LUC MICHEL’S
GEOPOLITICAL DAILY
L'identité eurasienne de la Russie (II)
Luc Michel
Jeudi 22 mars 2018
RESUME FRANCAIS:
GEOIDEOLOGIE -
L'IDENTITE EURASIENNE DE LA RUSSIE (II):
POLITIQUE ÉTRANGÈRE
DE LA RUSSIE. LE CONTEXTE HISTORIQUE '
(LAVROV) « Incidemment, le
besoin de modernisation basé sur les
réalisations européennes était
clairement manifeste dans la société
russe sous le tsar Alexis, tandis que le
talent et l'ambition de Pierre le Grand
lui donnait un coup de fouet. S'appuyant
sur des mesures nationales dures et sur
une politique étrangère résolue et
réussie, Pierre le Grand a réussi à
placer la Russie dans la catégorie des
principaux pays européens en un peu plus
de deux décennies. Depuis lors, la
position de la Russie ne pouvait plus
être ignorée. Aucun problème européen ne
peut être résolu sans l'avis de la
Russie »
- Sergueï Lavrov
(mars 2016).
« L'Empire russe
était le plus grand empire de tous les
temps dans la totalité de tous les
paramètres - sa taille, sa capacité à
administrer ses territoires et la
longévité de son existence (…)
l'Histoire a conféré à la Russie la
mission d'être un lien entre l'Orient et
l'Occident »
- Hélène Carrère
d'Encausse (L'Empire d'Eurasie).
Dans un article de
référence intitulé «La politique
étrangère russe: le contexte
historique», publié le 3 mars 2016 dans
la revue russe « La Russie dans les
affaires mondiales », le ministre russe
des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov a
remis en question la perspective
occidentale sur la Russie ». Selon
Lavrov, « la Russie a joué un rôle
important dans l'élaboration de
l'histoire européenne et des politiques
européennes contemporaines ». Il écrit
que « contrairement à la croyance
répandue en Occident que la Russie
serait l'outsider politique de l'Europe
(...), elle fait partie intégrante du
contexte européen », ajoutant que « tout
au long de l'histoire, la Russie a été
contrée par la géographie, l’histoire et
son interconnexion avec la Russie, ce
qui signifie que le premier devra
toujours considérer le second ». Lavrov
ébauche également un « monde bipolaire
dans lequel la Russie affronte les
États-Unis en élargissant son propre
domaine d'influence politique et de
pouvoir. De l’Atlantique vers le
Pacifique, dans le cadre d'une nouvelle
entité politique – L’Eurasie ».
# LUC MICHEL’S
GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/
GEOIDEOLOGY - RUSSIA'S EURASIAN IDENTITY
(II):
‘RUSSIA'S FOREIGN POLICY. HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND’ (LAVROV)
LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК
МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/
Luc MICHEL pour
EODE/
Quotidien
géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/
2018 03 21/
“Incidentally, the need for
modernisation based on European
achievements was clearly manifest in
Russian society under Tsar Alexis, while
talented and ambitious Peter the Great
gave it a strong boost. Relying on tough
domestic measures and resolute, and
successful, foreign policy, Peter the
Great managed to put Russia into the
category of Europe’s leading countries
in a little over two decades. Since that
time Russia’s position could no longer
be ignored. Not a single European issue
can be resolved without Russia’s
opinion.”
- Sergey Lavrov (march 2016).
“Te Russian Empire was the greatest
empire of all times in the totality of
all parameters – its size, an ability to
administer its territories and the
longevity of its existence (...) History
has imbued Russia with the mission of
being a link between the East and the
West”
- Hélène Carrère
d'Encausse (The Empire of Eurasia).
In a landmark treatise titled "Russia's
Foreign Policy: Historical Background,"
published March 3, 2016 in the Russian
foreign affairs journal ‘Russia in
Global Affairs’, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov “challenged the
Western perspective on Russia with an
analysis of Russian history”. According
to Lavrov, “Russia has played an
important role in shaping both European
history and contemporary European
policies”. He writes that “contrary to
the belief widespread in the West that
Russia is Europe's political outsider
(...) it is an integral part of the
European context”, adding that “while
throughout history Russia's power has
been obstructed by European countries,
Europe's geography, and its historical,
intrinsic interconnection with Russia,
signifies that the former will always
have to consider the latter.” Lavrov
also sketches out a “bipolar world in
which Russia confronts the U.S. by
expanding its own realm of political
influence and power from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, as part of a new political
entity - Eurasia.”
