I recently happened to see a copy of the newspaper Russkaya zhizn (Russian Life). Among the materials dedicated to the 55th anniversary of end of WW II, there was an article titled “Stalingrad Victory as a Defeat of West-European Civilization.” The title is undoubtedly intriguing, as is the text. It was quite interesting to read how the author deftly and “logically” heaped together all the Western participants in the Second World War, putting “the so-called allies” (Great Britain, France, the US, et al.) on the same side of trenches with the Third Reich and categorically denying even the least contribution by the West to the routing of Hitlerism.
Unfortunately, the article’s content does not give straight answers to the challenge of the eloquent headline. It suggests that the historic battle near Stalingrad was the confrontation of two civilizations, in which West European civilization, not Nazi Germany, suffered defeat. The author considers European civilization as different, alien and hostile to the Russians. A similar attitude was held by people of the ancient Rus to Oriental nomads. What remains unanswered is the most interesting question: what civilization, hitherto unknown to historical science, does the author of the article refer to on the other side, i.e., the Soviet Union/Russia? To the Soviet, Russian, or “Eastern-Orthodox” culture? Or to some great Asian civilization, say, Chinese? Not clear. What is clear the author sees his fatherland as separate from the modern world communities or, to be more exact, above them, above any generally accepted systems of culture.
Each word in Russkaya zhizn article is pervaded by the spirit of absolute exclusiveness, the supremacy of the “God-chosen” Russian nation. Commenting on this outlook, the eminent Russian philosopher and theologian Vladimir Soloviov wrote: “I am the avowed enemy of negativist nationalism or ethnic egoism and self-love, which is in essence as disgusting as is the self-love of an individual.” Soloviov went on to say that “...the deep-rooted inner lies (self-glorification) which are rotting our life, can lead us to our downfall, as once happened to the Byzantine Empire.”
In general, the article in question struck me with its self-belief, consistency, and profound confidence. It makes you think: “Here are the core and the spiritual foundations on which empires have been built throughout history:” the continuous awareness of one’s supremacy, contempt for all things alien, absolute blindness to the advantages and achievements of others, the ironclad confidence in one’s righteousness.
We have seen ample evidence lately that Russia has by no means exhausted its empire-building ethos. Roughed up, destitute, indebted, often unemployed, that country has just convincingly voted for war, bloodshed, and killing people, both alien and its own, for the sake of the “integrity” of greater Russia. And nobody — neither the common people, nor the scientists, nor the opposition, nor the media — seems concerned about such “trifles” as, for example, the daily cost of hostilities in Chechnya, or the expense of each bomber sortie or salvo from a missile battery. “Price is no object!” French author Anatole France once wrote ironically about the bloody victories of Napoleon’s empire: “You can’t overpay for glory!”
Until recently, empires were the main subjects, motive forces, and creators of world history, civilizations, and cultures. The Roman Empire, for instance, left the world a heritage which, even 1,500 years after its collapse, still has a far-reaching effect on modern philosophy, law, languages, education, literature, architecture, painting, etc. — and not only within the so-called western world. But not all empires have left such a legacy. What benefit did the world draw from, say, the superpower of Genghis Khan?
