Les auteurs accompagnent le lecteur à travers l’histoire de la sécession de la Crimée. On apprend un tas de choses sur les contextes historique, politique et économique de cette région. Comme les auteurs ont également de bonnes connaissances en histoire militaire, le lecteur est introduit dans les contextes géopolitiques. La constante politique d’encerclement de la Russie par les Etats-Unis, fortement guidée par leurs propres intérêts économiques, est présentée avec de nombreux faits, comme dans le différend sur les gazoducs dans la région de la mer Noire. Le bouleversement politique en Macédoine de 2016 apparaît soudainement sous un jour totalement nouveau. Le facteur décisif n’était pas les conflits internes, mais la construction prévue d’un gazoduc par un consortium dirigé par l’entreprise russe Gazprom via les Balkans vers l’Autriche.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Everyone recognises that Crimea is one of the most beautiful and bountiful places in the world. Not for nothing has it been called «the blest land», «a paradise», «the throne of the Black Sea», «the Russian Holy Mount», «a precious jewel in the crown of the Russian Empire», «a Eurasian microcosm», «an unsinkable aircraft carrier».
From time out of mind different peoples have settled it. It has always been a centre of resistance to, and rivalry with, diverse forces. Over the last thousand years, the history of Crimea has been inextricably linked to Holy Rus’, Muscovy, Russia and the USSR.
The military, political and trade route «from the Varangians to the Greeks», which passed through Novgorod, Kiev and Chersonese before ending at Constantinople, connected the Baltic and Black Seas, and the Slavic and Greco-Byzantine civilisations. This route became the backbone of Russia’s living and expansion space, and led to the creation of a new Orthodox state, which proclaimed itself the heiress to the Byzantine Empire, like a third Rome.
Why is it that Taurian Chersonese, not Kiev, is seen as the cradle of the Christianisation of Rus’? The reason is that Christ’s direct apostle Andrew (‘the First-called’), was preaching the word of God there, as early as during the 1st century AD. St. Clement (Pope Clement 1), the third bishop of Rome and founder of the first Christian communities in Crimea, was martyred there. In the early Middle Ages, the city was celebrated for its many saints and martyrs of Greek, Gothic and Scythian origin. The brothers Cyril and Methodius, considered equal to the apostles, arrived in Chersonese in 860 on their teaching mission; it was they who developed the basis of Slavonic literacy. It was here that the first Russian princes, Askold and Dir, accepted Christianity, along with their company. Lastly, it was Chersonese, in 988, that Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovitch after his baptism wedded the Byzantine Princess Anna. In company with a priest – chronicler, he took books of liturgy as well as Orthodox relics from Chersonese to Kiev. The history of Kievan Rus’ would have been different without Chersonese.
The Russian colonisation of Crimea, which began during the first campaigns against Constantinople, continued to develop during the Tmutarakan principality from the 10th to 12th centuries, on the territory of ancient Tamatarkha. Here, on the banks of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, one of the first Russian places of worship, a shrine to the Most Holy Virgin, was built. Nikon, the first of the chroniclers known to us, lived here; he was to become the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery. Here Boyan, the legendary teller of tales, sang epics to the accompaniment of his dulcimer. And on this place marched the forces of the prince of Novgorod-Severski, whose deed was celebrated in the inspired «Tale of Igor’s Campaign».
At the beginning of the 13th century, the Tartar Horde seized the peninsula by force, cutting off the road from Rus’ to Constantinople. The military and political alliance with the Ottoman Empire had allowed the Muslims to hold the peninsula in their thrall for several centuries, and, at the same time, to alarm Rus’ with vicious predatory wars, which reached as far as Moscow itself.
Suppression of the hordes, bringing them under the sway of the Orthodox Tsar’, and incorporating Crimea into the Russian state, were very intricate problems, the resolution of which did not begin in the reign of Catherine the Great, but as early as Ivan the Terrible’s time. True, the first Russian campaigns to the Black Sea were not entirely successful, but without the military experience of Prince Golytsin, without Peter the Great’s Azov campaigns, without the strategic plans of Anna Ioannovna of Russia and Elizabeth Petrovna of Russia, Prince Potemkin would have had no basis for his ambitions in Crimea.
