Barbarians at the Gate
This old trope, frequently dismissed as the emblem of the hubris of Western civilization, is nevertheless frequently invoked and exploited by all sorts of scoundrels, regardless of their political orientation.
The case in point is the western paranoia over Russians -- the barbarians with the nukes, if I can call them so.
Russia is currently celebrating 225-th birthday of Pushkin, the greatest of all Russians, the true heir of Peter the Great's vision of Russia as the cultural, economic, and political power.
In 1831, Pushkin published his controversial poem, "To the Slanderers of Russia," in which he challenges French denunciations of Russia, following Russia's suppression of Polish Uprising.
Pushkin's argument is simple -- this issue of Russia and Poland is as old as it is complicated. Let us figure it out. Stop your sabre rattling, he says, addressing the French. Remember how you invaded us in 1812; we still have enough fields for all your dead, if you try to do it again.
Many liberal Russians have accused Pushkin for being bellicose and pro-tsarist, that is, pro-repression. Well, Pushkin read French as well as he read Russian, and he was shocked by the degree of animosity that all levels of the French society have exhibited. Animosity of a particular kind. Very familiar to us today. Everyone and his uncle in France felt his duty to declare that Russia won't stop with Poland, that Poland should be immediately helped as the last redoubt preventing the invasion of Russian hordes.
The hysteria was mind boggling. As one Russian scholar going through French public opinion observed, not just politicians, but even the poets and writers got totally unhinged. Victor Hugo writes in his diary that "in the spring we'll face the invasion of Russians," while Pierre-Jean de Béranger, popular poet and song writer, composed the "Song of Cossack," in which the Cossack comforts his horse with the promise of giving it water from Seine. All this was pure projection culminating in Crimean War of 1855, when French and British invaded Russia in Crimea.
Historically, Russia was defending its interests and its borders, but rarely did it venture outside its sphere of interests. Yes, it kept on fighting with Poland, yes, it kept on supporting discredited rulers because it took dynastic principles seriously, yet, we can easily blame it for conservatism or lack of certain freedoms, but invading distant European countries?
French seem to be particularly obnoxious in that respect. Yes, in 1815 Russians marched on Paris to defeat Napoleon to the great joy of numerous French and British and other Europeans. They as quickly withdraw. Yes, Napoleon was a great figure and supporter of all sorts of progressive causes. Yes, Russia was embracing conservative causes helping French monarchy. But conquering France against its will?
Europeans, on the other hand, along with their scions, Americans, keep on invading distant lands again and again. In Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Europe itself, including recent bombing of Serbia by NATO. Europeans keep on marching on Russia with the explicit desire to erase it from the map. This is not paranoia. This is the fact, testified by millions of Russian mass graves spread all over Russia's expanse.
Yet, the power of the discourse is in front of us. Russians, who are not obsessed with this narrative, keep on talking about Western partners, keeps on aligning with French and Brits and fighting wars as their allies. Russian poets are not engaged in writing poems about the dreams of German or French barbarians washing their horses in Volga, and if one of them does, he is immediately dismissed from the ranks of intelligentsia literati.
The sad case of French paranoia in 1830s, was seconded in 1860s, when Dostoevsky traveled through Europe. Once again, all he could hear -- and he described it in his novel, The Gambler -- were the Polish complaints about evil Russia, and French calls to arms. At certain moment, Dostoevsky read in French newspaper the story of himself, adorned with all sorts of idiotic cliches: poor writer who happened to rebel against tyranny of tsarism, was sent to Siberia, and almost killed there, emerging sick and decrepit and feeble-minded from the tsarist tortures. Needless to say, he wrote pages trying to respond to these ridiculous appropriation of his own suffering, but eventually gave up. What's the point in arguing with fully brainwashed and gaslighted public? Indeed!
