This question was repeatedly put to [poet Yevgeny] Yevtushenko in the United States in the fall of 1961. In response, a well-known song was written, which was almost banned as pacifist. A year later, the Caribbean crisis erupted. The Russians answered this question with action in 1962. We tactically retreated: to get out of harm's way. The West is raising this question today, more or less in the same way. Let's not shrug it off.
Ukraine's bleeding wound has revealed the anatomy of our relations with the West. The facts are there to see. There is no need for guesswork. Upholding the obvious [truth] in the face of lies is an important but secondary task. The essence lies in the relations as such. And the primary question is not the economy, not the sanctions. The primary question is the issue of war and peace.
The issue of war and peace cannot be solved on a partial foundation. Neither culture, nor the economy or morality or religion or law or humanitarian issues are systemic, wide ranging or comprehensive enough to become such a foundation. Put differently, the issue of war and peace cannot be resolved on the basis of so-called values (all of the above). War and peace have no price value.
This can be illustrated by a simple example. When the choir of pro-Western propagandists started singing in harmony to the effect that Leningrad did not have to be defended, as the price proved too high, it is impossible to object to this by saying that this assertion is amoral or in conflict with faith, if these are understood as values, not as the foundation of life. After all, values are just values because in the final analysis, they involve the individual choice of accepting (or not accepting) them, and passing judgment on them. This is exactly how faith and morality are understood today.
The systemic (comprehensive) foundation for resolving the issue of war and peace is provided by politics. Basically, there is nothing new about this. The issue of war and peace affects everyone, even though the liberal myth tries to prove that this is just a private issue, like all others in the social community (from the liberal perspective). The Greeks called a person ignorant of politics "idioticos," i.e., an idiot. Idioticos also means property and property owner. In other words, a person obsessed with his property is an… This is why political awareness is a technical precondition for the resolution of the issue of war and peace.
Schmitt, a critic of liberalism, believed that politics are total insofar as war is the ultimate point of politics, and according to Schmitt, war is, without a doubt, a common, public, vital cause. Leaving aside the liberals' dispute with Schmitt and against Schmitt, let's note that in our situation there is plenty of opposite and therefore uncompromising, tough logic. We are already involved in the issue of war. So we will have to think politically, think holistically, think systemically. Values will not help us. It is always possible to abandon them in relation to price. Meanwhile, our existence is at stake.
Schmitt posited that the ultimate political reality is the differentiation between friend and foe. Friends and foes are adversaries, and ultimately parties at war. We should add here that politics is about getting on board as many supporters and friends as possible and excluding foes from our common cause with our friends. There cannot be a common economy with enemies. Remember the sanctions.
However, something happened in the political realm at a time when it seemed obvious that only opponents will go to war. Today, war as a systemic whole (and therefore as politics) is organized by a third force, creating "friends" and "foes" at its own discretion. This force as such defies the definition of "friend" or "foe" in relation to anybody. Even if this status is used one way or the other, it is an obvious lie. During the two world wars of the 20th century, the US gained the essential experience of deriving a super profit as a "third," "neutral" force standing above the fray, above "friends" and "foes" alike. This experience has shaped its policy. America's own participation in those battles was minimal in relation to the "main," "real" adversaries. Right after the defeat of Hitler's Germany, the US effectively "took" its side. The United States later improved this technique, effectively eluding both the role of a friend and, which is more important, the role of an enemy of the Soviet Union and then of Russia.
Others can only be forced to fight in the world of super power. Without going into the details of the evolution of this concept from Hobbes to Nietzsche and then to Zinoviev, we will focus on the notion that super power makes many states dependent on one state without being included into the latter's whole in any sense of the word, either politically or legally. The world of states (there is no other world) is regarded by the sovereign of such an order as a field for the exercise of its super power, which is unlimited by anybody's right to resist it, to ensure "security" and terminate "the war of all against all."
In other words, Leviathan's concept is applied not to individual people but already to individual states. The controversial principle of "territorial integrity" is used precisely to define the state as an individual within the framework of this order. In historical practice, in fact, states easily lend themselves to division, but in practical history — despite all the wars, and given that war is all but the essence of history — there is no war "of all against all." Everything is always well defined. Since war is nevertheless waged and the sovereign of super power is involved, the formula of war against "everybody's enemy" is used — a war against "global evil": terrorism and terrorists, "world criminals" (rogue nations). This applies to all states that do not recognize the "law" established by the will of the world sovereign, Super Leviathan.
Needless to say, there is no question about any international law in this world order. Strictly speaking, international law as law remained in the 19th century and was completely buried by the world wars of the 20th century. At that time it was called "European concert," that is, the consensus among many states in European civilization with regard to the rules of war.
Today, there are no such rules and nobody's consent is needed. The last act of international law was the Nuremberg trial. Today, nothing of this kind is possible, at least not now. Instead of the reality of international law, there are international organizations that are playing the role of tools of the sovereign super power.
America's political goal is to force Russia to fight with Ukraine. In the best-case scenario, Russia should invade [Ukraine]. A lot, if not everything possible has been done to that end. Ukraine's attack on Crimea is also an option, but not so good. The United States itself should stay above the fray, avoiding the role of friend or foe. The same should go for Europe, the EU countries. The world of "security," as "guaranteed" by the United States, will then go up in price.
Both sides, but predominantly Russians, will be criminals and rogues, because those in Europe, let alone in the world at large (for example, in Malaysia) generally make no distinction between us and the Ukrainians. This will mean that wild Russians fought themselves. So they will have to be isolated and institutionalized. We have fostered the rise of the Taliban, and now we will destroy it. We fostered Saddam and then hanged his. We have fostered the rise of the Islamic State and now we are bombing it. You don't like this? But all of you (the Old World as a whole, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia) only know how to start world wars. One was not enough for you. So it's better to be under our control. Trust us.
But looking at Ukraine, we don't trust anybody. It will definitely not be better for us. In all likelihood, nothing will be left of us in this setup.
We must not fight with Ukraine, not because we are "brothers" (this has never stopped anybody), but because this makes no political sense. Ukraine is being cast as an "enemy" for us, but it is not a genuine, not a real enemy, even though it acts quite convincingly. Granted, during the past 20 years, we have not in any way impeded this transformation. War is unlikely to fix anything — quite the contrary, it can only finalize and formalize Ukraine's transformation by the sovereign super power. This means that we must not succumb to this, which is exactly what Putin is doing. So far.
However, if we have to go to war after all, our political goal can only be to force the United States and EU countries to take a clear friend or foe stance. This is their weak spot. It is difficult to believe that the US can become a friend. This is very unlikely. However, it does not want to be a foe, either. Both options equally deprive it of the status as the sovereign super power. Then everything will collapse: the dollar and its super power over Europe (and over ourselves, too). So let them better become a foe. We will get over that. We will only become stronger. As for European states, they — not all of them — can be our friends, and we need them as our friends. Granted, they have yet to be fostered in this capacity.
But this is possible. The United States cannot be their friend either. I don't think it is appropriate to discuss military goals here. However, the threat of war as such (absolutely real and growing) is already bringing up this political goal.
Let's put an end to that Russian World nonsense. There is nothing like that. There is Russia and there is emigration, diaspora and banishment. Russians are a political unity. Where is no political nation, there is no Russian World. There are no Russians there — only Russian speakers. In theory, there could be several such states. Take Belarus, for example. Is it a state of the Russian political nation? Like the United States, the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are states of the Anglo-Saxon political nation? Or even Belarus — no? What side will Belarus take on the issue of war and peace? What then one can say about Ukraine of today? Novorossiya could become a state, but politically, it has still a very long way to go. As for the issue of Russia's enlargement, this is definitely an issue of war and peace. "Democracy" and "the right to self-determination" will be of no use here.
Let's stop this nonsense about "Eurasianism" as a new "ideology" for Russia: not only because we do not need "ideology" as a matter of principle, because we have just freed ourselves from it. What we need is a policy, correct political goals and their understanding by the public. After all, there is no "Eurasia" as a state, as a political entity. There should be (and there already is) Russia's policy in the Asia Pacific region. We need friends there. Can China be among them? Is this realistic? Whether it is necessary?
Let's think realistically about the issue of war and peace.
Timofei Sergeitsev, philosopher, methodologist, member of Rossiya Segodnya's Zinoviev Club