# Part 1 –
DOCUMENT/ SERGEY
LAVROV:
“RUSSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND”
(‘RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS’, MARCH 3,
2016)
Sergey Lavrov’s article for "Russia in
Global Affairs" magazine :
“International relations have entered a
very difficult period, and Russia once
again finds itself at the crossroads of
key trends that determine the vector of
future global development.
Many different opinions have been
expressed in this connection including
the fear that we have a distorted view
of the international situation and
Russia’s international standing. I
perceive this as an echo of the eternal
dispute between pro-Western liberals and
the advocates of Russia’s unique path.
There are also those, both in Russia and
outside of it, who believe that Russia
is doomed to drag behind, trying to
catch up with the West and forced to
bend to other players’ rules, and hence
will be unable to claim its rightful
place in international affairs. I’d like
to use this opportunity to express some
of my views and to back them with
examples from history and historical
parallels.
It is an established fact that a
substantiated policy is impossible
without reliance on history. This
reference to history is absolutely
justified, especially considering recent
celebrations. In 2015, we celebrated the
70th anniversary of Victory in WWII, and
in 2014, we marked a century since the
start of WWI. In 2012, we marked 200
years of the Battle of Borodino and 400
years of Moscow’s liberation from the
Polish invaders. If we look at these
events carefully, we’ll see that they
clearly point to Russia’s special role
in European and global history. History
doesn’t confirm the widespread belief
that Russia has always camped in
Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s
political outsider. I’d like to remind
you that the adoption of Christianity in
Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of
that event quite recently – boosted the
development of state institutions,
social relations and culture and
eventually made Kievan Rus a full member
of the European community. At that time,
dynastic marriages were the best gauge
of a country’s role in the system of
international relations. In the 11th
century, three daughters of Grand Prince
Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of
Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France.
Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish
king and granddaughter the German
emperor.
Numerous scientific investigations bear
witness to the high cultural and
spiritual level of Rus of those days, a
level that was frequently higher than in
western European states. Many prominent
Western thinkers recognized that Rus was
part of the European context. At the
same time, Russian people possessed a
cultural matrix of their own and an
original type of spirituality and never
merged with the West. It is instructive
to recall in this connection what was
for my people a tragic and in many
respects critical epoch of the Mongolian
invasion. The great Russian poet and
writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The
barbarians did not dare to leave an
enslaved Rus in their rear and returned
to their Eastern steppes. Christian
enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and
dying Russia.” We also know an
alternative view offered by prominent
historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov,
who believed that the Mongolian invasion
had prompted the emergence of a new
Russian ethnos and that the Great Steppe
had given us an additional impetus for
development.
However that may be, it is clear that
the said period was extremely important
for the assertion of the Russian State’s
independent role in Eurasia. Let us
recall in this connection the policy
pursued by Grand Prince Alexander
Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit
to Golden Horde rulers, who were
tolerant of Christianity, in order to
uphold the Russians’ right to have a
faith of their own and to decide their
fate, despite the European West’s
attempts to put Russian lands under full
control and to deprive Russians of their
identity. I am confident that this wise
and forward-looking policy is in our
genes. Rus bent under but was not broken
by the heavy Mongolian yoke, and managed
to emerge from this dire trial as a
single state, which was later regarded
by both the West and the East as the
successor to the Byzantine Empire that
ceased to exist in 1453. An imposing
country stretching along what was
practically the entire eastern perimeter
of Europe, Russia began a natural
expansion towards the Urals and Siberia,
absorbing their huge territories.
Already then it was a powerful balancing
factor in European political
combinations, including the well-known
Thirty Years’ War that gave birth to the
Westphalian system of international
relations, whose principles, primarily
respect for state sovereignty, are of
importance even today.
At this point we are approaching a
dilemma that has been evident for
several centuries. While the rapidly
developing Moscow state naturally played
an increasing role in European affairs,
the European countries had apprehensions
about the nascent giant in the East and
tried to isolate it whenever possible
and prevent it from taking part in
Europe’s most important affairs. The
seeming contradiction between the
traditional social order and a striving
for modernisation based on the most
advanced experience also dates back
centuries. In reality, a rapidly
developing state is bound to try and
make a leap forward, relying on modern
technology, which does not necessarily
imply the renunciation of its “cultural
code.” There are many examples of
Eastern societies modernising without
the radical breakdown of their
traditions. This is all the more typical
of Russia that is essentially a branch
of European civilisation.
