The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

"World responsiveness", or Russian way to globalism



 "WORLD RESPONSIVENESS", OR RUSSIAN WAY

To GLOBALISM

A.V. Katsura

Russia is the Sphinx. Exulting and grieving,

And being covered with black blood,

She looks, looks, looks in you Both with hatred, and with love!.

Alexander Blok

In the well-known "Pushkin speech" F.M. Dostoyevsky, developing a thought of the world responsiveness of the Russian soul, spoke about our first national genius: "If he lived longer, maybe, would show the immortal and great images of soul of the Russian already clear to our European brothers, would attract them to us much more and closer, than now, maybe, would manage to explain them all truth of our aspirations, and they already more would understand us, than now, would begin to foresee us, would cease to look at us so mistrustfully and haughtily as they look now. Pushkin would live further, and between us there would be, maybe, less misunderstanding and disputes, than see now. But God judged differently. Pushkin died in full development of the forces and, undoubtedly, carried away with himself in a coffin some great secret".

Four decades later in "Scythians" A.A. Blok with passion and pain repeated a thought of ours of "congenital universality":

To us distinctly all - and sharp Gallic sense,

And gloomy German genius...

But went so crookedly and krovavo 20th century that (despite seventy years' continuous state triumph) led the country to "the broken trough".

At the very end of the 80th Yu.F. Karjakin risked to assume in what a solution of the secret which is carried away by Pushkin: "A secret - the idea of a vseprimireniye. Vseprimireniye and with other people, and in".

But it is not visible yet that this simple formula was accepted at us to a moral and political postulate. It would seem, nowadays, when the world promptly turns into certain difficult whole, we should rely on surprising quality of our soul and culture. But is not present. Mistakes - the isolationism, lies, empty promises, animosity, mistrust to the world which oddly are getting on with impudent pseudo-Eurasian appetites are again multiplied.

Perhaps, we lack strength of mind and a sincere subtlety in attempts to comprehend textures of present problems? Bewitched by the nearby horizon, we, as a rule, are a small fry, without wishing and being afraid to see ultraboundary, dizzy heights, as well as the terrible, tightening depths.

However, "at his wise eye - in his head, and silly goes in darkness; but I learned that one fate comprehends all of them" (Ecclesiastes, II, 14). However "both almonds will blossom, and the grasshopper will become heavy, and caper will be scattered. Because the person to the eternal house departs, and are ready to surround it down the street weepers - the silver chain did not tear how long, and the gold bandage did not become torn, and the jug at a source did not break, and the wheel over kolodezy did not collapse" (Ecclesiastes, XII, 5, 6).

Age of globalization 1/2008 144-153

Strokes of world geopolitics

Russians need to realize the history.

Donald Tusk

Did not pass twenty years since then when America was considered as ours (that is the USSR) as the main strategic opponent. In those days in our public consciousness not only the idea of parity dominated (actually deceptive), but also - it is worse and more terrible than that - there lived the thought (someone very strongly imposed) that our temporary what our way is big and just what just about we "through a mountain steep slope will creep", America and imperialists in a peaceful competition we will overcome difficulties and the whole world will convince (we will force?) to live our values and by our rules. Acting through America we during that time threw down a challenge to the whole world.

In two decades oddly the circle became isolated.

In consciousness still of very many people (including from ruling layers) there is a phantom fight with America, the main force of "the damned West". There is a lot of examples of it, including many works of the modern domestic fantasy called by some literary critics of "imperial". And even when someone from heads of the country says (with a modest and pleasant smile) that as our main partner the USA, all the same in these words easily acts, certainly, (as well as in a smile) also the undercover sense, ambiguous and crafty is read, - like a pale smile of the prostrate boxer who is persistently thinking of a revenge.

But there is also the second, deeper, answer level. For the sake of what this phantom battle is played? What rates and what purposes? It would seem, we as sane intelligent people treat the States let and crucially, but is quite kind. Why not? After all, it is the oldest and active democracy which, let not without mistakes and sounding nonsenses, but nevertheless strives for a certain reasonable world order. However this tolerant benevolence nests only in the top layers of consciousness - where the impact of education and education where there is a certain set of all-democratic representations and tendency to the elementary analysis takes place. Dig slightly more deeply - in personal subconsciousness, in collective unconscious - there all on the contrary, there this fight is going without stopping. There a lot of things are scattered in ashes - both democratic skills, and the superficial principles of good manners. And at times such animal ugly faces are shown there! But who for what purpose imposed to us these cave shadows?