The absorption of Crimea into the Russian Empire was a progressive development for a number of reasons. Above all, it destroyed a focus of military threat for many Christian peoples: Greeks, Armenians, Goths, and Bulgarians. The Crimean Tartars were given the opportunity to shift from a nomadic way of life, based on warfare, to peaceful, constructive labour, but preserved themselves as an ethnic group. The rich economic potential of Crimea began to be realised on a larger, more diverse, scale. Scientists began to research all aspects of life and activity on the peninsula. It became part of enlightened European civilisation. Lastly, this valuable geopolitical acquisition facilitated the spread of the Orthodox Empire to the shores of the Black Sea and to the establishment of closer ties to Mediterranean and Western European countries, which, in turn, gave impetus to the development of Ukraine and Novorossiya. A new chapter opened in the life of the entire Eurasian region.
The sacrament of marriage entered into by Rus’ and Byzantium under the veil of the Blessed Virgin made our fatherland the tabernacle of the Queen of Heaven, while the acquisition of Crimea led to the building of the new «Mount Athos (Holy Mountain)». Crimea became not only a popular Riviera, the best-loved holiday resort of the well-off, but a place of pilgrimage for simple Christians. During the Romanovs’ rule, many valuable works pertaining to our national culture were created here.
Russia’s sortie on to the vast expanse of Black Sea significantly strengthened the international position of the Orthodox Empire. However, old Europe was watching the growth of its power with envious eyes. It always took advantage of any opportunity to weaken Russia’s position in Crimea, blowing political dissension up into bloody war. The blockade and merciless bombardment of Sebastopol in the years 1855-1856 are an instructive example.
The cost of the victories in the Crimea
We must not forget the terrible price of our victories in Crimea. During the 18th century, the Russian army, during the Russo-Turkish wars, lost a total of over 250,000 men, including those killed outright, and those who died of injury and illness.
Russia, in the 19th century, was obliged to wage four large-scale wars to retain and expand its possessions in the northern Black Sea coastal zone. According to specialists, Russia’s losses were no less than 450,000 men.
About 600,000 more people perished in the defence and liberation of the peninsula during the Second World War. No accurate information is yet available on the casualties of the civil war during the revolutionary period at the start of the 20th century. In any event, the overall losses sustained in wars for the Crimea are of the order of 1.5 million people.
There is a major monument to Russian military glory in Sevastopol – the Brotherhood Cemetery. It combines the graves of the first defence of the city and of the defenders of 1941 and 1942, as well as of the sailors from the battleship «Novorossiya», and the nuclear submarines «Komsomolets» and «Kursk». Here, in mass and personal graves, lie up to 50,000 warriors, which, as we have seen, is only a fraction of the cost in human life.
The revolution turned into a social catastrophe and a terrible tragedy for the peninsula. In November 1920 alone, over 145,000 Russian refugees fled the Crimea by sea. During the Red Terror, the widespread hunger, the liquidation of the kulaks, persecution of the Cossacks and other repressions, hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. Many places of worship were closed and destroyed, while the monasteries were converted into labour communes and stores. The estates of the aristocracy and of the rich were looted, and, if they were lucky, converted into public spas or recreation centres. However, thanks to the bravery of museum staff, some of the art treasures and libraries were saved and preserved.
The Soviet government’s foreign policy in substance brought about the so-called «localisation» of the Tartars and Ukrainians living on the peninsula. Russians were temporarily in the minority. An attempt was made to create a Jewish Republic in Crimea. However, the attempts to wrest the former Taurian province from Russia ended in failure. In Stalin’s time, the Russian portion of the peninsula’s population began again to grow. Whereas in 1927 our compatriots made up 42% of Crimea’s population, in 1959 this figure had grown to 71.4%, and, by 2003, 79%. True enough, we should bear in mind that the deportation of persons of non-Slavonic origin between 1941 and 1944 no doubt had an effect on the sharp change in the statistical data. Also, many holders of Russian passports were Ukrainian by origin.
