Narochnitskaya Natalia Alekseevna contacts. Narochnitskaya Natalia Alekseevna

About the confrontation between empires, imperial consciousness, about why Europe and America are still trying to do something to us, a conversation with the President of the Historical Perspective Foundation, Doctor of Historical Sciences Natalya Alekseevna Narochnitskaya.

- Natalya Alekseevna! At one time it was customary for us to think that the world did not like us because of our Soviet past. Despite the fact that no one, anywhere, ever in the past decades, called us “Soviet”, they called us precisely Russian. "Russians are coming!". That is, the reason for the hostility turned out to be national. But Russia has never been an invader country, an aggressor country. It has always been a huge, calm mainland empire, in contrast to the truly aggressive insular and colonial England, which, living on its tiny islands, captured half the world and, as Kipling proudly defined the intentions of his Empire: “We will throw a rope (take it!) Around the whole planet ( with a loop to engulf the world), Around the entire planet (with knots to tighten the world)!” Reading Kipling, you suddenly discover that one of the main enemies of Britain has always been Russia, and not only Britain: “The Japanese, the British from afar grabbed the Bear’s sides, There are many of them, but more impudent than others is the thieving Yankee hand.” That is, already then, at the end of the 19th century, the energy and intentions of England to pinch the Russian Bear were adopted by the American States.

- The topic is old! Do you think only monarchies, court historians and singers of Western empires did not love Russia? The champions of Russophobia were the classics of Marxism, Marx and Engels! In the USSR, where there was even a whole Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute under the Central Committee of the CPSU, where “Talmudists” analyzed their every word, the complete collection of works of these ideological teachers of ours was never published! There was just a multi-volume “collected works”. Yes, because some of the works contain such contempt and hatred for Russia! Marx and Engels considered it the main obstacle to the implementation of their plans. Disdain for the Slavs and fear of their unification were always openly manifested by Engels, who was greatly concerned about the fate of the German “Großraum” in the event of the liberation of the Slavs. In his work “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany” (1852), Engels paints a terrible picture - it turns out that “civilized nations” are threatened by the possibility of uniting all Slavs who might dare to “push back or destroy uninvited guests... Turks, Hungarians, and, above all, the hated Germans.” Engels also owns the myth of the notorious “Pan-Slavism”, with which he persistently intimidated:

“This is an absurd, ahistorical movement, which has set itself the goal of nothing more nor less than to subordinate the civilized West to the barbarian East, the city to the countryside, trade, industry, spiritual culture to the primitive agriculture of the Slavic serfs,” And then the classic shouts: “Behind this absurd The theory was based on a formidable reality in the person of the Russian Empire... in every step of which one discovers a claim to consider the whole of Europe as the property of the Slavic tribe”... . And the thinking and policy of Nicholas I himself, who sacredly observed the principle of legitimism and the Vienna System of 1815, especially his Chancellor K.V. Nesselrode, who most of all valued mutual understanding with the Austrian Minister Prince Metternich, were so far from these imaginary goals! Russia not only had nothing to do with the Slavic congress in Prague, but on the contrary was extremely concerned that such an impression might arise in Vienna, and the only Russian at this congress was Mikhail Bakunin, who later ended up in the Peter and Paul Fortress...

In one of the volumes published here, Engels, polemicizing with Bakunin, simply snaps in response to Bakunin’s call to “extend a hand to all the nations of Europe, even to the former oppressors” - stop! After all, the Slavs are counter-revolutionary nations, the Slavs are “insignificant trash of history, they were only forcibly pulled up to the very first stage of civilization thanks to a foreign yoke.” Therefore, one should not be surprised by the Russophobia of the Western press; the problem was born a long time ago. Both court historians and Marxists equally disliked Russia, were afraid of it, and this can be easily seen by reading the works of scientists of the 19th century, and not only scientists - here you go, the British poet Lord Tennyson, the idol of British salons during the Crimean War, an aristocrat, hated Russia with fierce hatred... By the way, it was found that the main source of Marx's judgments about Russia were the articles of the captains of the British ships that besieged Sevastopol! Well, what else can you learn from enemy articles during the war!

