On Russia and Russians

A Love Letter

My first contact with Russian culture came from music. Through extraordinary circumstances, my mother had befriended a Russian-Georgian composer who had moved in below us. The Soviet lady proposed to teach me to play the piano. That was that. A stern woman, but also warm. Demanding, but also aloof.

Sometimes my parents were away, and so I was to remain in her home after lessons, waiting for their return. She had other students, and I couldn’t just lay about. So I would instead sit on a couch with her husband and watch TV. Russian TV.

I distinctly remember watching one of those speeches given by the Russian President for Christmas or perhaps New Year’s Eve. Sometimes he would put on a movie. That blue screen you’d expect on DVDs with copyright warnings, was replaced with a wall of Cyrillic. An entirely alien language which I could not decipher.

Like many people hooked to the internet in those days, I often received bits of the decaying Russia of the 1990s. Who could forget Eduard Khil, Vitas, and the many videos which circulated the idea that Russia was some kind of crazy place. Was there really any other country which could compete so easily against American cultural products on its own platforms? In a way, Russians of the 1990s were simply Americans of a different flavor.

In those days, in the early 2000s, I was glued to the figure of Vladimir Vladimirovich. He seemed to me like a man molded from a different cast than the rest of the leaders of the time. I grew up watching him go to factory floors, and put oligarchical businessmen back in their place in amusing domestic propaganda videos. I also admired his poise. His sense of worldly politics, when he pronounced that famous speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference — met with the sneers of creatures now left behind, of John McCains and others.

I watched the very first interviews he gave upon his arrival to the highest office of his country. He seemed a different man then. More hopeful, more at ease. The journalists asked him questions about his watch, they would casually walk up to his desk and ask about sensitive matters. He would casually opine on the communist revolution. He would mention that his political inspirations were Charles de Gaulle and Napoleon. Today, such interviews would not air. Putin is a different man, and Russia is a different country.

I don’t think I’ve ever met a Russian that lacked a modicum of culture. The angriest ones I encountered playing online, could always be soothed with a few words of their beautiful language, and asking if they knew any Pushkin. And this I found across the board, across social classes. Russians are cultivated, they have a deep appreciation for literature. In this way, they are truly respectable to the French.

But many also misunderstand this. They assume that the “good Russians” are those who read Pushkin, Tolstoy, and other names whom bien-pensants love to cite (and don’t read beyond a novel of Dostoevsky or two). That the “bad Russians” are those who turned their backs on their authors, and embraced despotic backwards authoritarianism. Beneath all that, so they think, there is that element who is supposedly waiting for deliverance. These false romantics, who fuel current convulsions, they are those whom many Russians have often sneered at in the previous century, claiming they did not “understand the Russian soul.”

I think Russians often exaggerate this, and perhaps they do not want to be understood at all. But they are right about them. Russia is one of the few places today that at least attempts to take possession of its own sovereignty. And the polite men of today, they do not like free men and independent nations. Their champions were Gorbachev and Yeltsin, those who handed over their country on a silver platter. Tolstoy, the artillery officer, they would not have welcomed him either. In fact, his descendants are still around to show it.

As General de Gaulle used to say, “People always applaud those who surrender. Those who never surrender are looked down upon.” So it is no surprise that a Russian leader who refuses to be subordinate, who instead offered partnership on equal terms, would be viewed with suspicion.

The French think it is their duty to encourage others to be themselves, to have pride in themselves. It is with all this that I came to develop a great appreciation for Russians, for being themselves. Their history was intertwined with that of Europe, it is European. Russia had a Fronde under Ivan Grozny. What was then considered a backwater became a place of high culture under Petr I, Peter the Great. This great monarch visited Versailles, and held the infant King Louis XV in his arms.

The Russian aristocracy imported French mores, tutored their children in French. French cuisine made its way through the dining rooms of the nobility, and through the obligatory Olivye salad of Christmas dinners. The Russians became the best students, in fact the masters of ballet. Their literature sat among the greatest European productions. So much so that Gallimard’s renowned edition of books Bibliothèque de la Pléiade is named after the Pushkinskaia pleiada. Russian friends, I see you rolling your eyes but do not mistake me for a false romantic. I am not of this age, hear me.

