Poveștile alegerii civilizaționale între Vest și Est în contextul războiului din Ucraina ascund prăbușirea societății bulgare contemporane
Ognian Kasabov, profesor de filosofie la Universitatea din Sofia
Acest articol a fost publicat pe site-ul organizației bulgare KOI (Colectivul pentru Intervenții Sociale) și reprezintă o încercare de a gândi critic și echilibrat despre ceea ce intelectualul italian Roberto Savio a numit ”suiciderea rațiunii”.
Războiul, se spune în presă, nu este un moment pentru nuanțe, ci pentru a lua poziție. Agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei continuă să exacerbeze atitudinile din întreaga lume. Liniile de demarcație se înăspresc. Lucruri care până de curând păreau doar o opțiune, și încă una extremă, încep să pară singura opțiune. Podurile se ard, îndârjirea crește.
Cu toate acestea, contururile specifice pe care le ia polarizarea din Bulgaria nu vorbește doar despre un blocaj politic. Pasiunile născute de evenimentele legate de monumentul celui de-al treilea front ucrainean din Sofia sunt doar un moment într-un crescendo neîncetat de bufonerie (e vorbă de un fel de război între două tabere – una antirusă care dorește să vopsească sau ”să atace” monumentul armatei sovietice, și una prorusă care apără monumentul de atacatori – nota trăducătorului). De luni de zile suntem asaltați cu informații cu privire la „alegerea noastră civilizațională” de a face parte din Europa sau, dimpotrivă, cu privire la legătura de nezdruncinat dintre Bulgaria și Rusia.
Societatea noastră este implicată într-o criză de identitate, problematică nu numai pentru incoerența sa intelectuală și istorică, ci cel puțin la fel de mult pentru pericolul de a adânci tarele care ne distrug țara.
Eduard Chmelár comments on Sweden’s decision to join NATO and stop being a neutral state after two hundred years.
Comment by Eduard Chmelár
This article was published on 16 May 2022 at the Czech media !Argument.
Overrunning Ukraine was the biggest political, military and strategic mistake of Vladimir Putin’s career. The world peace movement will never forgive him for literally resurrecting the North Atlantic Alliance, which was already in a state of clinical death, even in the words of French President Emmanuel Macron, and making it relevant again. He has thus put the brakes on the search for a new security architecture for the 21st century for a long, long time.
The creation of this architecture, despite the fierce opposition of the NATO supporters, is inevitable, only it will now take longer, more complicated and probably more tragic. For NATO’s militarist philosophy does not match the needs and threats facing the planet. In the panic that followed the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Putin prolonged the life of the North Atlantic Alliance and gave the militarists of all countries the best alibis for their perverse actions. This is to say nothing of the way in which he screwed Serbia by asking the West to recognise an independent Donbass in exchange for recognition of Kosovo, which is rightly felt in Belgrade as a betrayal.
Finland and Sweden’s application to join NATO also fits into this general hysteria. Although the two countries are presented in the media as twins in this process, their motives are different.
Thank you @POTUS Biden for your support. Our ties are stronger than ever. Together, we protect democracy and build security. Sweden is best protected in NATO and the Alliance will be stronger with Sweden and Finland. pic.twitter.com/7GBPXMFAMZ
Finland has a border with Russia of over 1 300 kilometres and complicated historical relations. It was conquered by Tsar Alexander I of Russia in 1809 and lost its independence for over a century. When Finland declared independence after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin immediately recognised it, but it was attacked twice by Stalin during the Second World War and had to give up ten per cent of its territory. The Finns were effectively forced into neutrality, notably by the 1948 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union, which cut them off militarily from Europe.
Sweden’s policy of neutrality has been historically successful
It is a different story with Sweden. Sweden has been neutral since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814, making it not only the oldest neutral country in the world, but also the country with the longest-lasting peace in human history. It is a proven fact that Sweden has kept the peace precisely because of its neutrality, which the NATO propagandists constantly try to question and falsify. They point, in particular, to the specific Belgian case and claim that neutrality does not actually work. This is a deliberate misrepresentation; the Swedish experience is quite different.