The Russians were always the most educated section of Crimea’s population. Even in the days of Khrushchev’s recklessness, we were bringing spiritual and temporal enlightenment to other peoples. By the start of the 21st century, there were over 400 doctors habilitati, more than 2000 doctors, and more than 12,000 highly qualified specialists active in the fields of research and education.
In the post-Soviet period, after long years of atheism and terror, the Christian faith began to re-vitalise the sacred land of Taurian Chersonese. The Orthodox cross began to shine with new glory over the Crimea, and the light of Christ enlightened us sinners, so that we might understand God’s Plan and lovingly carry it out.
Ancient places of worship have been restored and new ones opened. Orthodox communities and brotherhoods are being created, and ecclesiastical newspapers and journals are being published. The awakening of an Orthodox and Slavonic movement has inspired the hope that the Russian Crimea will rise again under the flag of the apostle Andrew the First Called, which will bring together Christian, patriotic and naval traditions.
The short-lived Ukrainisation of Crimea has not outwardly changed the familiar flow of religious, scientific, cultural and leisure and tourism aspects of life on the peninsula. It has but little effect on the peninsula’s economy. However, from a military and political point of view, Ukrainisation was a destructive process. Crimea, at the transition from the 20th to the 21st century, became an area of instability, the fault line in Eurasia’s defensive alliance.
It will not be easy for Russia to develop under conditions of permanent aggression from the West, and its economic and political blockade. The West, however, is not the whole world. There is always the East, ancient, wise and powerful. There are the economically developed countries of Asia and other regions, with which Russia has strengthened its relations through such international structures as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the deliberative bodies of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the Republic of South Africa), et cetera. Nor is our country a tiny state, it is a vigorous power, which has entered the 21st century with confidence.
A new stage in Russia’s destiny
From a geopolitical point of view, 2014 saw the beginning of a new turn in the process of integrating the Russian regions. This is being complicated by Ukrainian nationalists, who keep ‘throwing spanners in the works’, by using ideological propaganda, and economic and political levers. In essence, Kiev is organising an all-out blockade of the peninsula. This cannot fail to cause problems of another sort. However, they are all temporary. All misapprehensions and technical difficulties can be sorted out as they arise, while the strategy of developing a Russian Crimea inspires hope for a better future.
Despite the aspersions of the opponents of the reunification, the critics and the eternal complainers, the peninsula has begun to develop much more dynamically than before. This is reflected in radical economic and social reforms for the good of its citizens, the complete refurbishment of many buildings, the building of new roads, and the modernisation of education and the health service.
As we can see, much progress has been possible despite all the blockades and sanctions. Even Western researchers recognise that life in Crimea is, on the whole, much better and more stable than in Ukraine. And, when the Kerch Bridge opens, things will be easier.
Besides, the peninsula’s development should be considered in the light of events in the south- eastern regions of Ukraine, the past and present Novorossiya. The Northern Tauria has always had close ties to Crimea, while Donbas was, and still is, the most important industrial and energy centre in the southern region.
The Russian Spring drew universal attention to the Crimea, which triggered new research into the blessed land. Books by A. Shirokorad, O. Greig, M. Korsun, A. Prokhanov, N. Starikov and other authors have been published. Previous scientific experience has been collected in the «The History of Crimea» monograph, brought out on the initiative of the Russian military history society.
The National Committee for preservation the Republic of Crimea’s cultural heritage is hard at work under the supervision of military historian V. Zarubin, who co-ordinates his activity with the local government, cultural and social organisations, as well as with the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, which specialises in the very same subject. A list of facilities requiring additional attention and funding has been drawn up, on the basis of which the appropriate requisitions have been made.