Incidentally, the need for modernisation
based on European achievements was
clearly manifest in Russian society
under Tsar Alexis, while talented and
ambitious Peter the Great gave it a
strong boost. Relying on tough domestic
measures and resolute, and successful,
foreign policy, Peter the Great managed
to put Russia into the category of
Europe’s leading countries in a little
over two decades. Since that time
Russia’s position could no longer be
ignored. Not a single European issue can
be resolved without Russia’s opinion.
It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that
everyone was happy about this state of
affairs. Repeated attempts to return
this country into the pre-Peter times
were made over subsequent centuries but
failed. In the middle 18th century
Russia played a key role in a
pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’
War. At that time, Russian troops made a
triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital
of Prussia under Frederick II who had a
reputation for invincibility. Prussia
was saved from an inevitable rout only
because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden
death and was succeeded by Peter III who
sympathised with Frederick II. This turn
in German history is still referred to
as the Miracle of the House of
Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and
influence grew substantially under
Catherine the Great when, as then
Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it,
“Not a single cannon in Europe could be
fired without our consent.”
I’d like to quote the opinion of a
reputable researcher of Russian history,
Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, the permanent
secretary of the French Academy. She
said the Russian Empire was the greatest
empire of all times in the totality of
all parameters – its size, an ability to
administer its territories and the
longevity of its existence. Following
Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyayev,
she insists that history has imbued
Russia with the mission of being a link
between the East and the West.
During at least the past two centuries
any attempts to unite Europe without
Russia and against it have inevitably
led to grim tragedies, the consequences
of which were always overcome with the
decisive participation of our country.
I’m referring, in part, to the
Napoleonic wars upon the completion of
which Russia rescued the system of
international relations that was based
on the balance of forces and mutual
consideration for national interests and
ruled out the total dominance of one
state in Europe. We remember that
Emperor Alexander I took an active role
in the drafting of decisions of the 1815
Vienna Congress that ensured the
development of Europe without serious
armed clashes during the subsequent 40
years. Icidentally, to a certain extent
the ideas of Alexander I could be
described as a prototype of the concept
on subordinating national interests to
common goals, primarily, the maintenance
of peace and order in Europe. As the
Russian emperor said, “there can be no
more English, French, Russian or
Austrian policy. There can be only one
policy – a common policy that must be
accepted by both peoples and sovereigns
for common happiness.”
By the same token, the Vienna system was
destroyed in the wake of the desire to
marginalise Russia in European affairs.
Paris was obsessed with this idea during
the reign of Emperor Napoleon III. In
his attempt to forge an anti-Russian
alliance, the French monarch was
willing, as a hapless chess grandmaster,
to sacrifice all the other figures. How
did it play out? Indeed, Russia was
defeated in the Crimean War of
1853-1856, the consequences of which it
managed to overcome soon due to a
consistent and far-sighted policy
pursued by Chancellor Alexander
Gorchakov. As for Napoleon III, he ended
his rule in German captivity, and the
nightmare of the Franco-German
confrontation loomed over Western Europe
for decades.
Here is another Crimean War-related
episode. As we know, the Austrian
Emperor refused to help Russia, which, a
few years earlier, in 1849, had come to
his help during the Hungarian revolt.
Then Austrian Foreign Minister Felix
Schwarzenberg famously said: “Europe
would be astonished by the extent of
Austria’s ingratitude.” In general, the
imbalance of pan-European mechanisms
triggered a chain of events that led to
the First World War.
Notably, back then Russian diplomacy
also advanced ideas that were ahead of
their time. The Hague Peace conferences
of 1899 and 1907, convened at the
initiative of Emperor Nicholas II, were
the first attempts to agree on curbing
the arms race and stopping preparations
for a devastating war. But not many
people know about it.
The First World War claimed lives and
caused the suffering of countless
millions of people and led to the
collapse of four empires. In this
connection, it is appropriate to recall
yet another anniversary, which will be
marked next year – the 100th anniversary
of the Russian Revolution. Today we are
faced with the need to develop a
balanced and objective assessment of
those events, especially in an
environment where, particularly in the
West, many are willing to use this date
to mount even more information attacks
on Russia, and to portray the 1917
Revolution as a barbaric coup that
dragged down all of European history.