Finally, the rhetoric of the two brotherly states is also different – while the Finnish President explicitly stated in his conversation with Putin that his homeland is joining NATO for his sake, the Swedish Prime Minister, on the contrary, assures that it is not for Russia’s sake. So what is it because of?
To join NATO is to abandon the legacy of Olof Palme
Another important argument against Sweden joining NATO is its long-standing strong commitment against nuclear weapons, which is a fundamental pillar of Swedish foreign policy. However, NATO is a nuclear alliance and to join it is to accept its nuclear weapons doctrine. That is why the former Minister for Development Aid, Pierre Schori, recalled the message of the assassinated Prime Minister Olof Palme, who, forty years ago, warned against considering joining NATO, saying that ‘the nuclear-armed states will always hold us hostage’.
Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden between 1969 and 1976 and again between 1982 and 1986. Source.
It was the Swedish Social Democrats who, during forty years of uninterrupted rule, promoted and maintained a policy of ‘middle ground’ between the rival superpowers, the USA and the USSR.
The world is losing its balance.
Today, Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde naively thinks that Sweden’s NATO membership “will have a dampening effect on conflicts in Europe.” The opposite is true. I have written before that NATO expansion is something of a pyramid game from a security point of view, and all the great geopolitical strategists from George Kennan to Henry Kissinger have warned of the risks in this sense. In vain. Today we are reaping the consequences of this disastrous policy.
Pope Francis also warned that the real cause of this war was the expansion of NATO – and it is interesting that he has since been ignored by the major American media, and all the politicians who falsely claimed to be behind him no longer claim to be behind him. And yet we have imposed yet more North Atlantic Alliance, yet more armaments and yet more militarism on a sick planet. That is why I would argue that in Ukraine we have all earned ourselves a much bigger problem than it seems – a problem that will not end in victory for one side or the other, that we are still not solving, and that, in hindsight, we will judge that the Ukrainian war was only the beginning. The Sarajevo of the 21st century.
I am afraid that the Swedes themselves are unable to understand the consequences of such a policy today. They are acting impulsively, even if logically from their point of view. A recovery from this euphoria is inevitable. The Swedes will find this out the moment they are locked into a military alliance with Turkey and the US, which have diametrically different foreign policy objectives to Stockholm and with which they will have to undertake operations that Sweden will not agree to. Just remember how Stockholm protested when NATO took control of the international ISAF forces occupying Afghanistan in 2003.
The Swedes will get a second icy shower the moment they realise that Brussels will force them to increase their low military spending by a hundred per cent and that they will have no money to fund their generous social programmes.
After all, the Swedes themselves are not very enthusiastic about joining NATO. Many take it to mean that they have no choice, if that is what they decided in Helsinki, because they are militarily tied to Finland. Yes, the North Atlantic Alliance will be stronger and more confident militarily with Finland and Sweden, but that should not satisfy us, because there will not be fewer wars, but more. The world is losing its equilibrium, and that means that the current solution is temporary and conflict with the Eastern powers is inevitable.
I am therefore afraid that the Nordic countries have contributed, by this action, to a more or less illusory sense of their own security, but not to world peace.
Cover photo: Sweden and Finland representatives welcome in Washington, where they came to discuss their NATO application. Source: Office of the Vice-President of the US.
Criza actuală nu mai este o spirală a dilemei de securitate, ci un “vortex” care atrage pe toată lumea și totul, fără posibilitatea de a gândi ceva în mod substanțial șicu calm. În acest nou (și, sperăm, rece) război fără „gentelmeni”, fără oameni de stat cu o viziune de viitor și idei noi și fără reguli clare, Finlanda – o țară până acum neutră, se va transforma acum într-un alt stat-tampon de partea Statelor Unite în Europa de Est
Veronika Susova-Salminen
Acest articola fost publicat la 17 mai 2022 pe site-ul ceh Argument.