— But foreign travelers in the 19th century told the world how terrible Russia was...

“An Italian historian has just written a book, analyzing the famous work of the Marquis de Custine about his journey through Russia during the time of Nicholas I. He proved that the entire concept of the book and all the rejection of Russia in it were laid down in the minds of the Marquis even before the trip, because nothing he actually saw could confirm what he had written. So, he even talks about severe frosts, in which, supposedly, only barbarians are able to live, although his trip was in the summer. It is clear that Custine initially viewed Russia as a hostile bastion of false faith. Both strong royal power and order are obviously rejected, because they serve the rejected purpose!!! Not like in Catholic Spain, where the Inquisition burned heretics alive.” There, Custine talks about a “sacred prison”! How can one not see behind this the eternal jealousy of Catholicism towards Byzantium, and then towards Russian Orthodoxy, which, to the horror of the Latin, acquired such powerful material and state forms in Russia that it cannot be moved. So Marx complains that it is not possible to push Russia back to the times of the Stolbovo Peace: “Europe, which barely knew about the existence of Muscovy, squeezed between the Tatars and Lithuanians, was suddenly surprised to discover on its eastern borders a huge empire stretching from the Bug to the Pacific Ocean.”

And Pushkin, who rarely lost anything Russian, having let everything European pass through him, notes with philosophical sadness: “The Mongols were afraid to go further to the West, leaving behind their bloodless Rus' and retreated to the steppes of their East. The nascent Enlightenment was saved by a dying Russia. But Europe has always been as ignorant as it is ungrateful towards Russia.” The attitude towards Russia has always been nervous.

- Why are they doing this to us?...

“Europe has always been confused by our “special status.” And we are too big to be ignored, and they can’t change us for themselves! And the mere presence of us, as an independent phenomenon of history, choosing our own path, even if we don’t bother them at all, our mere presence in the world does not allow anyone to control the world from one point. We survived after the 90s, and that’s it - the idea of ​​a “unipolar world” failed! These are the laws of large quantities - around a large quantity, like around a giant planet, there is always a zone of attraction, and this is a different world, an alternative, a choice. Here you go, they just put forward the idea of ​​a Eurasian space - what a fuss they made there! - a choice, already an alternative. There are so many races, religions, ways of living here! By the way, Russia itself is a smaller model of the whole world. As Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky wrote, even before the baptism of Rus', there was a whole international in the squad of the Kyiv prince, which distinguished the Russian state from Europe, which was following the path of creating mono-national and mono-confessional societies. Over the centuries, Russia has accumulated a unique experience of cohabitation and cooperation of peoples - each of them could pray to their own gods, but belonging to the whole was also an expensive value.

Rousseau's social contract, which is believed to underlie Western democracy, essentially means that the state is a collection of citizens united by a simple mark in their passport, entering into a contract with it. For the Russian consciousness, according to the teachings of Philaret of Moscow, the state, ideally, is a “family type” society, when the nation is one big family, and the authorities bear moral responsibility, thinking not only about the rational and correct, but also about the righteous and proper like a true biblical father.

And also our tendency not to accept anyone's teachings. Even when we borrow something from someone, we immediately process it beyond recognition, giving birth to something of our own. By the way, we did this with Marxism... Of course, he disfigured Russia, but what did Russia itself do with Marxism! Lenin and Trotsky would have turned over in their graves if they had seen the patriotism that remained in the country after 70 years of Soviet power. They argued: the proletariat has no fatherland...

Europe would like Russia not to have a historical initiative. So that it doesn’t just disappear, but serves their historical project. Both economically and intellectually. So that she listens to the voice of the so-called “world civilized community” - what is right and what is wrong! European and American “arbiters of the destinies of the world” have arrogated to themselves the right to set standards of behavior, not only within their countries, but also externally, to check themselves, make judgments themselves and punish themselves. Sort of Supreme Judges. 0But who appointed them? What kind of pride? Think about your sins, instead of looking for bitches in someone else's eyes. And in the 90s, our reckless elite, intoxicated by “new thinking,” simply, in a complete ideological intoxication, gave away our centuries-old acquisitions as gifts, and the world followed the completely “old” proven thinking and willingly took everything into its hands.