Vladimir Putin, who is constantly monitoring the course of events on the peninsula, has pointed out that separate funds are being allocated from the national budget not only for the construction of the Kerch Bridge, roads and power lines, but also for the restoration of monuments. «Crimea’s cultural objects are the heritage of all Russia, which has been accumulated over centuries, including Aivazovski, and Chekhov, and Kuprin, the flower of Russian culture, on whose works we have been educated for generations, and on which our children and grandchildren will also be educated», states our President.
In this connection, it is fitting to recall that, in June 2016, the monument to Catherine the Great, destroyed in Soviet times, was triumphantly re-erected in Simferopol to mark Navy Day. The sculptors are Aleksandr Chekunov and Dmitri Startsev.
A monument to General Vrangel’ was unveiled in September 2016 in Kerch, at the church of the apostle Andrew the First-called. It was created to the design of sculptor Andrew Klykov, the son and successor of outstanding sculptor and public figure Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Klykov. At a time when Crimeans, busy restoring their economy, infrastructure and cultural heritage, appealed for help to the government of fraternal Russia, the Ukrainians stepped up their informational counter-measures and received tangible assistance from the USA. More than 100 nationalistically inclined journalists and their electronic resources, such as «Crimea. The realities», «The Island», «Hromadske TV») received grants from the Soros Fund amounting to 500,000 dollars, which meant that the flow of ideological propaganda from Kiev intensified.
To sum up generally the research we have conducted over many years, the following may be confidently asserted. There was no annexation in 2014. Holy Rus’, Orthodox Muscovy, the Russian Empire, and the USSR all had close ties with Tauride over many centuries. After the illegal, short-lived isolation of our compatriots from their Motherland, they went back home as soon as a real chance resented itself. The natural, completely lawful, long-awaited re-unification of a single nation took place, on the basis of a legal referendum. This was the restoration of historical justice, the triumph of Truth and Orthodoxy. A new chapter opened in the Destiny of the Russian people, a new stage of ethnic and religious re-birth. Hail the heroes! Eternal remembrance to the holy martyrs and innocent victims!
Pavel Vladimirovich Tulaev, Professor,
International Slavonic Institute, Moscow (Russia)
Moreover, Dugin himself drew inspiration from de Benoist’s version of the New Right when he wrote his introduction to Conservative Revolution in a monograph of the same title back in 1994. As a result, the residents of the post-Soviet countries who had no access to the original sources since the very beginning perceived “failed” Conservative Revolution (the 3PT) as a prelude to the pro-Soviet “Young Europe” of Jean Thiriart, the French New Right of Alain de Benoist and Eurasianism as such that don’t repeat the “anti-Soviet” mistake of their predecessors. Thus Dugin singles out one of the conservative-revolutionary trends, the National Bolshevik, which favors the Soviet Union, more precisely, the National Bolshevik group led by Ernst Niekisch within the classic national-revolutionary direction and portrays it as the only relevant one.
Belgian right-wing writer and politician Robert Steuckers who advocates his own version of Eurasianism and welcomed the National Bolshevik shift in the French New Right as a way to overcome “petty conservatism” and “alternative liberalism” at the same time severely criticized de Benoist’s opportunism and fear of being labeled a far right extremist, according to his subjective experience of collaboration with the French “Guru” and his followers. Probable ideological rivalry and Steuckers’ own pro-Russian position aside, he shares an opinion that the attempts to bury the conservative-revolutionary authorities by some new rightists are a bit hasty, which proves his story about de Benoist’s admirer Toto-Lapin (“…he shouted in the middle of the pub, next to the astonished other guests, “Alain de Benoist is the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century!”. “Maybe” answered Bresnu ironically, “but what about Heidegger then…?”. Toto-Lapin: “He has only paved the way for Alain de Benoist…”. We both burst out laughing…”) [3]. It’s doubtful that de Benoist himself, who was very fond of Heidegger, would make similar arrogant statements, the same as Dugin, but looks like both of them cast out colleagues whose views are somehow different, which also follows from my experience of communication with Eurasianists.