Finlanda se îndreaptă, fără prea multe surprize, spre aderarea la Organizația Tratatului Atlanticului de Nord. Săptămâna trecută, atât președintele Sauli Niinistö, cât și prim-ministrul Sanna Marin (SDP) au susținut cererea de aderare la NATO, în timp ce majoritatea facțiunilor politice din parlament, inclusiv stânga radicală, au fost, de asemenea, favorabile. Aderarea la NATO se bucură acum de un sprijin record din punct de vedere istoric din partea publicului finlandez, ceea ce a facilitat decizia politică actuală și campania pro-atlantică. Dezbaterea internă, încadrată de războiul din Ucraina, a fost intensă, emoțională și scurtă: duminică, 15 mai, președintele Niinistö a anunțat oficial cererea de aderare la NATO, iar acum rămâne să fie confirmată de parlament. O țară cu o tradiție relativ îndelungată de neutralitate și cu o lungă frontieră terestră cu Rusia și-a reevaluat astfel strategia de securitate în doar câteva luni și a reacționat “fulgerător” la războiul dintre Rusia și Ucraina.
Obecny kryzys nie jest już spiralą dylematów bezpieczeństwa, lecz wirem, który wciąga wszystkich i wszystko – bez możliwości merytorycznego i spokojnego przemyślenia czegokolwiek. W tej nowej (miejmy nadzieję – zimnej) wojnie bez dżentelmenów, bez mężów stanu patrzących w przyszłość, bez nowych pomysłów i bez jasnych zasad Finlandia – wcześniej kraj neutralny – stanie się kolejnym państwem buforowym w Europie Wschodniej, stojącym po stronie Stanów Zjednoczonych.
Nie jest zaskoczeniem, że Finlandia zmierza w kierunku członkostwa w Organizacji Traktatu Północnoatlantyckiego. W zeszłym tygodniu zarówno prezydent Sauli Niinistö, jak i premier Sanna Marin (SDP) poparli wniosek o członkostwo w NATO, a większość frakcji politycznych w parlamencie, w tym radykalna lewica, również była za.
The current crisis is no longer a spiral of security dilemma, it is a “vortex” that draws everyone and everything in without the possibility of thinking anything through in a substantive and calm manner. In this new (hopefully cold) war without gentlemen, without statesmen with a view to the future and new ideas and without clear rules, Finland – a previously neutral country, will now turn into another buffer state in Eastern Europe on the side of the United States.
Finland is unsurprisingly moving towards membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Last week, both President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP) supported the NATO application, while most political factions in parliament, including the radical left, were also in favour.
It’s the XXI century, we have most crucial things to achieve together – but we cannot even discuss the war crisis we are in now. How can we work on much more complex issues, if some of us do not even want to have a real debate? How are we presenting ourselves in the eyes of decision-making elites? Are they more vigilant now, aware that a social-oriented left can pose a challenge to them – or relaxed seeing this farce of unity and discussion?
Comment by Wojciech Łobodziński
Position of the Polish, more broadly speaking, Central-European left-wing forces on the conflict in Ukraine for some might be uncanny. It is not easy for Western left-wing activists to watch the enthusiasm for NATO and to hear calls for more arms for Ukraine -yet, knowing the history of the region allows to understand the background of such a position. And the war, with its chaos and constantly developing events, is not making the debate easier.
In fact, the debate is hardly taking place. And I need to say that: there are also some limits after which disapproval becomes censorship, provoking hatred between international comrades. Needless to say, this is absolutely counter-productive: if we do not discuss issues from our diverse viewpoints, how can we work together for a better world?
Příběhy civilizační volby mezi Západem a Východem skrývají rozpad současné bulharské společnosti.
Ognian Kasabov
Tento článek byl zveřejněn na webových stránkách bulharské organizace KOI (Kolektiv pro společenské intervence) a je pokusem o kritické a vyvážené zamyšlení nad tím, co italský intelektuál Roberto Savio nazval „sebevraždou rozumu“.
Média tvrdí, že válka není časem pro nuance, ale pro zaujímání postojů. Ruská agrese proti Ukrajině nadále vyhrocuje postoje po celém světě. Hranice se přitvrzují. Věci, které se donedávna zdály být jen možností, a to ještě krajní, začínají vypadat jako jediná možnost. Mosty hoří, odhodlání roste.