“I still can’t forgive Shevardnadze, who, just to “straighten the border,” took and marked out a gigantic territory for America—all our fishing areas in the Pacific Ocean. The Americans thought: he will demand Alaska in return, but he - take it, our country is rich, but there is no order...

— Yes, and all mutual obligations regarding the balance of conventional weapons in Europe, adopted shortly before perestroika, turned out to be one-sided: we fulfilled everything! And the other side didn’t move. In terms of weapons, at least... Therefore, they do not need Russia, as an independent player in world history.

“They tried to conquer us all the time in one way or another. But Bismarck, who felt completely confident in Europe (they say that when asked: “What will you do if the British army lands in Germany?” answered: “I’ll send a policeman to arrest her!”) - he did not advise anyone to interfere in Russia. But - Napoleon? He would have lived as the happiest emperor of all of Europe, of the entire Mediterranean, and no Waterloo would have happened... Why did he bother to go to Russia?

- Indeed, there are no rational explanations. The Mediterranean and half of Europe were not enough for him! Our great Russian political geographer Veniamin Semenov of Tien-Shansky wrote that the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the seas around which wars were fought throughout human history, because one could become the Master of the then world only by taking control of all its coasts. An example of the war between ancient Rome and Carthage and its great commander Hannibal. Only after Rome conquered North Africa did it become the Great Roman Empire. And Napoleon would have succeeded if he had not attacked Russia at the instigation of his longtime rival England. Napoleon decided that it was impossible to become Master of the World as long as huge Russia existed. But in the current view, there was no economic benefit in the campaign against Moscow. They didn’t know about oil back then. We were separated by thousands of kilometers of space without transport, making it meaningless to bring any goods, the climate for the resettlement of the French was disgusting and unattractive for them. And France was not overpopulated, it had a bunch of colonies. No, it was precisely the thirst for world domination, jealousy for the existence of a huge empire, that pushed him onto the adventure!

Well, England has always intrigued to remain on the sidelines until the last, while its continental rivals exterminate or weaken each other. And by. During the First World War, I have a clear idea, based on documents, that England in the Entente specifically did not undertake any obligations that would force it to immediately enter the war on the side of Russia. She was interested in depleting the two continental giants as much as possible, because the principle of British policy had always been to prevent any European power from gaining predominant weight - hence the thesis: “We have no permanent allies, we have permanent interests.”

For several centuries, she opposed France, which was her main rival, and only when Bismarck’s German Empire began to emerge and Middle, Central Europe appeared, suddenly the Russian ambassador Morenheim reported from Paris that in the event of a possible war, Britain would support France. They didn’t even believe this at first...

Britain has always been and remains our eternal geopolitical rival, which is very vigilant to ensure that someone does not gain great influence in the world; it itself has always fought not for its stomach, but for its interests. And America inherited this. And Russia almost always fought for its stomach. And after all, before the First World War, if you read the press 20 years before it, you might think that a brutal conflict was coming between Russia and England, and not at all with the Kaiser’s Germany! For in the fantasies of British geopoliticians, Russia, after acquiring Central Asia, was already directly preparing to cross the Pamirs with Cossack cavalry and encroach on Indian possessions!!! By the way, later, the Basmachi movement was sponsored by the British, who stimulated Turkey and Persia against Russia for several centuries, always disturbing the entire southern underbelly of Russia.

In the first quarter of the 19th century, the great diplomat Alexander Griboyedov concluded the Turkmanchay Treaty with Persia, which was very beneficial for Russia, after which Russia’s influence in Persia became immeasurably higher. In order to obtain consent to which of the crown princes would take the Persian throne, the vizier sat in the reception room of the Russian ambassador for two hours, waiting until he was received. But the first quarter of the 19th century was continuous Russian-Persian wars. And in the treaties between England and Persia there was always a clause: Iran undertakes to continue the war with Russia. Griboyedov was torn to pieces by Persian fanatics, and according to historians, a British trace can be traced in this local rebellion, and documents from this period in Britain are still closed, despite the multiple expiration of the statute of limitations.