Yes, sometimes the subconsciousness works strictly: in aspect of the narrow chosen question the speech can go only about gaining the world, about the competition of world lords (relevant or potential - it is unimportant) and their multimillion flock, and about anything the friend. But externally, at the level of habitual culture, all this is camouflaged with monblana of words and maxims. Geographical discoveries, pathfinders, world trade, colonies, dominions, the help to the underdeveloped people, the unions, alliances, wars - defensive, liberating, fair - and so on.

But if to raise a question specifically, in the plane of real geopolitics - how many countries consciously or unconsciously seek for world supremacy? How many did aspire in the past?

Such applicants, "global players", except the USA and Russia (recent Soviet Union), a little - can be, China which will get stronger in several decades. But it you will not tell rather united Europe any more. Especially concerning Germany or Japan which long ago disappeared as lost World War II. As important components they are integrated into the Western system - economic, political, military. On time Russia lost the last great war (already in its cold option). Whether it disappeared? Oh, as "the civilized West" would like to think so! Unless

time this troublemaker, this shaggy restive country did not come to brush, dress up and specify by it its honourable, but quite modest place among other civilized (read - taken in hand) the countries? But that, to greater chagrin of the West, did not become a real fact yet.

The shaggy, tousled country still resists. And this circumstance makes the main maintenance of the latest era (the next years or maybe decades).

What happens these years - unambiguously it is impossible to predict. It is possible to present a fan of scenarios, certainly. But a problem of these notes are not scenario developments which in literature there is a lot of, and it is rather a search of deep logic of the events.

If not to remember ancient (Alexander, Persians, Huns, crusaders, Mongols, Timur), to take only Modern and Latest times - who could win the world (to globalize it by force of arms)? Could, wanted and aspired? Britain? Slightly earlier - Spain? Having occupied boundless lands in Central and South America, Spaniards did not manage to integrate them, only sprayed and sapped the strength, having lost the status of the great power in the native Europe. At Britain it turned out slightly better. Interesting, by the way, question: why and how some not so the great island in the northwest of Europe won 1000 years ago from Celts and saxophones by Normans, having dispatched in HUN-HUSH of centuries the ships by the seas and oceans, conquered a half of the world, headed the world industry and trade and the provincial island language made language world? How did it leave? What such special could be made out in British? Industrial revolution? The national energy which is splashing out out of borders of the small island? Let's notice that this energy in the mentioned centuries went not to Europe any more. Centenary war was long ago behind. Got stronger, having passed through a revolution spasm, France. Napoleon was to pick up relay. Having thrown down the gauntlet to the haughty British, he reached even Moscow. But quickly rolled back. The victorious blow of Wellington was effective, but did not mean military presence of British in Europe any more, showing only that their influence was not exhausted. It is amusing to remember that twelve years earlier together with the emperor Pavel the First the consul of France planned a campaign for India to take away it from the haughty British, to undermine their role of the world leader. Empty imagination of the Corsican or mysterious, not absolutely to us clear burning? However, it is quite obvious that after successful expression from India of British if that was fated to happen, allies were going "to throw" each other. Who whom lovchy? Hardly in this case ardent and narrow-minded Pavel would outstrip. Rather cold and powerful Bonaparte who, most likely, guessed (though never sounded) what in heart of Asia keys to domination over the world - the geopolitical truth (or only a hypothesis lie?), formulated in hundred years by British Ma kinder. "The robber of sushi" was going to drive away "robbers of the sea" from "Earth Heart" (so Makinder called British). The task for those times was impossible for the French and Russians.

of the 19th century, come to the end with the reunification of Germany, pushed out one more beginner on the competitive field. From it the XX century also began to start to boil. Germans, externally cultural, apparently, very and very civilized, but in which actually still former barbaric energy did not die, suddenly felt unfairly clamped on a plot of land in the center of Europe. As if suddenly regained consciousness: where did it get to, the Sacred Roman Empire the German nation? Scott Fitzgerald in the novel "The Great Gatsby" witty defined World War I as "overdue migration of Teutonic tribes". It is possible to understand, by the way, logic of those historians who put forward a thought that there was no World War II

and there was only a continuation after twenty years' truce by the same the First. Because its main logic remained the same (from 13th century cherished) - Drang nach Osten.