Konkrétní obrysy polarizace v Bulharsku však hovoří pouze o politické patové situaci. Vášně kolem pomníku Třetího ukrajinského frontu v Sofii jsou jen pasáží v neúprosném crescendu šaškáren (hovoří se o jakési válce dvou táborů – protiruského, který chce pomník sovětské armády pomalovat či „napadnout“, a proruského, který pomník před útočníky brání – pozn. překladatele). Již několik měsíců jsme ohlušováni tím, že jsme se „civilizačně rozhodli“ být součástí Evropy, nebo naopak tím, že mezi Bulharskem a Ruskem existuje nerozborné pouto.
Naše společnost je zapletena do střetu identit, problematického nejen pro svou intelektuální a historickou nesoudržnost, ale přinejmenším také kvůli nebezpečí prohloubení nemocí, které ničí naši zemi.
La o sută de ani de la Primul Război Mondial, liderii Europei se îndreaptă, somnambuli, spre un nou război total. Ca și în 1914, ei cred că războiul din Ucraina va fi limitat și de scurtă durată. În 1914, în cancelariile Europei se spunea că războiul va dura trei săptămâni. Acesta a durat patru ani și s-a soldat cu peste 20 de milioane de morți. La fel ca în 1918, opinia dominantă astăzi susține că este necesar să se aplice o pedeapsă exemplară agresorului, pentru a-l lăsa frânt și umilit pentru o lungă perioadă de timp. În 1918, puterea învinsă a fost Germania (și Imperiul Otoman). Au existat voci disidente (John Maynard Keynes și alți câțiva) pentru care umilirea completă a Germaniei ar fi fost dezastruoasă în ceea ce privește reconstrucția Europei și o pace durabilă pe continent și în lume. Avertismentele lor nu au fost luate în seamă, iar douăzeci și unu de ani mai târziu Europa era din nou în război. Au urmat cinci ani de distrugeri care au provocat moartea a peste 70 de milioane de oameni. Istoria nu se repetă și nici nu pare să ne învețe ceva, dar ilustrează și evidențiază asemănările și diferențele. Permiteți-mi să vă ofer două exemple.
Сто години след Първата световна война лидерите на Европа върват насън към нова, тотална война. Както и през 1914 г., те вярват, че войната в Украйна ще бъде ограничена и краткотрайна. През 1914 г. в европейските канцеларии се говори, че войната ще продължи три седмици. Тя продължи четири години и доведе до смъртта на повече от 20 милиона души. Както и през 1918 г., днес преобладава мнението, че е необходимо да се наложи наказание на агресора с цел превъзпитание, за да остане той сломен и унизен за дълго време. През 1918 г. победената сила е Германия (и Османската империя). Имаше и несъгласни (Джон Мейнард Кейнс и няколко други), според които пълното унижение на Германия би било катастрофално от гледна точка на възстановяването на Европа и на трайния мир на континента и в света. Предупрежденията им не бяха чути и двадесет и една години по-късно Европа отново влезе във война. Последваха пет години на разрушения, в които загинаха повече от 70 милиона души. Историята не се повтаря по един и същ начин, но изглежда и че ни учи на нещо. Тя илюстрира и подчертава приликите и разликите. Позволете ми да предложа две илюстрации.
One hundred years after World War I, Europe’s leaders are sleepwalking toward a new, all-out war. As in 1914, they believe that the war in Ukraine will be limited and short-lived. In 1914, the word in Europe’s chancelleries was that the war would last three weeks. It lasted four years and resulted in more than 20 million deaths. As was the case in 1918, the dominant view today holds that it is necessary to inflict exemplary punishment on the aggressor, so as to leave it broken and humbled for a long time. In 1918, the defeated power was Germany (and the Ottoman Empire). There were dissenting voices (John Maynard Keynes and a few others) for whom the complete humbling of Germany would be disastrous in terms of the reconstruction of Europe and of a lasting peace on the continent and in the world. Their warnings were not heeded, and twenty-one years later Europe was again at war. There followed five years of destruction that left more than 70 million people dead. History does not repeat itself, nor does it seem to teach us anything, but it does illustrate and highlight similarities and differences. Let me offer two illustrations.
Cross-border Talks 
_Felipe_Gonz%C3%A1lez_ofrece_una_rueda_de_prensa_junto_al_primer_ministro_de_Suecia._Pool_Moncloa._28_de_septiembre_de_1984_(cropped).jpeg){kind=link}