Britain watched with indifference as Russia developed the Lena Bay, Siberia, and the tundra. But as soon as Russia reached the Black Sea and the Caucasus, this region became the object of the closest attention of the British. Not a single agreement between Russia and any Black Sea or Mediterranean power was completed without England intervening and demanding that it be a third party to the agreement. For example, in 1833, an agreement was concluded with Turkey, which was considered our greatest diplomatic success in the entire 19th century, when, without war, we agreed on the mutual regulation of the Black Sea straits. France and England, located thousands of miles away, did not recognize this treaty. The movement began towards the Crimean War, in which they tried to deprive Russia of its status as a Black Sea power. And as a result of our defeat, Russia was prohibited from having a fleet in the Black Sea; Russia was obliged to tear down all coastal fortifications.

My late mother wrote a book “Russia and the abolition of the neutralization of the Black Sea” about the struggle of Gorchakov, the brilliant Russian chancellor, who made it his goal to remove these burdensome restrictions from Russia! And without firing a single shot, 14 years later he issued his famous circular to European capitals: Russia no longer considers itself bound by this treaty, and Europe swallowed it! This was the result of subtle diplomacy. France was very hostile to this goal of Russia and refused to support it in the negotiations, but Gorchakov managed to come to an agreement with Prussia, which at that time sought to unite Germany under its auspices. It was Prussia, for Russia’s favorable attitude towards this process, that in return promised to support Russia’s refusal of enslaving obligations after the Crimean War. In those days, Gorchakov even gave the Emperor an ultimatum: if he was not allowed to send out this circular within a week or even a few days, he would resign. “I know the value of gratitude in world politics!” he wrote, “the moment will pass, it may be too late.”

— That is, we were not allowed to the world’s seas?

- Of course, this is precisely what gives the state a completely new, great role! If we now mark on the map the force arrows of Western pressure on Russia, we will see that these are the same lines along which Russia expanded in its own right until it became a great power. These are the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific Ocean. Imagine, if we leave there, where will we end up? In northeast Eurasia. What is this? - Tundra. Where there are thousands of kilometers between cities, where there is winter and permafrost, distances make any production meaningless, reduce all market conditions: a quilted jacket, a padded jacket, and so on. This makes our economy unprofitable and certainly unprofitable at the global level. But in the 90s we opened our economy to the world. And now it is impossible to close it.

So, Britain has always preferred the tactic of maneuvering, staying on the sidelines, and intervening when things are about to come to blows. America repeated this exactly. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson had a mysterious adviser, Colonel House, who in 1916 created an informal group of experts to develop a model of the future world and the role of the United States in it. House is the architect of all American politics. It is curious that Colonel House, as soon as our revolution thundered, immediately advised the dependent and ambitious Wilson to congratulate the Bolsheviks on the revolution! Still would! The Empire was collapsing!

- Explain then why the empires that entered the war could not be stopped by the emperors, who were all tied by family ties. After all, Nicholas II, English George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II were cousins, they played together in childhood, and photographs show that they even swapped uniforms as a joke. What prevented them from coming to an agreement like kin?

