Europa Ou Ásia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HISTORY DEPARTMENT FFLCH UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO ANGELO SEGRILLO EUROPE OR ASIA? The Question of Russia‘s Identity in the Discussions between Westernizers, Slavophiles and Eurasianists and an Analysis of the Consequences in Present-Day Russia A Postdoctoral Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Become Associate Professor at the University of Sao Paulo (Electronically-based repaginated English-language version) Sao Paulo (Brazil) 2016 1 POST SCRIPTUM This is an electronically-based repaginated English translation of the postdoctoral dissertation ―Europa ou Ásia: a questão da identidade russa nos debates entre ocidentalistas, eslavófilos e eurasianistas‖ submitted to the University of São Paulo (Brazil) on 11 November 2016 by Angelo Segrillo. The Portuguese-language original can be read online at http://lea.vitis.uspnet.usp.br/arquivos/angelosegrillotesedelivredocencia.pdf 2 ABSTRACT This work analyzes a fundamental identity dilemma in Russian history. After all, is the country European, Asian, a mixture of both or, on the contrary, a unique civilization? Is it Western or Eastern? We present an overview of the formation of the three major schools of thought on this subject: Westernism, Slavophilism and Eurasianism. Finally, we investigate the influence of these debates today, especially their impact on Putin‘s foreign policy. Keywords: Russia, Westernism, Slavophilism, Eurasianism, Foreign Policy, Putin 3 SUMMARY 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... p. 5 2. The debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles in the nineteenth century ...... p. 7 3. The Eurasianists .............................................. .................................................... p. 95 4. Influence of the debates in present-day Russia: the cases of Yeltsin and Putin ....p. 239 5. Conclusion …………………............................................ ................................... p. 251 6. Annex 1 (Table 1) .......................................... ...................................................... p. 261 7. References ……………….................................................................................... p. 262 4 1. INTRODUCTION Russia is the largest country in Europe. Russia is the largest country in Asia. After all, are the Russians European, Asian, a mixture of both or neither? This is a question that has spiritually haunted Russians for a long time. The issue of the true Russian identity has crossed the centuries and intrigued not only foreigners but also the natives themselves. Much of this question crystallized in the Westernizer-versus-Slavophile debate that arose in the nineteenth century, closely linked to the problematic heritage of Peter the Great. At the turn of the eighteenth century, this monarch undertook radical Westernizing modernization reforms that scandalized supporters of the traditional Russian way of life. From then on a malaise hung over defenders and detractors of Peter‘s reforms; between those who felt that Russia should follow the path of Western modernization to raise her economic, cultural, and political level and those who preached the continuation of a way of life of her own, not guided by the ―morally decadent‖ Western values. The publication of Chaadaev‘s first Philosophical Letter in 1836 detonated the debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles. And the discussions between Westernizers (such as V.G. Belinskii, T.N. Granovskii, A.I. Herzen) and Slavophiles (e.g., A.S. Khomyakov, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevskii brothers, Yu.F. Samarin) ignited the imagination of Russians for or against Russia as European. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there arose a parallel discussion with the emergence of the Eurasianists, who emphasized the Eurasian roots of Russia, seeing as positive — not negative — various Asian aspects of the country‘s historical formation. The Eurasianist school appeared in the 1920s among Russian émigrés, such as N.S. Trubetskoi, P.N. Savitskii, P.P. Suvchinskii, K.A. Chkheidze and D. Mirskii. It suffered an eclipse after the Stalinist repression of the 1930s, but would resurface during perestroika through the theories of Soviet ethnologist Lev Gumilev, which in turn would set off the current neo-Eurasianist movement, whose main exponent is the controversial philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. These discussions about the ―true‖ Russian identity have not only intellectually divided Russian society to this day but have also brought about political consequences. For example, after Vladimir Putin came to power as president, the country took a series of international measures that often put it on a collision course with the ―West.