Even worse, they want to equate the
Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially
blame it for starting WWII.
Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917
and the ensuing Civil War were a
terrible tragedy for our nation.
However, all other revolutions were
tragic as well. This does not prevent
our French colleagues from extolling
their upheaval, which, in addition to
the slogans of liberty, equality and
fraternity, also involved the use of the
guillotine, and rivers of blood.
Undoubtedly, the Russian Revolution was
a major event which impacted world
history in many controversial ways. It
has become regarded as a kind of
experiment in implementing socialist
ideas, which were then widely spread
across Europe. The people supported
them, because wide masses gravitated
towards social organisation with
reliance on the collective and community
principles.
Serious researchers clearly see the
impact of reforms in the Soviet Union on
the formation of the so-called welfare
state in Western Europe in the post-WWII
period. European governments decided to
introduce unprecedented measures of
social protection under the influence of
the example of the Soviet Union in an
effort to cut the ground from under the
feet of the left-wing political forces.
One can say that the 40 years following
World War II were a surprisingly good
time for Western Europe, which was
spared the need to make its own major
decisions under the umbrella of the
US-Soviet confrontation and enjoyed
unique opportunities for steady
development. n these circumstances,
Western European countries have
implemented several ideas regarding
conversion of the capitalist and
socialist models, which, as a preferred
form of socioeconomic progress, were
promoted by Pitirim Sorokin and other
outstanding thinkers of the 20th
century. Over the past 20 years, we have
been witnessing the reverse process in
Europe and the United States: the
reduction of the middle class, increased
social inequality, and the dismantling
of controls over big business.
The role which the Soviet Union played
in decolonisation, and promoting
international relations principles, such
as the independent development of
nations and their right to
self-determination, is undeniable.
I will not dwell on the points related
to Europe slipping into WWII. Clearly,
the anti-Russian aspirations of the
European elites, and their desire to
unleash Hitler's war machine on the
Soviet Union played their fatal part
here. Redressing the situation after
this terrible disaster involved the
participation of our country as a key
partner in determining the parameters of
the European and the world order. I this
context, the notion of the “clash of two
totalitarianisms,” which is now actively
inculcated in European minds, including
at schools, is groundless and immoral.
The Soviet Union, for all its evils,
never aimed to destroy entire nations.
Winston Churchill, who all his life was
a principled opponent of the Soviet
Union and played a major role in going
from the WWII alliance to a new
confrontation with the Soviet Union,
said that graciousness, i.e. life in
accordance with conscience, is the
Russian way of doing things.
If you take an unbiased look at the
smaller European countries, which
previously were part of the Warsaw
Treaty, and are now members of the EU or
NATO, it is clear that the issue was not
about going from subjugation to freedom,
which Western masterminds like to talk
about, but rather a change of
leadership. Russian President Vladimir
Putin spoke about it not long ago. The
representatives of these countries
concede behind closed doors that they
can’t take any significant decision
without the green light from Washington
or Brussels.
It seems that in the context of the
100th anniversary of the Russian
Revolution, it is important for us to
understand the continuity of Russian
history, which should include all of its
periods without exception, and the
importance of the synthesis of all the
positive traditions and historical
experience as the basis for making
dynamic advances and upholding the
rightful role of our country as a
leading centre of the modern world, and
a provider of the values of sustainable
development, security and stability.
The post-war world order relied on
confrontation between two world systems
and was far from ideal, yet it was
sufficient to preserve international
peace and to avoid the worst possible
temptation – the use of weapons of mass
destruction, primarily nuclear weapons.
There is no substance behind the popular
belief that the Soviet Union’s
dissolution signified Western victory in
the Cold War. It was the result of our
people’s will for change plus an unlucky
chain of events. These developments
resulted in a truly tectonic shift in
the international landscape. In fact,
they changed global politics altogether,
considering that the end of the Cold War
and related ideological confrontation
offered a unique opportunity to change
the European architecture on the
principles of indivisible and equal
security and broad cooperation without
dividing lines.