“It’s a common mistake to think like that.” Dynastic ties have never been the basis of interstate relations. They have never been either a means of rapprochement or an obstacle in politics. According to the laws of succession to the throne, in order to preserve a certain educational tradition, marriage was allowed only between members of royal families. Almost all royal houses, judging by blood, are not representatives of their nations, and this is not just ours! Please, the husband of the current Queen of Great Britain, Prince Philip, is a Greek prince raised in the Orthodox faith, and, by the way, sympathizes with us, as far as I know. Greek princess and current Queen Sofia of Spain. Chancellor Wilhelm hated the Slavs, in his memoirs he himself wrote: “I know that this is not Christian, but I can’t help it, I hate them”... But this is “dear cousin Vili” (in correspondence with Nikolay) ... So don’t be surprised by this. Moreover, according to the tradition of royal marriages, a prince or princess, once in power in a foreign country, had to do everything to correspond to its culture and interests. Foreign origin did not at all prevent foreign princesses from becoming, once in Russia, the most sincere and believing Russians. For example, the mother of Nicholas II, the Danish princess Dagmar, was called “Dagmar the smart one.” At first she was the bride of another Grand Duke, and after his death she passed, as if by inheritance, to Alexander III, and what a Russian she became! By the way, Andersen, a great storyteller, so touchingly describes her farewell and how she was greeted in St. Petersburg, when the ship with the bride sailed for the Sovereign of the great Russian Empire. The ship with the princess greeted St. Petersburg like cannon thunder. How she walked down the stairs, small and fragile. Especially next to Alexander III, who was a huge man, he once held the roof of a collapsed carriage in his hands until the last mechanic was pulled out, and this greatly undermined his health. So she became so Russian! In her correspondence with her husband, then with her son, Nicholas II, this is so felt! After the revolution, she lived out her life with her cousin in Copenhagen, where she was buried, but several years ago her ashes were transferred to Russia because she so bequeathed. They describe that when, after the end of the First World War, there was a parade in London on the occasion of the victory over the Kaiser’s Germany, but Russia was not invited, she burst into tears in front of everyone from an offended feeling.

- Yes. Alexandra, the wife of Nicholas II, wrote to her husband in the first days of the war: “Along with what I am going through with you and our dear homeland and people, my soul ache for my “small, old homeland”, for its troops... and for many friends who are suffering there. But how many are now going through the same thing! And then how shameful and humiliating it is to think that Germans behave like this.”

- These are the laws of monarchical life. Kings do not become conduits for the influence of their previous family.

— Do you agree with Academician Pivovarov that the 19th century was the golden age of Russia?

- Here, although I fiercely debate with him on many other things, I think I will agree with Pivovarov, an excellent polemicist, a bright intellectual - which is rare in modern Westernism, which in general has become very degraded. We, you know, today have such a primitive idea of ​​Westernism and Slavophilism! After all, in fact, they were not such antipodes as the current dense Westerners and the current dense Slavophiles. Slavophiles - Aksakov, Kireevsky were one of the most educated people by European standards. Khomyakov has a letter to the editor of a French magazine in French, where he analyzes the translation of the message of the Apostle Paul into German, made by one pastor, a biblical scholar, Khomyakov writes: “How could he use this term? If in Aramaic it is like this, in ancient Greek it is like this, in Latin it was like this, then it is immediately clear that there are two meanings here, and he should have used not this one, but the other! Can you imagine that some Chubais would be capable of this?... Does he know that the Prologue to Faust is actually a retelling in artistic form of the Book of Job the long-suffering? - Of course not. Slavophiles and Westerners were two rich sides of Russian consciousness, and here are two quotes. Kireevsky, who is considered the founder of Slavophil philosophy, writes: “No matter how much one of us wants either the eradication or preservation of everything Western, or vice versa - the eradication or preservation of everything Russian - there will be neither one nor the other. Therefore, it is inevitable to accept that there will be something third arising from these two principles.” Kavelin Konstantin Dmitrievich, an outstanding Russian historian, a recognized Westerner, says: “Every thinking and honest person cannot help but feel like half a Slavophile, half a Westerner. But neither one nor the other solved or could solve the problems of Russian life.” Practically - the same thing! Do you understand? And there is no need to invent an impassable abyss supposedly separating post-Petrine Russia from pre-Petrine Russia. In fact, the St. Petersburg period grew out of the Moscow period and already under Princess Sophia the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Rus' was expanding at a tremendous pace even before Peter and had enormous international connections. There have already been concerts at court. That is, Peter accelerated this, of course, with a revolutionary breakthrough. But, you know, it's better to sail a big ship slowly. It unfolds slowly, otherwise it can be overturned if you try to push it... Germany before the Reformation, before Protestantism, described in Faust (Margarita), differed from Germany after the Reformation much more, but there is no such impassable abyss in the mind. And for some reason we do it... There is no need to do this. We have everything, we understand everything, both the sharp Gallic meaning and the gloomy German genius, as Blok said! We have everything. Indeed, we are a model of the world. We have everything European and everything our own. And we constantly recycle, constantly reproduce both Western and our own. And we will be like that. There is no need for inflated self-esteem, we have plenty of sins, but we don’t need an inferiority complex either. We must calmly and confidently continue to be Russian.