Remember, however, aggressive plans of Hitler. He was going to advance a Reich only to the Urals. And to finish the Siberian remains of the Russian industry and arms by means of long-range aviation. But why not all Russia? Not the whole world? In what the reason of this geopolitical self-restriction? From where this provintsialno underdeveloped appetite? The Fuhrer was short-sighted? Provintsialen? Did not penetrate into doctrines of Hauskhofer, pupil and successor Makinder (only on the German harmony)? Apparently, both the first, and the second, and the third.

Russia on a similar background some time looked more detailed and cleverer (though, maybe, and only a back brain): on the one side of, of course, sleepy, "solid" and "tolstozady"; but with another - fitfully vigorous and with concentration aimed. The second was punktirno shown, at least, since a stamping formula of the monk Filofey and Yermak's campaigns. Several centuries were preparing representatives first of the insignificant Moscow principality for collecting of lands, for immense expansion of the influence, for a campaign in "Earth Heart". Also realized all this slowly and systematically. But what for? What for force pulled them to unknown lands? And whether sad Pushkin lines are applicable to anonymous Russian conquerors (as to Turks or Mongols earlier, and even earlier to Moors or Huns): "How many them? Where they are driven?.". Cannot be that everything was so simply - went and won. And whether the thought is fair that gains were craved by leaders, and the people were not asked?

However not to separate the Russian military expansion from the peculiar Russian Messianizm originating all in the same Judeo-Christian spiritual field it is contradictory loaded on love and an impact from which both Catholics of times of crusades, and Catholics of times of conquistadors, and the Protestant fathers pilgrims who slowly captivated spaces of North America scooped the energy.

As for Germans, their jealous glance darted in heart of Asia came across the Russian plains which were slowing down run of Teutonic geopolitical imaginations. To be at war with Russia or to cooperate with it? The most important question of the German policy within several centuries. But already since the German settlement in Moskovia, and especially since the beginning of the Golstein-Gottorpsky line in Romanov' dynasty, a certain mutual draft of Germany and Russia in an explicit form was found. Russians and Germans were not at war since the time of Gryunvald. There was, however, a Seven years' war, the Russian troops entered Berlin. The throne under great Fritz (Frederick II) reeled, but in time for it the empress Elizabeth died (whether the death?), and the successor Karl Peter Ulrich Golstinski (Peter III) quickly won back everything back and even helped Frederick with war with the Austrians. And whether accidentally in more than hundred years sober and strong-willed Bismarck bequeathed with Russia not to be at war? He which served a row of years the ambassador in St. Petersburg knew Russia firsthand. Of course, his ardent and hopeless love for Ekaterina Trubetskaya, the wife of the Russian envoy in Brussels prince Nikolay Orlov could play a certain role. The agate charm, the beauty Katya's gift, "the iron chancellor" carried on an hour chain till the last o'clock. After the death of the chancellor his letter of 1890 in which he demanded resignation was published, accusing the Kaiser that that destroys the kind relations with Russia.

Not accidentally and the columns Shulenburg, handing to Molotov a note about declaration of war, could not hold back tears (both reason, and heart he understood that of an ermaniye it will be prostrate and will forever say goodbye to the world dream).

Russian-German union? How many people about it are starry-eyed thought! Even Osip Mandelstam those days when with might and main guns of the Russian-German front already roared, it is ardent (and it is naive?) exclaimed:

And I sing wine of times - the Source of the speech Italic - And in a cradle praariysky the Slavic and German flax!

At that time in Europe there were two types of barbarians, however, externally quite similar. Unless classical Russian northern type - the tall blue-eyed guy with a shock of linen hair - does not look like "the blond beast"? Here is how the senior friend of Mandelstam Nikolai Gumiljow in the same years compared the Scandinavian and the Slav:

Elga, Elga! - sounded over fields,

Where broke each other sacrums With blue furious eyes And sinewy hands good fellows.

