Kremlin's sweet dreams: as Russia in Europe rules and whether there is a putin's chance of entering the club elected
Europe is "preserved" by the rules of social system that have imposed several of the most powerful states, which in turn are governed by a narrow closed circle of elites. The most powerful states impose the weaker constitution, the ethics of social relations, the territorial system and the foundations of foreign policy, in accordance with their subjective vision of the world. Any protrusions against the external rules are severely suppressed by force.
And the first creaking in these anti -revolutionary expeditions is played by Russia. It took its place among the strongest states of the world and was very harmonious as the main "supervisor in order". And her autocratic leader was rightly awarded the "honorary" title of "gendarme of Europe". The above is not a crazy dream of the Kremlin dictator. This is an objective reality that established in Europe 210 years ago and lasted several decades.
It is this state of affairs and the uncontrolled power of Russia now wants to return the Kremlin. Nowadays, journalism is widespread that Russia seeks to return to the Yalta-Potsdama system of the world. This is facilitated by the fact that a large part of Europeans (say, everyone who in 45 years has caught this system in their conscious life.
In fact, during the Cold War of the USSR (and as part of Russia) reached peak values in certain industries, such as technology development, or the welfare of the majority of the population. However, the peak of the political weight of the Russian state still fell into imperial times. It is a period after the defeat of Napoleonic France, when Russia was at a table where the destinies of entire peoples were decided. And such a table really existed during 1815-1848 in Europe.
After the victory in the Second World War, the USSR received full control only in all aspects of the countries of Eastern Europe - and then Yugoslavia managed to avoid the fate of the Soviet satellite. But after the Napoleonic wars, the Russian Empire was given the right to vote in resolving strategic and not very issues of all Europe, which was then an absolute center of the world.
Therefore, at the beginning of the 18th and the age, Russia has actually become one of the managers of the fate of the entire planet. And only in 1823 did the Americans dare to resist the most powerful European countries in their doctrine of Monroe.
Questions of borders, constitution, social order and state system of the Netherlands, neutrality of Sweden and Switzerland, the structure of Spain and the fate of its colonies, the arrangement of France, the union of Italy and Germany, the political map (At that time, Ukrainians were forbidden to be called a separate people) . . .
All of this was controlled by only a few countries - members of the so -called Holy Union, and objects (ie countries or peoples, whose destiny was discussed) were simply made known. When in March 1814 France capitulated, the countries of the winners-Russia Prussia, Austria and the United Kingdom-decided to make peace not traditionally-simply to redistribute the borders, but quite new-to conclude new "rules of the game". They were quite ephemeral.
Since the beginning of the early Middle Ages, Europe has lived by the only rule - there are no rules. Subsequently, the Catholic Church tried to become a referee, and the first attempts to establish something similar to the rules of international relations occurred after the end of the Thirty Years War (in fact, the first All -European War) in 1648.
Since then, almost two hundred years have passed and the need for renewal, or more precisely filling the vacuum in the international legal system, has become obvious. The fact is that in the Middle Ages, the state was essentially a generic estate (or a collection of generic estates), and the question of relations between them was the relationship between families, and later, when everyone was confused, in the middle of families.
However, only the blind man could not notice that the Enlightenment era had changed the structure of society and now a layer of active citizens (now called civil society, and then used the term "nation"), which claimed subjectivity in international politics, which ceased to be a purely family business. The most striking these changes showed the example of Poles. In this country, the monarchs have long been foreign rulers, but the Polish nobles identified themselves as a separate people.
And when the mighty monarchs decided to eliminate their state, they did not accept it and began to help Napoleon in his war against Russia. To varying degrees, such trends were observed in different regions of Europe. So simply to overwhelm the territory, completely ignoring the opinion of their inhabitants now looked problematic. This is the first significant reason for convocation of congress. There was a need to explain to people why these rules were set.
And the argument "such the will of the monarch" no longer looked sufficient. An interesting fact is that of the four winners of the three (Austria, Russia and Prussia) were absolute monarchies. This meant that the word of the monarch was law. However, the monarchs themselves considered themselves "enlightened", that is, making decisions, they took into account the thoughts of intellectuals, trying to find the most reasonable option, and not simply to demonstrate their will.
The closest to this state of affairs was Austria, which was organized by Congress, where not only the winners, but also representatives of all countries of Europe - only a few hundred diplomats were invited. The capital of Austria Vienna, which was then considered one of the centers of secular life of Europe, has now combined this status with the need for routine diplomatic work. The first diplomats began to arrive in Vienna in the fall of 1814.
And here it turned out that the most powerful states do not intend to share power with everyone. They are ready to "hear" the opinion of all, and then bring their decision to other countries of Europe. In fact, the above method of internal management has now been transferred to international relations. It is clear that the weaker states tried to challenge this format of diplomacy. The riot of the weaker against the stronger was headed by France.
She was invited to the conference because it was believed that Napoleon - a representative of the revolution and therefore the leading dynasty of France Bourbon - is as victims as other monarchies attacked by Napoleon. It should be noted that the new France represented the Foreign Minister of Napoleon Charles Morris de Taleyran, whose life was the embodiment of the proverb "to betray in time is to predict. " Taleyran, as a real diplomat, was able to sow grain of conflicts between the winners.
Such, for example, became the question of the distribution of Napoleon selected from the winners of the land. How to turn them back: restore old borders or redesign? The most acute issue of division of Poland and Saxony. These disputes delayed the beginning of the Congress for almost half a year. All this time, guests were entertained by masquerades, music concerts with the participation of leading composers of the time (for example, Ludwig Van Beethoven) and other secular fun.
