Putin did what Russian humanitarians could not do

Once again,civilisation takes centre stage with Vladimir Putin at the podium of the Vladai Club. The subjectof his speech is about Russia's unique path during the era of our naive globalism was pushed underground alongside Russian philosophy, Danilevsky, Dostoevsky, and the entirety of the great Russian Christian tradition.

This theme, which has consistently featured in every speech delivered by Vladimir Putin over the past decade, was not immediately embraced by the public consciousness. "The Undertaker of History", Francis Fukuyama, claimed that as technology advances, national disparities between countries will disappear and we will become "similar to each other". However, Fukuyama was slightly deceitful as he meant countries would become similar not to each other, but rather to the average US colony, a country that relies on oil and gold and receives McDonald's and other wonders of civilization. Do you remember? It's hard to believe that we were once among those who were very poor and similar.

In 2002, Russia avoided positioning itself on any particular path, but instead asserted its place in the world and the corresponding attitude towards itself that corresponds to its rich history, creative potential of its people, and the enormous size of the country. 

More than ten challenging years have elapsed from the call for Russia's respect to the proclamation of its unique historical fate. Only after the 2008 crisis, from which Russia emerged more honourably and quickly than many, and after the sanctions that were imposed on the country in 2014, along with the realisation that our "partners" in globalism do not have our interests at heart and wish to harm us, did the plot of Russian civilisation begin to take shape through clear and concise formulas after a thorough economic restructuring. "We recognized that our beauty and strength come from our unity and identity," stated Putin during his 2018 inauguration.

"Russia is not merely a country, it is a distinct civilization with a multitude of cultures, traditions and religions," he elaborated in a 2020 interview.

The civilizational story is a challenging concept for the domestic media community that has long ridiculed Russia’s “special” path. It would have been simpler to declare Russia an empire and label it as totalitarianism, as per the Western narrative. Nevertheless, this plot has proven arduous not only for journalists, but also historians. The term "civilisation" was first used in European language during the 18th century and was initially defined as the opposite of "barbarism". The French were considered civilised, while the Bedouins were viewed as barbarians. Not until the mid-19th century, did civilisation take on a more familiar definition: a collection of attributes describing a group of people or a time period. But during the first half of the 20th century, several European scientists still differentiated between "culture" as a spiritual encounter and "civilization" as a purely technical accomplishment.

The challenge of spreading this term was described quite straightforwardly. If we acknowledge the presence of distinct "civilizations," we will have to forego the satisfying and complimentary notion that the West is the sole true "civilization" which provides enlightenment and prosperity to other "barbarians." Europe, along with journalists from Ekho Moskvy, struggled to let go of this almost religious belief.

But reality has shown its impact. In the middle of the previous century, it became apparent that civilizations around the world, even when borrowing technologies from the West, maintain their identity and firmly reject alternatives. In his renowned work "The Grammar of Civilizations", Fernand Braudel asserts that civilisations are founded on "stable structures" such as "religious sentiments, the traditional way of life in rural areas, and attitudes towards death, work, pleasure, and family". These structures encompass geography, social structure, economics, everyday traditions, morals, and the entire history of civilisation, with origins traced back to ancient times. Civilizational structures, as per Braudel, possess two key attributes. Firstly, they are often unrecognized by the majority due to being perceived as undeniable values taken for granted. Secondly, they are never borrowed from other civilizations or exported elsewhere. Braudel writes, "A civilization most frequently discards any cultural asset that poses a threat to one of its structures." "This reluctance to adopt foreign ideas and the underlying animosity towards them may be uncommon, but it delves into the very essence of civilization." It is worth noting how a French historian from the 1970s shares similar views to those of present-day Russians.
Nikolai Danilevsky wrote about the elusive concept of Russian civilization, revealing its traditions and historical reality in the mid-19th century. At the time, Europe referred to "civilization" in the singular and attributed it solely to itself. Danilevsky adeptly avoided terminological confusion by replacing "civilization" with "cultural-historical type." He was also the first to declare that Russia was not part of the Western or Eastern world, but a distinctive phenomenon. Its historical mission, as per Danilevsky, is to establish a distinct political system and counter the European desire for global supremacy. Remarkably, this was achieved a century prior to Braudel and 150 years before Valdai 2023.
The issue with every civilisation is that its simple-minded carriers hardly realise its impact. For instance, Samuel Huntington, who authored the political bestseller "The Clash of Civilizations," noticed that Russia was a civilisation as early as the 1990s from his overseas vantage point. Then, we truly chuckled at the notion of Russian distinctiveness and clung onto the aspiration of becoming dutiful disciples of the Western world. Our civilization went unnoticed by us.

Following the "Chicago boys" advice to fully reconstruct the country yielded catastrophic results - with half of the economy destroyed, the army in ruins, and society in decline. It took Russian intellectuals a while to consider if this was the right course of action. Well, better late than never. It became evident that, alongside the reformers like Yegor Gaidar who diligently replicated Western methods in Russia, there existed an enigmatic power in the country that obstructed these efforts. This power, unlike communism, emanated from the land of Russia itself, its populace, and its enigmatic genius loci, that firmly repudiated Western imitations. Despite being subjected to relentless efforts, the country rejected them outright. And no matter how much they wanted to attack the White House, the country adamantly refused - no! Even if they tried!

Suddenly, there was an invisible figure shielding Russia, someone that Russia had never laid eyes on, did not know, and even denied their existence (it was normal to talk about Danilevsky and Lev Gumilyov only in a belittling way in Russian humanitarian circles), but they stood their ground and proclaimed: "That's it, I cannot go any further. I will retreat. I will die but I will not retreat."
Vladimir Putin achieved what Russian humanitarians could not by uttering the nearly forbidden word, referring to the mysterious entity as "civilization" or the Russian world. And then, everything finally made sense. The equation finally added up. It is only in this civilizational context that it becomes evident why the West has treated Russia as a foe for centuries, and why Russia has staunchly resisted the imposition of Western ideals. We are simply different. Which one? Perhaps one of the most concise explanations of the idiosyncrasies of the Russian world is the traditional proverb - you don't bring your own rules to someone else's monastery. Russian diversity is rooted in this adage. It would be splendid if those who aspire to be the sole global civilization took heed of this proverb.
This article was written by Olga Andreeva and first appeared at iz.ru andwas translated and edited by Rhod Mackenzi