How misunderstood were the relations between France and Russia in the beginning of the 19th Century! I have always enjoyed debating this subject endlessly with my dear Russian friends. For many of them, Napoleon was the Antichrist which their country finally put down. The testament to the cyclical story of Russia rising to the occasion, and stopping hegemonic tyranny in Europe. This is a thesis well appreciated by Soviet nostalgics, and it’s no wonder why.

I do not wish to tell Russians how they should interpret their history, or their heroic struggles. Every nation has the right to them, and there is certainly something to admire in the determination of a Russia which would burn its dazzling capital to the ground rather than become subjects of the latest pretender. But I only wish for Russians to consider a few things. That Napoleon appreciated Tsar Aleksandr above all sovereigns, that it was not his aim to enslave Russia, but rather to bring it, at great cost, in concord with his European design of which it was a keystone.

In his own words, at Tilsitt:

“I have just made peace; I am told that I was wrong, that I'll be deceived; but, well, it's enough war, we must give the world some rest.”

Or later in his life, reflecting:

“If Aleksandr's affection for me was sincere, it was intrigue that alienated him. In due course, intermediaries kept telling him about the ridicule I had heaped upon him, they said, assuring him that at Tilsitt and Erfurt he had not so much as turned his back on me, that I was mocking him. Aleksandr is very touchy, they would have easily turned him against me. Nothing could be further from the truth: I liked him and loved him.”

“As far as the Russian emperor is concerned, he's infinitely superior to all that: he's witty, graceful and well-educated; but he's not to be trusted: he's not straightforward; he's a true Greek of the Byzantine Empire. However, he is not without ideology, real or played out. Will you ever believe what I had to debate with him: he argued that heredity was an abuse of sovereignty; and I had to spend more than an hour, and wear out my eloquence and logic to prove to him that this heredity was the rest and happiness of the people. Perhaps he was also mystifying me; for he is shrewd, false and cunning… If I die here, he will be my true heir in Europe.”

“The city of Moscow is a great as Paris ; it is an extremely wealthy city, filled with palaces of all the princes of the Empire. Moscow is the storage house of Asia and Europe.”

“Never, in spite of poetry, could the fictions of the fire of Troy equal that of Moscow… Who could attribute the riches that were devoured by the last fire. Just imagine Paris with the accumulation of the industry and works of the past centuries. Its capital, since fourteen hundred years, what sums! Add to that the shops, the furniture, the reunion of sciences, the arts, the business and commercial correspondences all established, etc…, and there goes Moscow anyway, and all of that disappeared in an instant! What a catastrophe! Does the mere idea of it not make you tremble!!… I do not think that two billions could restore it. If Moscow had not been burned down, the emperor Alexander would have been forced to sue for peace.”

“If Moscow had not been given over to the flames, I would have given the singular spectacle of an army wintering peacefully in the midst of an enemy nation pressing in on it from all sides: it would have been the ship caught in the ice. In France, you would have found yourselves deprived of my news for several months; but you would have remained calm, you would have been wise; Cambacérès, as usual, would have conducted business in my name, and everything would have gone on as if I had been present.”

“Winter in Russia would have weighed on everyone. But in spring, everyone would have woken up at once, and we know that the French are as nimble as any. With the first return of fine weather, I would have marched to the enemy; I would have beaten them; I would have been master of the Empire. But Aleksandr, believe it or not, would not have brought me that far; he would have first gone through all the conditions I had dictated; and then France would finally have begun to enjoy herself.”

“I defeated armies, but I couldn't beat the flames, the frost, the numbness, the death! Fate must have been stronger than me. And yet, what a misfortune for France, for Europe! Peace in Moscow completed and ended my war expeditions. For the great cause, it was the end of luck and the beginning of security.”

“A new horizon, new works were about to unfold, all full of the well-being and prosperity of all. The European system was founded; all that remained was to organize it. Satisfied on these major points, and tranquil everywhere, I would also have had my congress and my holy alliance.”

“These ideas were stolen from me. In this meeting of all sovereigns, we would have discussed our interests as a family, and dealt with the peoples as clerics to masters. The cause of the century was won, the revolution accomplished; all that remained was to mend it with what it had not destroyed.”