Olga, Olga! - Drevlyans With hair, yellow as honey cried out...

At the same time the poet (by then deserved in the Russian intelligence two Georgy) does not hide that he feels aggressive currents both from that, and from other tribe:

Year after year Begin to sing in blood of a century more and more inevitably,

I am intoxicated with weight former the Scandinavian frame.

Ancient hosts soldier backward,

To this life zaty hostility,

Crazy arches of Valgalla,

I wait for nice fights and feasts.

Nice fights (they are terrible wars) were not far off.

And unless accidentally more and more persistently suspect Rasputin of a plot in favor of Germany? The journalist Oleg Shishkin told in the documentary historical story "Kill Rasputin..." as at the beginning of summer of 1916 to "a tsarev to the favourite" there arrived from Berlin the mysterious informal delegation headed by the Baltic baron Hokhen Estaing wishing to achieve peace with Russia. And as if declined the favourite to discharge from a throne Nicholas, the convinced opponent of separate peace. And as if Rasputin, having involved in a plot besides other persons and the lover Felix Yusupov, agreed in January, 1917 to departure of the tsar from a throne in favor of the German empress who as if already prepared the immediate world with the German relatives and at the same time a land reform in Russia.

Personally I not absolutely trust in a similar position of Rasputin. Yes, he repeatedly and publicly said that he wishes the world with Germans and aspires to it. But here to me other seems: Rasputin, though dark person, however and seer. Throughout war he saw deadly threat for the tsar whom implicitly loved as, however, and the queen. He spoke to reigning persons: "If do not keep me, and you will die". And left. It would seem, the death of the germanophile Rasputin was objectively favorable to the French and British who were afraid of an exit of Russia from war. Who could expect so fast withdrawal of the tsar, falling of the unfledged bourgeois government, coming to power of the marginalized utopian extremists who are skillfully bribed by Germans and from war Russia after all of removed. It did not bring the special benefits to Russia because Germans were all the same finished, but east empire, having made a huge sacrifice, in a camp of winners did not appear and did not use fruits of a victory.

It is and still curious to reflect what would turn out if the plan described above in any given option was successful. The union of two most aggressive, strongest empires of Europe and at the same time the most burdened by past cargo if only it was strong, could mean only one: delay of history or even some of its address back. To experience this phantom of delay or even turn back of history, it is necessary to remember Marx's remark on the European countries which are "not at the level of history". Under those Marx meant Germany and Russia. To be "not at the level of history" is not just to be backward, it is worse: it means to drop out of history, to get lost, choose historically the false path or even to turn back (kind of "to betray history"). Russia on the whole was more dense, but it did not save Germany. To history level (and it not just to be modern, it means skillfully to remain faithful to the previous history, but not to be her captive and to be able to look for the horizon) those years there were only France and England and some in a special way America over the ocean. Only in these countries the historical process, leading, according to Marx, to further democracy and possible socialist transformations continued to twist. We will lay the last subject (nowadays tantalisingly - disputable) aside. Another is important. Yes, it is valid, Germany and, especially, Russia were not quite free from a Middle Ages vice yet. Their allied military victory and domination in Europe also meant this: turn to new - oldly to the Middle Ages. (Later, in the 30th, it is all the same it happens. The celebration of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of that time and Gestapo will remind very much on receptions inquisition and an auto-da-fe. And as pulled them to each other! It only the sudden union Hitler-Stalin (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) could dumbfound the ninny. No, a magnet pulled two executioners to each other, but actually it looked more ridiculously, and more terribly, than the failed union Napoleon-Pawel. In the fall of 1940 Hitler spoke to Molotov who arrived to negotiations to Berlin: miss my troops through the Caspian steppes, I will win India from British and I will present it to you, Russians. Molotov (having just in case stopped ringing to Moscow) gloomy refused "gift". (Or perhaps in vain refused? As it was easy to catch Nazis on so terrible provocation!)

Yes, durability in the kommuno-Nazi union of the end of the 30th could not be. "Kind soyuznichka" only managed to cut out and divide Poland. And Stalin acted on east more artfully: the Soviet troops were given the order to enter Poland only when Hitler in two weeks "raskoloshmatit" regular Polish army. Amazing and critical will be "the fortieth fatal" when two medieval dogs are linked, weakening each other, as will mean return - first shy - stories on the lawful place.