We had a practical chance to mend
Europe’s divide and implement the dream
of a common European home, which many
European thinkers and politicians,
including President Charles de Gaulle of
France, wholeheartedly embraced. Russia
was fully open to this option and
advanced many proposals and initiatives
in this connection. Logically, we should
have created a new foundation for
European security by strengthening the
military and political components of the
Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Vladimir
Putin said in a recent interview with
the German newspaper Bild that German
politician Egon Bahr proposed similar
approaches. Unfortunately, our Western
partners chose differently. They opted
to expand NATO eastward and to advance
the geopolitical space they controlled
closer to the Russian border. This is
the essence of the systemic problems
that have soured Russia’s relations with
the United States and the European
Union. It is notable that George Kennan,
the architect of the US policy of
containment of the Soviet Union, said in
his winter years that the ratification
of NATO expansion was “a tragic
mistake.”
The underlying problem of this Western
policy is that it disregarded the global
context. The current globalised world is
based on an unprecedented
interconnection between countries, and
so it’s impossible to develop relations
between Russia and the EU as if they
remained at the core of global politics
as during the Cold War. We must take
note of the powerful processes that are
underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle
East, Africa and Latin America. Rapid
changes in all areas of international
life is the primary sign of the current
stage. Indicatively, they often take an
unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of
“the end of history” developed by
well-known US sociologist and political
researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was
popular in the 1990s, has become clearly
inconsistent today. According to this
concept, rapid globalisation signals the
ultimate victory of the liberal
capitalist model, whereas all other
models should adapt to it under the
guidance of the wise Western teachers.
In reality, the second wave of
globalisation (the first occurred before
World War I) led to the dispersal of
global economic might and, hence, of
political influence, and to the
emergence of new and large centres of
power, primarily in the Asia-Pacific
Region. China’s rapid upsurge is the
clearest example. Owing to unprecedented
economic growth rates, in just three
decades it became the second and,
calculated as per purchasing power
parity, the first economy in the world.
This example illustrates an axiomatic
fact – there are many development
models– which rules out the monotony of
existence within the uniform, Western
frame of reference.
Consequently, there has been a relative
reduction in the influence of the
so-called “historical West” that was
used to seeing itself as the master of
the human race’s destinies for almost
five centuries. The competition on the
shaping of the world order in the 21st
century has toughened. The transition
from the Cold War to a new international
system proved to be much longer and more
painful than it seemed 20-25 years ago.
Against this backdrop, one of the basic
issues in international affairs is the
form that is being acquired by this
generally natural competition between
the world’s leading powers. We see how
the United States and the US-led Western
alliance are trying to preserve their
dominant positions by any available
method or, to use the American lexicon,
ensure their “global leadership”. Many
diverse ways of exerting pressure,
economic sanctions and even direct armed
intervention are being used. Large-scale
information wars are being waged.
Technology of unconstitutional change of
governments by launching “colour”
revolutions has been tried and tested.
Importantly, democratic revolutions
appear to be destructive for the nations
targeted by such actions. Our country
that went through a historical period of
encouraging artificial transformations
abroad, firmly proceeds from the
preference of evolutionary changes that
should be carried out in the forms and
at a speed that conform to the
traditions of a society and its level of
development.
Western propaganda habitually accuses
Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged
desire to destroy the established
international system, as if it was us
who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in
violation of the UN Charter and the
Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia
that ignored international law by
invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN
Security Council resolutions by
overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by
force in Libya in 2011. There are many
examples. This discourse about
“revisionism” does not hold water. It is
based on the simple and even primitive
logic that only Washington can set the
tune in world affairs. In line with this
logic, the principle once formulated by
George Orwell and moved to the
international level, sounds like the
following: all states are equal but some
states are more equal than others.
However, today international relations
are too sophisticated a mechanism to be
controlled from one centre. This is
obvious given the results of US
interference: There is virtually no
state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the
brink of disintegration, and so on and
so forth.
A reliable solution to the problems of
the modern world can only be achieved
through serious and honest cooperation
between the leading states and their
associations in order to address common
challenges. Such an interaction should
include all the colours of the modern
world, and be based on its cultural and
civilisational diversity, as well as
reflect the interests of the
international community’s key
components. We know from experience that
when these principles are applied in
practice, it is possible to achieve
specific and tangible results, such as
the agreement on the Iranian nuclear
programme, the elimination of Syrian
chemical weapons, the agreement on
stopping hostilities in Syria, and the
development of the basic parameters of
the global climate agreement. This shows
the need to restore the culture of
compromise, the reliance on the
diplomatic work, which can be difficult,
even exhausting, but which remains, in
essence, the only way to ensure a
mutually acceptable solution to problems
by peaceful means.
