Europe-Russia: the weight of history and borders

The fall of communist regimes and EU enlargement extended to Countries liberated by Communist rule was followed by an aggravation of the controversy regarding European – Russian borders. Indeed, it’s a historical paradox. The great majority of European countries belong to the same political organization on the basis of a free choice, which is not linked to military conquests, thereby reflecting a “correspondence” between institutional (EU) and geographic Europe. That very Europe that grew increasingly closer to the ideal of a great Europe, “from the Atlantic to the Urals” proposed by General De Gaulle in 1959, according to John Paul II, should have breathed with its two Eastern and Western “lungs”. But that vision is above all a “Western vision”: the Urals have never been a political border nor a natural limitation or an item of division between peoples. The vision of USSR president Michail Gorbaciov of a “common European home” had not been accurately defined. Similarly, the Western viewpoint is no longer accurate. At the European Council in Lisbon, in June 1992, the Commission declared that the term “European’, has not been officially defined”, “it is neither possible to establish now the frontiers of the European Union, whose contours will be shaped over many years to come.” In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam established that “every European state” can enter the Union (art. 49) provided the respect of the principles of freedom, democracy and human rights (art. 61). The question of the borders is fundamental. In August 1978, in a famous document, Cardinal Wojtyla asked: “A frontier for Europe, where?” The question is all the more crucial as it measures the weight of history, often marked by cruelty, but far too often forgotten or ignored by Western politicians. Where does Europe end? For a long time Europe ended before the Iron Curtain, erected amidst its area. Although Europe is on the opposite side of that border – imposed by the Soviets – it was nonetheless part of the same geographic, historical, spiritual and continental whole. Czech writer Milan Kundera, in 1983, described a “Kidnapped West, or the tragedy of Central Europe.” It’s the monumental, unsolved, age-old question lingering on until today, regarding the relations of the Russian world with the West, in-between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, marked by various understandings of political power, human rights, and nation-state. The definition of frontiers continues being a key factor in the reaffirmation of national identity. The history of Europe over the past 25 years is also the history of the construction of new barriers, new borders, as shown by the States born as result of the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It’s a history of new fears and new nationalisms, of ancient suffering and hatred, bygone – yet still living – memories, prejudices and divisions between peoples, ethnic and language groups, never-ceased passions. French sociologist Emmanuel Todd spoke of the “anthropological fragmentation” of Europe. In its Oriental part it is also a historical fragmentation, with deep wounds that seem impossible to heal. The roots of the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe, the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, are to be found in a long story of nationalisms, identity and unexplainable suffering. How to forget the severe famine organized in Ukraine by the Soviet – Russian – power, the Holodomor, the extermination through starvation of 3-5 million people in the years 1931-1933? The roots of the crisis are also to be found in a great empire, Russia: a European yet Asian country that cannot accept to loose its power. Recently, on the occasion of the opening of Sochi Olympic games, Russia provided an interpretation of its own history that EU leaders should reflect upon to understand Moscow’s position. The matter at stake is the balance of Europe as a whole. It’s important that Western populations make the effort to learn this complex history, whose understanding may lead to an understanding of the deep motivations of the recent events involving Russians and Ukrainians, thereby avoiding rigid and dogmatic stances that would inevitably develop into clashes.