In a recent article from the magazine “Novoïe Vremia” (The New Times: https://newtimes.ru/articles/detail/9011/), one of the few that still positions itself in opposition to the Kremlin, Lilia Tcherzova from the Carnegie Center in Moscow questions the influence of the West on Russia’s domestic policy. Her critical approach to Western realism, largely fueled by what she considers illusory energy and industrial hopes, offers a striking contrast to a study on a similar subject recently published by Alexandre Tchoubarian, President of the illustrious Russian Academy of Sciences. In his preface, Jacques Sapir, Director of Studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, rightly recommends reading this book. Perhaps not for the reasons he puts forward about the “typically Russian concept of Europeanism.” Though one can’t quite convince oneself that these are his true intentions, the reflections of the author contained in “Russia and the European Idea” alone summarize the entire millennial ambivalence of this vast continent towards Europe. This is evident in both the content and the form, in the thoughts, structure, and style of this essay.
Certainly, the mention of numerous references lends this document historical interest: from antiquity to the present day, the author, who is also Director of the Institute of World History in Moscow, lists the names of Russian poets, writers, and philosophers largely unknown in the West, whose works nonetheless facilitated or strengthened this European approach to Russia. The author also takes pleasure in citing Pushkin, Herzen, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, or Tolstoy as the pioneers of the 19th century, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Malevich, or Shostakovich for those of the 20th century, but often forgets to recall that most of them experienced imprisonment, exile, or ostracism due to their ideas.
Despite the possible “Norman lineage of the founder of Novgorod in 862” -the cradle of the future Russian state-, the author’s cautious reflections reveal his hesitations between the ancestral temptation to file a case against Europe and the barely glimpsed possibility of a more direct responsibility of Russia. A Russia he describes as tossed over the centuries between its desire to adopt Western values and a tendency to retreat inward. Ultimately observing a “delay,” which he illuminates with the upheavals of Russian history: the “razkol” (the religious schism) of 1054 between the Eastern and Western Churches, the Tatar-Mongol invasions of the 13th and 14th centuries, “halting the country’s development for two centuries,” modern wars, the Soviet period.
Alexandre Tchoubarian notably points out stereotypes built against his country by Westerners and propagated through diplomatic notes, merchant writings, or artistic correspondences: the “Journey to Siberia” by Abbé Chappe d’Auteroche in 1761 and, less than a century later, the “Letters from Russia in 1839” by Marquis de Custine -an exceptional print run of 200,000 copies for the time- are criticized in an infantile and emotional manner, symptomatic of an underlying complex. Without ever questioning the possible reasons for this perception – notably the authoritarian tradition, he comes to regret that this “vast literature constituted the sole source of information for Western Europeans.”
In a final chapter devoted to “Democratic Russia in Current Europe,” the author discusses the upheavals of the Gorbachev era, focusing more on the accession of former USSR satellites to the European Union before acknowledging, implicitly: Russia never came closer to Europe than under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. His conclusion, “Does Russian Europeanism have a future?” suggests that the author is now walking on eggshells. Already very official, his discourse and thought become arid. Without fearing the paradox, Vladimir Putin is thus presented as the one who “consolidates the state, strengthens national consciousness and revitalizes traditional values”: a policy, Alexandre Tchoubarian acknowledges, that provokes as many “lively debates in the West” as it is “mostly supported in Russia.” And the author detects in it the best “guarantee thereafter of Russia’s European choice”!
According to a major European banking executive recently approached for funding a project by young Russian entrepreneurs to create an ambitious online press service, the “high political risk will make it extremely difficult to find private money to finance the launch of a newspaper in Russia.” This highlights the persistence of the infamous “clichés”!
Alexandre Tchoubarian, “Russia and the European Idea,” Editions des Syrtes, 2009.