Our approaches are shared by most
countries of the world, including our
Chinese partners, other BRICS and SCO
nations, and our friends in the EAEU,
the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words,
we can say that Russia is fighting not
against someone, but for the resolution
of all the issues on an equal and
mutually respectful basis, which alone
can serve as a reliable foundation for a
long-term improvement of international
relations.
Our most important task is to join our
efforts against not some far-fetched,
but very real challenges, among which
the terrorist aggression is the most
pressing one. The extremists from ISIS,
Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for
the first time to establish control over
large territories in Syria and Iraq.
They are trying to extend their
influence to other countries and
regions, and are committing acts of
terrorism around the world.
Underestimating this risk is nothing
short of criminal shortsightedness.
The Russian President called for forming
a broad-based front in order to defeat
the terrorists militarily. The Russian
Aerospace Forces make an important
contribution to this effort. At the same
time, we are working hard to establish
collective actions regarding the
political settlement of the conflicts in
this crisis-ridden region.
Importantly, the long-term success can
only be achieved on the basis of
movement to the partnership of
civilisations based on respectful
interaction of diverse cultures and
religions. We believe that human
solidarity must have a moral basis
formed by traditional values that are
largely shared by the world's leading
religions. In this connection, I would
like to draw your attention to the joint
statement by Patriarch Kirill and Pope
Francis, in which, among other things,
they have expressed support for the
family as a natural centre of life of
individuals and society.
I repeat, we are not seeking
confrontation with the United States, or
the European Union, or NATO. On the
contrary, Russia is open to the widest
possible cooperation with its Western
partners. We continue to believe that
the best way to ensure the interests of
the peoples living in Europe is to form
a common economic and humanitarian space
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so
that the newly formed Eurasian Economic
Union could be an integrating link
between Europe and Asia Pacific. We
strive to do our best to overcome
obstacles on that way, including the
settlement of the Ukraine crisis caused
by the coup in Kiev in February 2014, on
the basis of the Minsk Agreements.
I’d like to quote wise and politically
experienced Henry Kissinger, who,
speaking recently in Moscow, said that
“Russia should be perceived as an
essential element of any new global
equilibrium, not primarily as a threat
to the United States... I am here to
argue for the possibility of a dialogue
that seeks to merge our futures rather
than elaborate our conflicts. This
requires respect by both sides of the
vital values and interest of the other.”
We share such an approach. And we
will continue to defend the principles
of law and justice in international
affairs.
Speaking about Russia's role in the
world as a great power, Russian
philosopher Ivan Ilyin said that the
greatness of a country is not determined
by the size of its territory or the
number of its inhabitants, but by the
capacity of its people and its
government to take on the burden of
great world problems and to deal with
these problems in a creative manner. A
great power is the one which, asserting
its existence and its interest ...
introduces a creative and meaningful
legal idea to the entire assembly of
the nations, the entire “concert” of the
peoples and states. It is difficult to
disagree with these words.
Photo:
The five-pointed red star on the towers
of Moscow Kremlin, in Stalin and SSSR
time, still there now, symbolizing both
communism and socialism. This photo
accompanied the article in Russia in
Global Affairs (Source: Russia in Global
Affairs, March 3, 2016). Note that the
star is colored not red but purple, the
color of the flag of the Eurasian Union
...
(Sources: Russian MFA Website – EODE
think-Tank)
LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE
* With the Geopolitician of the
Eurasia-Africa Axis:
Geopolitics - Geoeconomics - Geoidology
-
Neoeurasism - Neopanafricanism (Seen
from Moscow and Malabo):
SPECIAL PAGE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical
Daily
https://www.facebook.com/LucMICHELgeopoliticalDaily/
* Luc MICHEL (Люк МИШЕЛЬ) :
WEBSITE http://www.lucmichel.net/
PAGE OFFICIELLE III
– GEOPOLITIQUE
https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel.3.Geopolitique/
TWITTER
https://twitter.com/LucMichelPCN
* EODE :
EODE-TV
https://vimeo.com/eodetv
WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/
Le sommaire de Luc Michel
Le
dossier Russie
Les dernières mises à jour
|
