the refusal to allow Russia to strengthen her southern and Asian borders. While the peoples of Eastern Europe - Poles, Letts, Ukranians, etc - have a right to live free of Russian domination, reflexively working to weaken Russian influence is a terrible mistake. Not recognizing Russia as fundamentally a strategic ally rather than a competitor is suicidal for the West, particularly when one remembers that Russia is the only European front line state in the coming geopolitical conflict with the Chinese which will shape the 21st century. On the other hand, the Russians need to realize that they cannot expect to dominate their old Eastern European vassel states, that they no longer need a buffer against invasion from Germany, and that they cannot expect to unite all ethnic Russians under one state, especially given the fact that the large Russian populations of the various former satellites are the result of conscious ethnocidal colonization efforts on the part of the Soviet regime.
In short - the US, the EU and Russia all need to recognize that our historic and geopolitical enemies are the same and that they lie to the south and east.
(And, while I'm no slavophile believer in Russia's divinely ordained goal to redeem the West, I do believe that Russia, as the country least corrupted by Euro-American decadence, has the strength and moral authority to play a unique role in a rebirth of the European nations of the world. It would be a shame if she were to squander that trying to tyranize other Western peoples.)
Note: I found this interview at the excellent site Orthodoxy Today, which includes frequently updated links to interesting articles around the web and a blog. While the site, as the name would indicate is an Eastern Orthodox one, it includes articles from other religious - mainly Catholic - perspectives.
Also worth looking at there is an interview with (Catholic) Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Islam. Fr. Pacwa's comments are refreshingly reasonable, avoiding the twin evils of fawning and demonizing. His analysis of radical Islam as a response to the failure of the Arab nationalist movements which arose from the fall of the Ottoman Empire is interesting, but seems to ignore the growth of Asian Islamic movements.