“This work belonged to me; I had prepared it with a long hand, perhaps at the expense of my popularity, but I had become the Ark of the Old and New Covenants, the natural mediator between the old and new orders of things. I had the principles and the confidence of the one, I had identified myself with the other; I belonged to both; I would have done each one's part in good conscience. My glory would have been in my fairness!”

I believe the conclusion of this story was tragic misunderstanding, the result of schemes of the lesser against the great. Of Talleyrand betraying his sovereign, and urging Aleksandr against him. Of the Russian court threatening its Tsar with the fate of his father. In reality, one only needs to look at the fate of Italy, of the German states, or any other places where Napoleon’s genius settled. Russia would have been spared the 20th Century, I am convinced of this. But this is the past, the glorious past. Instead, today in Paris sits a beautiful bridge named Aleksandr III.

When the Whites sought refuge, did they not turn to France? Their churches, their cemeteries, in Paris or elsewhere still demonstrate the commitment, the links, the love those held towards their adoptive country. When Pyotr Wrangel found himself at the ends of the difficult task that was his, was it not France which offered its support, its means, when all others had faltered or arranged themselves otherwise?

When the tensions of the Cold War reached its heights, was it not General de Gaulle who offered France as an alternative? Who kept the path open to peace, who never stopped believing in the eminently Russian manifestation of the USSR? Beyond these matters, he even threatened to seek partnership with “the Russians” to build the Concorde, if the British abandoned due to American pressures.

De Gaulle was simply following the same line as that eminent Russian writer, Berdyaev. Nietzsche had predicted that at the edges of the continent, still in Russia there was a people who incubated a will. They were destined to inherit the world. Dostoevsky shared the same sentiment. And yes, its manifestations were different, and often to the very detriment of the people which had incubated it. The Slavic civilizing mission was interrupted. But was Lenin not simply the instrument of an existing Russian impulse, through the ideological lens he adopted? Would Petr the Great have settled the Soviet borders of the post-war arrangements any differently than Stalin? Because nations do not disappear so easily, even in convulsions which sometimes surpass them.

France and Russia share so much. They had a Louis XIV, and they had a Louis XVI. They absorb, and create. But the French are old, and Russians are still young. Emil Cioran tell us eloquently that “Not yet ripe enough in terms of culture, the Russians have the right to look down at France. They don’t have to deal with the issues it raises, because they breathe wholly within the realm of possibility.” But they’ve wasted a lot of time. Almost a century of communism is not an easy ordeal, it weighs heavily on the consciousness of a people now accustomed to fatality.

Putin is a miracle. A man of Western orientation, who knew to seize the reins of his country when it needed it most. But in the current arrangement of the world, his attempts to reconcile Russia with the West were met with suspicion, and outright derision. We are living the consequences.

But I would want Russian friends not to forget that while they may harbor the impression that France is a vassal like any other, it never behaved that way towards them. Other Europeans may have had relations of economic or energy dependence with Russia, which facilitated their ties. France had no such pretenses. Even our most Atlanticist-minded President to date, Nicolas Sarkozy, warned in 2014 against the troubles ahead. He stated that what was happening in Ukraine, the denial of language rights, the pressures to lead Ukraine astray, instead of encouraging them to “maintain excellent relations with Russians,” would lead to war.

When it did erupt in early 2022, Putin still held lengthy calls with one European leader, the one at the helm of France. The calls between them are available for all to listen, and to make up their own minds about the relationship. It is not what is alleged. But whereas other Europeans immediately adopted stances which were not theirs, France necessarily found itself in the position of having to either isolate itself or put itself at the forefront. France cannot allow itself to have a lesser rank. And so, even though it retained its commitment to dialogue, the Russian leadership no longer thought the French voice mattered. And yet, it did.

Russians now accuse the French of being pompous, snobbish, of having delusions about their place in the world. But have Russians not always alleged that the sometimes ridiculous animosity towards their country is merely the result of cyclical hubris and foreign schemes, of suspicion at seeing Russia become stronger on the continent? Are they not making that same mistake? After all, these words did not appear mere weeks ago. Sneering at French self-aggrandizement, calling us childish, arrogant, this is not new and we have always enjoyed it anyway.