— How does a person subject to current ideological indoctrination become a Slavophile? It’s clear how Westerners become. You just can't dodge it

— You know, I worked in America for almost eight years. And unlike Yeltsin, who said somewhere that, having flown around the Statue of Liberty, he was deeply transformed, I, having gone there as a typical Soviet intellectual with a very great sympathy for the West, with a desire to adopt a lot of things, became such a Slavophile there, on the contrary, such burningly Russian, which is simply impossible to convey! Of course, America impresses with its organized life and prosperity, but nothing else. I was amazed by the press and television. This is where there is only an external difference of opinion! The press all repeated the same clichés. 100 television channels broadcast around the clock, promoting the same ideas: they beat and pile on, beat and pile on, and everything is the same, no alternative opinions.

It is now fashionable for us to be indignant: we have no freedom because we do not influence decision-making. I assure you, both in Europe and in America, the people have no influence on the decisions of the liberal elite in power. Otherwise, they would not have ignored unprecedented demonstrations against changes in pension legislation, and of course, they would not have been able to pretend that nothing was happening when in Paris, which is five times smaller than Moscow, two million took to the streets against the law on homosexual marriage. And no referendum for you! This is what it is - the new totalitarianism. And the duping comes, of course, through the media. First of all, through television. The main instrument of politics is the manipulation of public consciousness. Therefore, I urge everyone today: think more for yourself and read. Use the Internet less with fake comments. Learn to distinguish between a fact and an opinion about a fact. Good or bad weather: this is an opinion about a fact, and the rain outside is a fact.

— It is very similar to the fact that today people are governed not by morality, not ethics, not spiritual values, but by so-called market relations. Where there are completely different motives and different calculations. Well, the nation will perish, so be it, these people are bad, they interfere with the market, let’s raise another one who won’t even turn his head outside the market.

- You are absolutely right. The state as a business project. The market is everything, but the people... Our people are not like that - we won’t re-educate them! Because a person is a homo-economicus, he is a cog in the economic system. In economic calculations, theorists write “human resources” about people. What's this? Who? Or here: “human capital”. Do you know why such terms were not used in the 19th century? Because this is not Christian. After all, the man, the last, the most sinful, the one lying under the fence, he is a man! He is a creature of God, he is higher and more valuable than any man-made thing.

And the state should not be a business project, where everything that is unprofitable is cut off! Now you listen to another young man and, it seems, he says understandable things: two seventy - there, three fifty - here, seven twenty remains, you listen, but you don’t want to live. And it doesn’t encourage anything. The state must think not only about what is rational and right, but about what is necessary and righteous. And being righteous is expensive. Alas. You are losing something or, as they say, not getting the proper profit.

— It turns out that today’s total political correctness is beneficial to someone?

- It is, of course, beneficial for the elite, which is divorced from the national soil, which reproduces itself; it hates everything national, as an obstacle to the movement of the world towards a one-dimensional model. A person, according to her concepts, is a citizen of the world, and not a citizen of the fatherland.

Now, when we passed a law prohibiting the propaganda of homosexual deviations among teenagers, European conservative organizations that formed in the wake of massive French protests against homosexual marriage came to our institute in Paris and asked to hold a round table, because for them Russia is now becoming a support, defender of Christian, moral values! Although I am not at all delighted with everything that is happening with us, it is impossible not to see that our democracy does not allow the minority to dishonor and trample under foot what is dear to the majority. I believe this is true democracy.

Recently, in our society, which has already developed as a consumer society, more and more people are thinking about not just living life, satisfying their material needs, but somehow justifying it to themselves, seeing meaning in it, something leave behind. And this craving for non-enslavement by reality, and it is faith that liberates from enslavement, is also not liked by the elite in Europe who lead their own nations, who believe that they live in the Free World, but are completely enslaved. Yes, they are completely free to choose their sexual orientation, but is that really all there is to freedom?