Freedom or obedience - what is more effective?

Oh, we, Russians, cruelly paid for the unconditional trust put in the strong person taken by many of us for the benefactor of mankind.

Daniil Andreyev

And here the role of America, two hundred years which was preparing for a jump will be shown. And how it began? I will give long, but extremely interesting endurance from Alexis de Tocqueville. This Frenchman in the first third of the 19th century published the geopolitical forecast (in my opinion, the best in the history of scientific forecasts in general) which meaning and value then nobody estimated. The young French historian and the diplomat visited North American states, very far and very little inhabited territory, in practice studied going there democratic about -

tsessa and in the book which and was called - "Democracy in America", wrote the following:

"So, time when in North America there live one hundred and fifty millions inhabitants equal between itself which all will belong to one family will come, all will have one historical origin, one civilization, one language, one religion, identical habits and customs and between which the thought will address, taking the same form and coloring. All the rest remains doubtful, but it is reliable. Here, so, absolutely new fact in world history which value and consequences it is difficult to imagine even in imagination.

Now there are on Earth two great people which, having begun with various points, approach, apparently, one purpose: these are Russians and Anglo-Americans.

Both of them grew up imperceptibly; and when looks of people were turned into other party, they suddenly took the place in the first row between the nations so the world almost in at one time learned also about their emergence, and about their greatness. All other people, apparently, almost reached the limits intended to them by the nature: their task is to protect acquired only. But these two people are in growth period. All others stopped or move only with great efforts; only they some go easily and soon on the way to which an eye cannot see the end yet.

The American fights against the obstacles provided to him by the nature; the Russian struggles with people. One is at war with deserts and barbarity, another - with the civilization which is fully equipped; therefore gaining Americans becomes a plow of the farmer, gaining Russian - the soldier's sword.

For achievement of the purpose the first relies upon personal interest and provides freedom of action to forces and reason of individuals. Another focuses, so to speak, in one person all forces of society.

For one main means of action there is freedom, for another - obedience.

Their starting points are various, their ways are various too; and however each of them is intended, apparently, secret will of providence to hold sometime in the hand the fate of a half of the world".

Hardly Slavophiles whose movement only arose, read these lines. They were published in Russian only in 1897. But how many deep coincidence at a view of soul of the Russian person and of his historical prospects! However, matter not only in Slavophiles and not only in them posledovate - Poles-Eurasian. It is possible to tell more simply and more roughly, kind of grabbing depth of the Russian bases: it is a global Russian dream - concentration of forces in one person. How many times history showed to us pictures of with what ecstatic delight of weight were given, submitted to one: at first it were tsars, then "national leaders" Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, in weaker and a little parody option - Brezhnev who for a short instant flashed Andropov then reformers - Gorbachev, Yeltsin went, then directly before our eyes ascended and Putin's star does not want to come. Of course, the last example is still too fresh and on outcomes is not clear.

Look, however, what happened to public opinion of the country for only a few years as soon as people made out in the new president of line of the leader, let just shown. Instantly its popularity flew up up to the transcendental heights. Elections of 2004 showed that there is no speech about artificially mumpish bubble. No, here more likely other: tired of independence (let at first both defective, and relative) masses suddenly saw that who can subcontract a part of own responsibility. Also reached for it. And took baton pass for granted - exactly like, transfer of a crown and ski-

Petra. This case speaks to us: what we were 50 or 200 years ago, these are we and now. But it is necessary not to be under a delusion with it and not to be frightened, and to think and analyze. Whether Russia is capable to leave a dream? And suddenly similar concentration in one person - the FROM ABOVE task? In the sense that it not lazy feeling of lackeys, not self-deprecating falling of slaves, but God's appointment? Or, speaking to words ordinarier, we are that by the nature, on the archetypes which are incredibly steady and with huge work give in to changes if at all give in. Undoubtedly, there were times when the unification with the leader and in the leader was effective, sometimes - is terribly effective. But whether so nowadays?