But it nonetheless betrays something rather interesting. That with the configurations of the previous century — which should have been buried six feet deep — re-emerging, we once again see Russia adopt positions in the Third World which did not work for the benefit of civilization. America’s foreign policy views with suspicion French involvement in Africa, and yet fails to replace it instead ceding the ground to others. Nevertheless, I am sure that within the next years, Russian elements in Africa will come to the same conclusion their predecessors did. They only brought disturbances to themselves, for very little results.

Will Russians succeed in Africa, where many have failed? Russians are using the same flowery idealist language of the liberals of yesteryear, claiming they are only there to help their brethren. What brethren? Will this talk hold up, when the inevitable troubles, which France has now grown well accustomed to, will arise? When Mali will end its experiment, and call French troops again, what will Russia have gained? Consider that importing proxy conflicts within Africa, which many parties are seeking to do as we speak, is actually not in the interest of the stability of that region.

Meanwhile, Russia is unable to foster its privileged relationships with Serbia, Moldova, etc. Instead, these countries are turning towards France. They seek arms, and they seek political partnerships where no one else will venture, due to talk of “Russian allies” from NATO members. Well, Serbia was once the most Francophile country on Earth, and France remembers. What will the tally look like once the dust settles? Who will benefit?

Once again, Russia’s political visions are turning away from the West. Not even two years ago, I did not know a single Russian living in Russia who knew who Aleksandr Dugin was. I only ever heard his name in the mouth of American conservatives. And yet now, I am receiving his videos from the same with enthusiasm. Russian friends in public affairs even tell me chimeras such as “Russia was under the Mongols for a while, and it survived. Same thing with China, it is ok for now.”

These are delusional statements I never thought I would hear. That Russia supports various factions of subversion in Europe, this is understandable. And yet it can only be treated accordingly by Europeans. Nations must follow their own interests. But this embracing of “Eurasianism” will not lead Russians anywhere good. It is a cope. Chinese cars will not replace German ones, and in the measure that they do it will be out of necessity and not desire.

Why is it that we are seeing the legacy Soviet cliques of the Russian foreign ministry attack France and its interests abroad? Why does the South African embassy publish ridiculous videos alleging the capture of French legionnaires in Ukraine? To attack France by proxy, that is easier than confronting the United States on its own terms. This content is understandable in the realm of domestic propaganda, and has its place in Telegram channels. But to find it in the diplomatic messaging of the Russian Federation, that is not worthy of Russia. And yet, it is France and no one else, that recurs in that messaging.

Nevertheless, Russia is part of Western civilization. Those that deny this harbor deeply held grievances — or worse, they are Russians who have turned their backs on themselves — which no longer have their place in today’s circumstances. And yet, they exist and we must acknowledge them. Russia tends to exacerbate them (as in Finland) and at times attempts to heal them through no avail. This leads to a vicious pattern of Baltic or Eastern European countries, with difficult post-Soviet experiences, inviting and inciting extra-European elements to involve themselves in our midst.

But who can ever reconcile a Russia with a Poland, if not France? Pushkin once penned invectives on this very subject, that none should involve themselves in Slavic affairs. But the 20th Century happened, and we are dealing with much larger matters now. Relations are not only interrupted, but Russia seems to be entirely abandoning its mission for lesser aims.

Europe is dying. That is evident. But to ensure a proper balance in the world, one in which Russia will find its freedom to maneuver and resume its contributions to the world, there must be a Europe. Otherwise, it is doomed to hover between a precarious situation in the East, and a hostile one by an increasingly insane political class in the West. In reality, Russians and Germans should have shaken hands long ago. But that is not available, and not feasible. Paris-Berlin-Moscow.

I urge Russians to reconsider their current course. I implore them to understand that Europe is where their solace lies. To be a bit vulgar, where their best economic ties lie. And to talk more seriously, where their best partners in all things are. All that is required is to speak frankly. At first by the reconciliation and understanding of peoples. Finally, by fostering the independence and sovereignty of Europe.

Russia can be an element of concord, or if we have really reached a point of no return: it will, one way or another, provide the means for the unity of Europe.

I send you my love. We seek a better century than the last.