Such godfathers of Conservative Revolution as Ernst Jünger and Julius Evola did not abandon the Third Way in their post-war writings, which, in all fairness, may be estimated as the documents of a firm refusal from geopolitical reductionism that is a diagnosis and a sacred mantra of the vast majority of “experts” on the Ukrainian crisis; above all, it concerns their polemic on the East-West problem and its treatment in Jünger’s essay “The Gordian Knot.” It’s enough to read a concluding chapter of Evola’s classic “Revolt Against the Modern World,” in which he discusses the cultural and civilizational foundations of America and Russia as the two sides of the same coin, or his article “Presuppositions of the European Union,” in which Evola clearly explains not only his “third” geopolitical ideal, but the very condition on which building a genuine European union is possible: equal remoteness from Russia and the USA, “both “East” and “West,” that is to say from the two blocs which, like the arms of a single pair of pincers, are closing themselves around us” [7], to guess what would be his reaction to the 4PT. Ernst Jünger, who viewed experience of the USSR and the socialist camp in general as the brightest confirmation of his metaphysical theory of the Worker that mobilizes the world by means of technology, at the same time was far from embracing its cultural, social and political practice, thus disagreeing and polemicizing with pro-Soviet Ernst Niekisch. The same as in Evola’s case, namely metaphysics and culture were a reason for Jünger’s choice in favor of the third geopolitical way as stated in his treatise “Peace”: “With the destruction of our towns, Goethe's saying has ceased to apply to this extent, that America now possesses the tradition of construction which we require. Napoleon prophesied that in our day the world would become republican or Cossack. If he had foreseen our situation in detail he would have said “American or Russian,” as Tocqueville, too, long ago foretold. Although America, like Russia, will exert a powerful influence on Europe, neither of these two possibilities will be realized. Against them is the immense gravitational force of history, the treasure of old heritage, which has not only been formed by the spirit or art but still lives in men” [8]. Therefore, the geopolitical fetishism, according to which “there is only the geopolitical truth” and the proponents of which dismiss the struggle of Ukrainian patriots as unimportant due to the partial coincidence of their and Western interests, should be considered as alien to the traditionalist worldview. Armin Mohler, a legendary author of the classic research “Conservative Revolution in Germany, 1918-1932” and an original founder of the New Right, considered Americans more German friendly than Frenchmen and Englishmen and admitted that he was not that anti-American in this respect as de Benoist [9]. 
As an ideologist of Euro-Siberia, later the Euro-Siberian Empire, Faye owes his fame to different aspects of his theory, for in his highly acclaimed book “Archeofuturism” he displayed quite approximate, if not fantastic, knowledge of Russia. A logical summary of Faye’s visits to Russia has become his pamphlet “Frenchman’s View on Russia” (2012), which was not the climax of his fascination with the Russian genius, though: the titles of his recent thematic texts like “Viva Putin!” say it all. Given that, it’s no wonder that Faye calls hypocritical only American condemnation of violating the international law by Russia, but does not find outrageous the fact that the country that annexed Crimea not only was obliged to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for its renouncing the nuclear weapons according to the Budapest memorandum, but even dared to threaten Ukraine with a nuclear strike. Moreover, he believes that Russia’s response to the Western “aggression” was moderate and that Putin follows the rules, as opposed to the USA. Though little is expected from the right-wing idol who traces back the statist history of Ukraine from its membership in the USSR, considers Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union purely nominal and believes that this “half-Russian” country would sooner or later “break up” itself [12], which is quite laughable, taking into account a current size of “Novorussia” thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian military and active help of the “Russian” cities’ residents like Kharkiv, Odessa and Mariupol. 
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that eventually waged a guerilla war on two fronts, that is both against the Soviet Union and the Third Reich that didn’t hurry to grant independence to the Ukrainian state and imprisoned Stepan Bandera, also confirms this geopolitical rule. The OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and the UPA occupy the central place in the Kremlin’s propagandistic machine that for some unknown reason associates invasion of the Third Reich with the current Euro-Atlanticist “expansion” within the living space of Russia, that is Ukrainian eurointegration negotiations. Further, Western Ukrainian non-Orthodox Greek-Catholics and “Nazis” who once sided with Adolf Hitler and now made a choice in favor of the EU, according to the Kremlin, somehow have managed to overthrow the pro-Russian regime of Victor Yanukovych in Kiev (with the help of the American money) during the Maidan revolution and imposed their “anti-Russian” ideology on the rest of “confused compatriots” who owe everything to Russia. 