Before dealing with this intriguing issue, we will return to the subject Tokvi-lya. America and Russia. I will remind that more than in half a century after the Frenchman the bright future of America was predicted by Friedrich Engels. He spoke so: if America enters freedom of trade, then thanks to huge natural resources and intellectual and moral ability of the American race the States in ten years will beat England in the world market. Engels told it after the presidential elections on November 8, 1892 which allowed Americans to shake from themselves a yoke of the English monopoly and opened a way to freedom of trade. In all markets, Engels, products of the English industry, in particular textile and metallurgical foretold, will be forced to enter fight against products of the American industry and eventually will get beaten. Engels, being Marx's pupil, was an excellent economist and predicted in this respect everything true. Perhaps, he was also a good socialist, but he was a providentsialist weak. He believed that falling of a protectionist system in America means eventually socialism victory in England. Something other was expected in Germany: certainly, and its industry will be inevitably involved in a competition to the youngest and strongest nation in the world, however hundred chances against one, Engels wrote that owing to excessive limitation and cowardice of the German bourgeoisie its song is sung. That is neither socialism, nor economic heights. Engels darted a sidelong glance and towards Russia, but he did not trust in its economic opportunities at all. Russia concerned him from the strategic point of view.

As for Tocqueville, it is necessary to notice that, apparently, for the first time in the history (in 1835) the ingenious Frenchman raised a question that the era of the bipolar (bipolar) world approaches. Tocqueville acutely in a century and a quarter made out these 2 poles - Russia and the USA. For the first time in similar estimates and calculations to Europe (to great European civilization!) the supporting role was left. Who's there? Britain, France, already gone star of Spain, still active Holland, the wakening Germany. But is not present, poles were already formed absolutely in other, wider limits. By the way, on the boundless lands of North America developed hardly half in 1835 there lived a little more than 12 million people. And Tocqueville safely predicted tenfold multiplication somewhere to the middle of the next century. And as guessed! In 1950 in the USA already about 150 million inhabitants. (A single demographic forecast of the Frenchman was stunningly exact.) As for Russia, by the way, that even its European spaces in comparison with Europe were inhabited poorly in those days. But high rates of gain (a little more than 2% a year) provided doubling of the population each 35 years so 40 million (figure of Pushkin times), having twice doubled in 70 years, turned at the beginning of the 20th century into 160 million. It would seem, in the conditions of boundless territories nothing interfered with further growth. The first years of the 20th century and proceeded: when maintaining high birth rate Russia began to show the highest rates of economic growth in the world. If these trends remained, then to the middle of the century in Russia there would be more than three hundred million (instead of 200 million in the USSR those years), and by the beginning of the 21st century -

more than six hundred (instead of present the 143rd) at the highest technological base and the huge saved-up riches. (Such Russia was predicted by the American analysts making the forecast at the beginning of the 20th century for the U.S. Government.)

Certainly, there can be doubts in justice of the similar linear forecast, however all cross out rough events of 1917-1921 (and further to the 1929th and 1941st), doing estimates and disputes around them scholastic. The burdensome Bolshevist experiment which lasted for long 70-80 years undermined biological forces of the Russian people. As a result gain for all the 20th century was round zero at obvious falling of physical and especially moral health of the population. To get out of this hole to us at best not less than a half of term of falling in it, that is years forty is prepared. It is possible to understand impatience of democrat romantics, but - alas! - the classical "Moisey's time frame" in the Old Testament is specified by no means not accidentally.

Certainly, Alexis de Tocqueville, the aristocrat and the conservative, the convinced opponent of the French revolution, could not foresee such turnover of affairs in Russia. He lived in domarksistsky times (died in 1859 54 years old and when there was his book about democracy, 17-year-old Karl Heinrich Marx only finished a gymnasium in Trier and was going to study the right and philosophy in Bonn). Tocqueville wanted to know and hear nothing about "socialism". He studied democratic bases of life of society thoroughly, having drawn the most important conclusion: democracy is a cooperation of independent persons, but not organized (allegedly democratic state) impersonal weight. Thus, tokvilevsky assessment of the Russian type of the personality (ready to subcontract all the personal forces to the leader) already contained a hint on the future crisis and "fiasco". Russia inevitably had to plunge into a terrible and bloody font from which two exits are possible: or in this bloody prenatal mash the new national type of the independent personality will be born (having given hope to the country on the dynamic future), or it will forever depart to the third world, having kept a national legend of former power in memory. (At us nowadays this hope sound by means of a weak euphemism under the name the middle class. Yes it is not really still clear of whom this class consists. Strong spirit and clever people (intellectuals in good sense of the word) there not really you will also make out something. And the old intellectuals oddly crept away and "dropped out in a deposit". So it is necessary to speak about new type of the personality.)