In the end, the main fourth was able to understand and Vienna Congress went to work. And here the self -masters of continental states completely demonstrated their principles of government. The technical design of the provisions of Congress was engaged in the Austrian Chancellor of Metternich Clement, whose name was named the system that existed for several decades.
Its essence was as follows: in Europe there should be a balance of power so that none of the countries could achieve dominance in any part of the continent, as it can provoke it at the desire to capture even more influence and territories. States had to preserve their system. Bourbons returned to France and Spain, but France returned its borders in 1792 (that is, left early revolutionary heritage). In Italy, most of its territories have returned Austria. Halychyna also returned to her.
This decision, on the return of Galicia to Austria, which was in the list of other Habsburg monarchies, probably played a key role in the further history of Ukraine. Most likely, our national revival would look completely different if this part of Ukraine would be under the rule of the Russian autocracy, although it would be possible to shift the center of national revival to the Carpathians or Bukovina.
Interesting fact: Galicia was called "Ukrainian Piedmont" - by analogy to the Italian region, which became the engine of the state association of Italy. But this region was significantly strengthened, in fact formed in the appropriate form by Italian decisions of the same congress. Russia, as a compensation for Galicia, gave most of Poland, which formally became the union with the right to self -government - the Russian emperor became the king of the Polish kingdom.
Krakow, who belonged to Austria in the Napoleonic wars. Also, some solutions formed a balance of forces in Germany. Some lands were transferred to Prussia so that it could withstand France, which in the future should have recovered as a great state, some Austria, and some regions strengthened its independence. Switzerland, for example, wrote a constitution under which its provinces only remained part of a single state.
The Netherlands decided to make the kingdom, formally the title of the ruler whose family and the rule of this state for the last two centuries. However, she has become a dynasty now. The Netherlands became the first Great Republic in Europe at the end of the sixteenth century, as well as introducing a free market and the advanced right at that time, which provided relatively equal opportunities for different segments of the population.
It is obvious that the absolutist states feared that the Netherlands did not be a new source of upheaval in Europe to replace France, where revolutionary ideas came out of control. They decided that the monarchization of this state should repay the freedom -loving spirit. And in addition, the southern provinces were added, which were separated from the Netherlands during the revolution of the XVI-XVII centuries.
Then it looked like a north that escaped from the paws of the absolute Habsburg monarchy, leaving the south in the feudal paws. Now this north, where all two hundred years were preserved feudal remnants to tie the whole kingdom to the Metternich system. And where is the interest of democratic Britain, which was also the winner and constitutional monarchy at the same time? In fact, the United Kingdom of the early nineteenth century was an oligarchy, not democracy.
Power in the country was usurped with financial and industrial groups that were interested in free trade. What they achieved at the Vienna Congress, adopting the rules of free navigation both at sea and on international rivers. A declaration against the slave trade was also proclaimed for the human eye, but was skeptical immediately during the proclamation itself. In Austria and Russia, serfdom has been in force for several decades.
So, having achieved her in trade, the United Kingdom calmly looked at the triumph of conservative ideas in Europe. In fact, it reduced competition for London and did not prevent him from drifting to the title of "Workshop of the World" in which "the sun never goes. " Russian Emperor Alexander I could not live quietly without insulting the possible revolutions in Europe that could destroy the Metternich system.
So in the fall of that year, he initiated the creation of the Holy Union, which was refused to enter the United Kingdom, instead of France, which accelerated her return to the club of great powers. The Holy Union was to become such a gendarmerie of Europe - and the first gendarme was the Russian emperor. In the future, the Holy Union repeatedly suppressed various antimonarchic uprisings that flashed in Europe. The Austrian troops suppressed the uprising in Naples in 1820.
Three years later, the coalition members decided to send the French troops to suppress the revolution in Spain and return to the throne of the "legitimate monarch". In 1830, the Russian Empire had to send troops to Belgium, which decided to separate from the Netherlands, but a Polish uprising broke out in Russia itself. The revolution also broke out in France.
This showed a weak place of the Holy Union, which the revolutionaries take advantage of in 1848, when under pressure from progressive forces, Metternich's system is still collapsing. The Russian Empire will also demonstrate its role as a gendarme and help Austria to suppress the Hungarian uprising, but most countries will still get democratic shifts and processes irreversible in Italy, Germany, France and other European countries. This role of Russia as a leading state in Europe will end.
The roads of the Russian Empire, which will become a stronghold of conservatism with Western democracies, will finally disperse after the Crimean War (1853-1856), where former members of the Holy Union will demonstrate the empire as a backwardness in social development becomes a technological backwardness that eventually emerges into the military. The system, built on the initiative of Russia, was able to exist with a creaking of thirty -three years.
Still, there were too many ambitious and educated people in Europe who did not want to bow their heads to the sovereign to ignore them in the future. Belgium was such the most striking case. This country, which Putin has also cited as an example of artificially created than Russia, has just become the crossroads between the Western and East, which Europe has divided into - and this discrepancy is still in force.
The Western countries retreated to the unprecedented civic uprising that struck Belgium. Instead, in a similar situation (the uprising of the Poles, which took place in parallel) in its area of influence, Russia demonstrated that it was ready to go to the end, even if you have to be moved in the blood all over the country. Thus, the roots of differences were laid, which led to the distribution of Europe through a little more than a century for the zones of influence.