‖1 This was seen as a major turnaround from the much more pro-Western course of former President Boris Yeltsin. Some analysts (e.g., Shlapentokh, 2005; Nikolsky, 2007) see the reason for this shift in the fact that Putin (unlike his predecessor, Yeltsin) is anti-Western. In other words, Putin‘s supposedly Slavophile — or Eurasianist, according to some — position would be in the background of this radical change of stance in Russia‘s foreign policy. Other analysts (e.g., Rivera & Rivera, 2003) consider Putin a Westernizer because of his links to the so-called ―St. Petersburg clan,‖ originally formed around Anatolii Sobchak, mayor of that ―Western‖ metropolis built by Peter the Great. 1 Forgoing the Yeltsin-era pattern of rapprochement with the West, Putin‘s Russia has clashed head-on with the USA on several occasions: the Rose and Orange revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the question of recognition of Kosovo‘s independence, the tensions over the NATO anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, the joint naval maneuvers of Russia and Venezuela in the Caribbean, the South Ossetia- Georgia conflict and especially the 2014 Ukrainian crisis. 5 Who is right? Is Putin a Westernizer, a Slavophile or a Eurasianist? Does this philosophical Weltanschauung affect his political positions? We will provide a detailed view of the emergence and development of these crucial polemics between Westernizers, Slavophiles and Eurasianists regarding the Russian identity between Europe and Asia since the 19th century. In addition, we will investigate the current political implications of these discussions, analyzing how the actions of post-Soviet Russian presidents are related to their personal inclinations within the spectrum of Westernizer, Slavophile and Eurasianist perspectives. Study divisions Our analysis is divided into three parts, in addition to this brief introduction. In the next section, we will present the Slavophile-versus-Westernizer debate of the 19th century. In the following section we will highlight the appearance of the Eurasianists as of the 1920s, with the resulting formation of neo-Eurasianism in the last quarter of the 20th century. And finally we will see the implication of all these debates in the political life of the post-Soviet Russian Federation, taking as symbolic figures Yeltsin and Putin, especially the latter. 6 2. THE DEBATE BETWEEN WESTERNIZERS AND SLAVOPHILES IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Is Russia a European and/or Asian country? This question has divided opinions among Russians for centuries. As mentioned in the Introduction, the radical Westernizing reforms of Peter the Great served as catalysts for the debates that divided Russians on the issue. The fact that this catalysis happened around the eighteenth century is not only due to Peter‘s reforms but also to the fact that the concepts of ―Europe‖ and ―Asia‖ as we know them today are controversial and were formed in a long historical process that was completed only after the beginning of the Modern Age, with the Renaissance and the Great Navigations. Indeed, it was only after the Swedish geographer Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, in his book Das Nord- und Ostlich Theil von Europa und Asia (1730), proposed to make the Ural Mountains the border between Europe and Asia that the geographical conception of these two continents was constituted as it is today. Objectively, Europe and Asia form a contiguous territorial ensemble. That is why the division into two continents has not a natural but rather a contingent character. In geographical terms, Herodotus noted that the Greeks mostly placed the Phasis River (today‘s Rioni River) in the Caucasus mountain region as the border between Europe and Asia, although some considered the Tanais River (the present-day Don) as such a border. The Romans favored the Tanais (Don) as the boundary between the two continents. This convention held sway until von Strahlenberg helped change it in favor of the Ural mountain range. And this modification had directly to do with Peter the Great. Von Strahlenberg, a Swedish officer then, was captured by the armies of Peter the Great at the Battle of Poltava (1709). He ended up living in Russia for many years. There he conducted the geographical research that would result in the book — published on his return to Sweden — which established the Europe-Asia border in the Urals, to the satisfaction of the Russians who saw in it a Europeanizing legitimation of much of their new imperial conquests. But geographic arguments are not the only active vectors in this question. In cultural terms, from the time of the Carolingian Empire in the ninth century onward, gaining strength with the crusades and continuing until the end of the Middle Ages, Europe came to be identified with Latin Christianity, in opposition mainly to