Echoes of the anti-UPA Soviet propaganda may be also found in the account of the Ukrainian events by French leftist philosopher Alain Badiou [13] who considers Ukrainian Orthodox church the most reactionary in the world (“a megalomaniac center of Imperial Orthodoxy”), calls the army of General Vlasov, who turned against the Bolsheviks and founded Russian Liberation Army, a “Ukrainian army” and accuses Ukrainian “Nazi collaborators” of “turning entire villages to blood and fire, including French ones”; not a single word is said about the NKVD crimes, which shows quite well the propagandistic continuity of the new and classic Left and raises a question of whether the authors of New Right, who condemn Ukrainian “ultra-nationalistic” threat and silence the neo-Bolshevik imperialism, are really right-wing. At the same time Badiou draws partially correct parallels between the events in Egypt, Turkey and Ukraine (“
Stereotypical assertions about Crimea that “has always been Russian” or “a Russian territory for at least four centuries populated mainly by Russian populations,” as de Benoist contends, also stand no chance. Crimea was united with the rest of modern Ukrainian territories back in IV century within the Gothic Empire, has always been inhabited by various nationalities and remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire much longer than the Russian. Besides, namely Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks, who for centuries protected the rest of Europe from the Tatar and Turkish invasion, helped Russian empress Catherine II to conquer Crimea, which ended with destruction of Zaporozhian Sich in 1775 by her order. Only after several waves of resettlement, during which Russians immigrated to Crimea, and deportation of Crimean Tatars, who were a dominant ethnic group in Crimea, by Stalin in 1944, Russians have become the majority of Crimean population. To sum up, Crimea was under the reign of the Russian Empire (134 years) and Russian Soviet Republic (34 years), taken together, maximum for two centuries. Moreover, precisely the lands of Ukrainian Cossacks, which were mentioned in all international treaties as a territory of “Zaporozhian Lower Cossack Host,” have become the core of the “New Russia” after the Küçük Kaynarca peace treaty of 1774 and the destruction of the Sich in 1775 during the Russo-Turkish wars. 
Thus Ukrainian nationalists, traditionalists and patriots realize that we deal with competition of the two poles of globalism that spring from the same root and justify themselves through reference to different mythologies. Authentic Ukrainian analogue of the European conception of Mitteleuropa is the project of Baltic-Black Sea Alliance (Union, Unia) that was developed, above all, by Ukrainian geopolitician Yury Lypa, the author of “The Black Sea Doctrine” and other works. One of the main Lypa’s ideas was rejection of the alien and destructive for Ukraine “East-West” dilemma (between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, West and Russia, liberalism and despotism, etc. that make Ukrainians look as a product of mix, say, between Poles and Russians) in favor of the traditional and natural for Ukraine orientation “North-East.” Lypa highly estimates both Germanic and Southern factors in Ukrainian history: for example, from the north came Goths and Normans (Vikings) who played an important political and state-building role, the south has always been the direction of Ukrainian cultural, military and trade expansion. The Baltic-Black Sea alliance as the third geopolitical way is partially connected with the Euro-Atlanticist integration, since some Eastern European and Baltic countries are members of the EU and NATO, but it aims at building of a sovereign geopolitical bloc which, apart from Eastern European and Baltic, could also include Scandinavian countries, as well as European part of Russia. It may become a starting point for the great European Reconquista which is heralded at present by the “Azov” regiment. The authoritative figures of the Right who produce the pro-Kremlin overviews of the events in Ukraine won’t change history and the logic of the struggle for the Ukrainian statehood and will only understand less and less in the Ukrainian developments along with their misguided readers. 