One of possible historical scenarios

The whole Europe with horror looks at this Russian colossus.

Prince of Livny

And still as it is curious to look in respect of historical imagination how the Russian expansion in its optimal variant under those conditions when Russia, having gained powerful historical inertia, would continue external gains could look, without losing the internal structural springs. (We will assume that people with strong-willed and Yermak, Peter, Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Speransky, Gorchakov, Stolypin, Kolchak, Brusilov's will act freely, and nobody within the country disturbs them.)

So, Russian conditional and optimum scenario.

After accession of Siberia and Alaska the Russians gain a foothold in California where yet Anglo-Saxon pioneers did not reach. Vigorous Rezanov does not die of a fever, but Ross strengthens a fort and expands possession of the Russian crown at the expense of Indian, Mexican and Spanish lands in the Wild West. Having recovered after the unsuccessful Crimean campaign and having drawn appropriate conclusions, Russia

continues to annex Turkestan then starts war for desired passages over again. To take away them at completely at the beginning of the 20th century would be not difficult for the weakened Turkey. The western powers this time would hardly interfere because before them there was a new threat - the united and strengthened German Reich whose energy skilled successors of the prince Gorchakov would be thinly and is skillfully directed to the West. One of the most real moments of accession of the European plot of land together with Istanbul (missed by Nicholas II) developed to summer of 1913 when Turkey got beaten in the Balkan war. At a number of the Russian politicians and generals the concrete plan of occupation of passages was already made, but the tsar "was reluctant". On Rodzyanko's memoirs, the tsar told the generals who are foot tapping from impatience approximately following: it is ugly and ignoble - to use the current weakness Ottoman Ports. And what will be told in Europe - that we are robbers? The confused generals left, without having achieved anything.

However it is imaginable that they managed to incline the tsar. And what? The Russian troops occupy those spaces which once were called the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, our spiritual foremother. Tsargrad appears in the most natural way the third capital of the Third Rome. The Russian government moves to warm coast of Bosphorus. The Russian fleet dominates in the Mediterranean Sea. The Russian landing lands on Peloponnese, in Sicily and on Malta. He is met in flowers by North Africa which residents see the liberator in Russia. The Holy Land appears in a zone of the Russian influence. British grind teeth. The autocephalous Greek church recognizes the Moscow patriarch. At the same time the Pope not against to attach to sacred church 200 million Orthodox Christians. At the same time it is not accented who whom attaches. Skillful negotiations on restoration of uniform Christian church are just conducted. It becomes suddenly clear that business of crusades did not die in vain that the help in 700 years unexpectedly came from the East from former skhizmatik which dad Innokenti III castigated in the 13th century and on whom his successor dad Grigory IX urged to go cross war and that association of Europe, most likely, will take place under patronage of the Russian emperor. (Half a century later similar model by means of semi-similar ideology Stalin - new Russian "emperor" will adhere, but will come to an end all the same in a failure.)

Here it is appropriate to think of original internal impulses of communistic expansion. Anyway, but among other expansions it is looked through (as a virtual opportunity of which in the West were obviously afraid) and that campaign in 1979 to Afghanistan (as if yearned waiting for socialist liberators), and further, cutting Persia and Pakistan, an exit to the warm ocean where and it is possible "to wash" notorious boots at last. And is more concrete - to build the cities, airfields and harbors. For the first time in the history there would be an empire (Russian communistic) exceeding the empire of chingizid on the area. At the same time on enormous open spaces of Southeast Asia neutral and friendly India and military and friendly China which is skillfully withheld under the power of the pro-Russian communists are located. Thus, the world controlling stake is provided. Would remain not up to the end solved a question of Western Europe. Well, Napoleon did not manage what (and to Hitler), their deadly friends from the East would complete.

(Continuation in the following number.)

Alexander William?
Other scientific works: