Prejudices around Russian culture, entrepreneurship and mentality abound. However, some attempts have been made to tackle “dreams and realities” in order to understand Russia’s soul and character. For example, in recent years, numerous publications on Russian internal and external policies appeared; it seems all politicians, academics and publicists wanted to write a few lines “about Russia” in their involvement to better understanding “the Russian way of life”.

Thus, a prominent Danish journalist, Vibeke Sperling approached the subject from an interesting angle: Russia’s self-perception and western misjudgments about Russia’s past, present and future.  

 

Revealing both issues would be of great help in understanding “a big neighbor”; in particular, in view of the present western economic-political sanctions and embargos. Quite notable, such sanctions have been detrimental for both sides: for the Baltic and Scandinavian states. However, the author argues that these sanctions did not provide an expected damaging effect on Russia. On the contrary, people have been “united with Kremlin” (p.258). 

 

Reference: Sperling V. Russernes Dromme. Om det nye Ruslands selvfortåelse- og vestens misforståelser (in Danish). – Gyldendal, 2015,-271 pp. [English translation – “Russian’s dreams: on Russia’s self-perception and western misjudgments”]. See my review in: Dreams and realities: another attempt to understand Russia’s soul

 

Such an enormously interesting subject as the big country’s “self-perception” might suggest both historic and transitional aspects of “Russian identity”. Some say that in these aspects two sides of issues are present: external one (Russia’s approach to NATO; western leaders already predict the start of a new “cold war” with Russia; and, second, internal one (western politicians still stick to “western help in Russia’s way to democracy”). These issues are dealt with the Russian identity and present power elites, as well leaders’ image in society (“Putin’s images”), Eurasian Union and Russian global friends.

 

Strange enough, but western publicists (e.g. above mentioned V. Sperling) follow an old trend: the need to impose on Russia a western-type democracy and a way of life. They insist that western patterns would best fit the Russian mentality. More than that, such type of democracy shall be best for Russians and simply be imposed on Russia… Can’t Russians decide for themselves; or the Russian soul is not mature enough? 

 

So many western scholars approached that ever-attractive subject of Russia’s “mysterious soul” when writing about it (see, e.g. The Russians, by Hedrick Smith. –The Times Books Publ., 1976.- 639 pp; and another book by D. Remnick “Lenin’s Tomb”.- Vintage Books, N-Y. 1994, – 588 pp.; both books won Pulitzer Prize).  

 

Thus, who is to be blamed on “western misjudgments”: what is really misjudged? Peoples’ soul doesn’t change overnight; it is subject to historic evolution! It’s better to strip-off pessimism in Russia’s policies while trying to understand their roots and directions. Perspective common vision can only be based on a constructive dialogue with ever more partner along European west-east borders.    

Good neighbors’ policy: example from Finland

Most Finns have never visited Russia, don’t speak the language and neither understand its culture. Mostly, Fins’ attitude towards Russia (e.g. in Finland’s eastern part) has been based on prejudices and rumors without a deeper understand and without a fruitful dialogue. 

However, some positive aspects emerge: “Finland-Russia Society” (FRS) as a non-governmental organization whose task is to support Finnish-Russian cooperation on a nongovernmental level in cultural, environmental and economic affairs with12,5 thousand members.

 

FRS leaders say that it could be easier to turn backs to the eastern neighbor, as soon as quite a few seems to understand what is happening inside the Russian borders and people were negligent. The FRS took another direction: taking the role of an “explainer”: about daily Russian life, about President Putin, about the effects of the sanctions, about the Russian military, etc.  

See more on: The future of Finnish-Russian cooperation – to be or not to be?

 

As a friendship society, FRS’s goal is to support such a dialogue in all possible levels of cooperation, to continue supporting grass root cooperation between two civil societies and enhancing possibilities for cooperation on the non-governmental level. A more general task is to spread knowledge about Russia, its culture and language, in particular, in Southwestern Finland.

Cooperation in the business sectors proceeding: all successful business ventures in Russia are based on a thorough understanding of the country’s culture.  Hence, a prospective challenge s to get more young members involved in FRS’s activities, which requires active and interested young people. It is done, e.g. through various cultural events that young people find interesting, finding favorable/suitable project s, etc.

 

For example, a break-dance collective from Moscow was invited to perform as well as Russian language teachers for a local school in the Turku region. In September 2015, a young graffiti artist from Saint Petersburg painted a piece of graffiti art together with 15 Finnish kids.

 

FRS also coordinated a three year environmental education project between 2009-11 that was directed to 12-17 year old teenagers living in Saint Petersburg and Turku. The goal of the project was to teach environmental education in an innovative way through various creative art classes such as photography, painting, sculpture and dance. Almost all teenagers participated in the project are still keeping in touch and visiting each within the “twin cities” program. 

 

The best result of good relations is a dialogue helping to understand both sides: for example, a short visit to Russia has been a life-changing experience for several Fins.

European cultural identity: with or without Russia

Quite true, modern EU’s efforts in further integration and even “unification” require a more critical understanding of conflicts, of complex and ambiguous European past, as well as “Europe as an idea” in European versus national identities.

 

It seems apparent, that for the next decades, the EU institutions will concentrate on the member states’ unification efforts coped with shaping globalisation’s process and defending European common values. The world is changing very fast and the EU states (often through the EU institutions) can play a fundamental role in shaping these changes. And more, all together the EU member states will also create better conditions to protect European shared values as well as keep, while reforming, a working European social market economic model as the most important features of the European way of life.

 

Most important in this process is finding out the European identity while showing most feasible prerequisites in finding such identities both for the whole region and for the individual states and neighboring states, such as Russia.  

Identity at a national and wider-European level

Some experts suggest that the present “critical time” in the EU could be resolved from the identity-case: the approach could not be more correct, being widely used in both political and cultural debates. For example, some researchers have already underlined identity issue as a “contradictory theoretical burden” (R. Brubaker & F. Cooper, 2008).

 

Quite natural, homogeneous societies do not experience “identity problems”; it’s the legacy of multi-national and ethically-polarized societies. It is becoming understandable, for instance, that such “structural split” makes in some new EU states, e.g. in Latvia, the “collective identity” a politically problematic issue.

 

The problem is depicted in Basks’ regions in Spain, in Scots in the United Kingdom, etc. The same is true for other parts of Europe, e.g. Ukraine and Russia.  

 

See, for example, Europæiske faelleskaber? Identiter, fortællinger og konflikter i Europa. (Eds. Baron I., Herslund M., & Humlebæk C.). –Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag, Copenhagen, 2015. – 256 pp. [English title: European Communities? Identities, Narratives and Conflicts in Europe].  

 

The phenomenon is far from being resolved; it is clearly seen in the Baltic States, i.e. in particular, in Latvia with a solid share of Russian “minorities” (about 35% of total population).

More than that, identity is in reality a burning European issue: suffice it to say, that there is an EU member state with a genuinely unresolved 40-year conflict between the two “identities” (Greek & Turkish) in a small island, Cyprus. Regardless of an existing (so far) political will from both sides of the conflict, the differences are still irrevocable.

 

Fortunately, there are quite a few multi-national states in the EU: the latter few resolve “the problem” by referring to different forms of federalism and regional autonomy. By inaugurating “General Cultural Assembly on Europe” (April 2013), the Commission tried to “acknowledge a sense of all nations’ belonging to a (European) community, i.e. a sense of shared European destiny”; both are to be achieved while drawing common rules and institutions.

 

Reference: Speech by President M. Barroso “A new narrative for Europe”, BOZAR/Brussels, 23 April 2013.

 

“Finding” European identity shall not be restricted to the EU states alone: it shall include a wider number of neighbor nations. In this regard, an important issue arises of “Europe of states” vs. “Europe of nations”. Most of the existing states in Europe have been formed by the nation-state model (the statehood institutions followed the centuries-old nation’s formation), which has been true for such nation-states as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc.  

 

Several Eastern European states, particularly the Baltic States, have experienced a somehow different historic process: initially, the statehood institutions “formalized” these statehood structures, with the nation-formation process being followed. One can say that these states are in the process of “collective identity’s” formation. Probably this historic transformation forms the background of all modern identity problems in this part of Europe. 

    

Apparently, there are some conflicts in identity process: for example, the lack of “common European language” could be regarded as a stumbling block in the European identity. It is highly unlikely the EU will reduce the number of official EU languages numbering 24 at present; some say that about a billion euros for translation in the EU a year is “the price for democracy” and national identity (though most EU documents are translated into just 3-4 “main” European languages).

 

In this regard, it is well-worth mentioning that, for example, according to J. Habermas, the best way out of the EU’s “troubles” is the approach to the EU as a political community, which could permanently guarantee the citizens’ fundamental social, political and civil rights in a democratic manner. He noted the experts’ agreement on “the diagnosis of the deeper reasons for the crisis, i.e. the EU lacks the competences to bring about the necessary harmonization of the national economies” (Habermas J.,2012, p.3).

 

See more in: Habermas Jürgen. The Crisis of the European Union. A Response. 2012. English edition. Transl. – Polity Press, UK, 2012. –168 pp. The book was first published in German –Zur Verfassung Europas. Ein Essay, Verlag Berlin 2011. See my review in: Political management vs. Constitution for Europe: Habermas’ view on the EU crisis

 

At times, when Europe seems to shift between integration and fragmentation, there is a need for a clear view on European political plans, options and intentions. Thus, the EU leaders constantly underline that present European integration program has to show that “the political management” is much more than a semantic discussion: a fundamental choice is to be made if the European idea and the European values will succeed both within and beyond EU borders. The process does require good and friendly relations with European neighbors on the east…

 

Most probably the EU organizationally will stick to a federation of states: during several years former Commission President M. Barroso stressed the need to move towards a federation of nation states. One of the EU’s distinguished predecessors, Jacques Delors used the term “federation” as well, and with the same rationale behind it.

 

Reference: José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, Speech at the Brussels Think Tank Dialogue, SPEECH/13/346, 22 April 2013.

 

No doubt, the decades’ example of Russian federation would be good to emulate!  

It should be said in the conclusion that an urging issue of European “collective identity” has to include a Europe-wide dimensions fighting against fundamentalism, discrimination, in building mutual trust and understanding. Therefore the dialogue among states in Europe (not only within the EU) is crucial to defend truly European social and cultural values: e.g. young people should be involved, more research is needed on “youth policies”, which foster key values such as peace, solidarity and respect of human dignity among future generations and wide-European societies.

Under the Europe for Citizens Program 2014-2020, the European Commission has a budget of € 185,5 million, which shall be used to raising awareness of truly wide-European values, notably tolerance and mutual respect.

 

Only this approach will show those common grounds which unite people in Europe: it is an illusion that European issues could be resolved only at the EU level, it has to involve wide European states.  

 

The time is ripe for stripping-off numerous prejudices around Russian culture, mentality and policies. At the same time, definite attempts shall be made to tackle “dreams and realities” in order to understand Russia’s soul and character. Only in this manner can conflicts among EU-Russia and other neighbors be resolved.