— Novodvorskaya believes that huge Russia should die, remain on a small piece of land, the size of the Ryazan region, but what should we do with our mentality, for which the West also reproaches us. The main motive behind this mentality is our imperial mindset. Which we can't seem to get rid of.

— And Russia is unthinkable outside of imperial thinking. It can only be an empire. Big politics, a big national idea, otherwise we simply won’t be able to understand our national interests, we won’t understand why we need navigable rivers and ice-free ports, which were important to both the monarchs of the 17th century and the oligarchs of the 21st. It is impossible to build a consumer civilization in our latitudes. And the West will not allow us to exist for any length of time in a Russia like Novodvorskaya’s. He will swallow us. Such Russia is not pleasing to God. Russia can only exist as a large entity. And great values ​​require great politics and great thought, great philosophy, a great national idea. There are large states, like Canada, without any idea. The country is big, rich, but it is nothing and no one will ask its opinion on any issue! Poland, it would seem, what is it - in comparison with Canada, and what a loud state it is! How much it raises its voice in Europe, it doesn’t matter whether we like it or not! This is a nation that preserves its national spirit, remembers its glorious pages when they conquered others, and not when they were torn to pieces! Somewhere this even commands respect...

The fact is that Eastern Europe, Central Europe, is the fate of small nations - at the junction of rival geopolitical systems. They are doomed to not have their own behavior, they will either be drawn into one system or another. And when the Soviet Union was blown up, Brzezinski, who always has what is on his mind, said: it was not the Soviet Union that fell, it was the hated Russian Empire that finally fell. And competition began for the Russian heritage along the entire perimeter, pulling small nations into other geopolitical configurations. Look at the geography of color revolutions in the post-Soviet space - all along the perimeter of our borders! And now attempts to tear away from us the regions that have been oriented towards us for hundreds of years are obvious!

— What, in your opinion, is the most successful political structure of the state? Monarchy, republic?...

— 22 centuries ago, Aristotle and Polybius, two Greek thinkers, introduced the terms: monarchy, democracy and described all the perversions possible under each of these systems. Monarchy can degenerate into despotism, democracy into ochlocracy, mob rule, but in fact, behind its back, an oligarchy rules the roost, which is what we see now. I have great respect for the Russian autocracy, and I always advocate that we raise it high in our historical consciousness. Now we remember about the Romanovs, it was under them that Rus' became Russia, expanded from the Bug to the Pacific Ocean, became a great power, but - I am not a practical political monarchist, although we have such people. It seems to me that there is no need to be naive. At one time, Russian philosophers, interpreters of the monarchical idea, wrote that the main basis and condition for the Orthodox monarchy and autocracy should be the unity of the Christian ideal between the monarch and the people. We do not have this unity; democracy precisely then becomes a necessary mechanism, when there is no single religious and philosophical ideal in society; it allows different pictures of the world, different worldviews to coexist. If it is not turned into the totalitarianism of the liberal idea, as it is now in Western Europe. We must make sure that our democracy allows us, conservatives, liberals, to exist, and that a Christian can express Christian judgments, and not be recorded in the metric as parent No. 1 or No. 2 to please sodomites

- We need a national idea...

— The Russian idea, about which so much has been written and for which so much has been fought, has never been a program of points intended for proclamations. This is some kind of unique combination of our originality, our commitment to our historical dignity, the path and search for the ideal of Holy Rus'. I believe that we should be proud of the fact that in our northern latitudes, where no one has ever built anything, we have built large cities and industry, this is truly a feat. And we should also be proud of the fact that, having been accustomed to living, since pre-Christian times, with representatives of other races, peoples and religions, we know how to live side by side with them and respect the otherness of others. Without imposing yours on anyone. This is “Holy Rus'”, as an ideal with which a person humbly plows the land where it is given to him by God, even if the harvests there are small. This is also the ability to be tolerant of a foreigner next to you, although you also adhere to your faith, because if the Lord allows us to seek God in different ways, why would we be less merciful than him, right? Maybe He is just checking whether we are worthy of such trust or not. That we don’t stab each other in the eyes, that we glorify God in different ways. It was all this that gave the Russian people the opportunity and strength to unite around themselves and draw hundreds of nations into their orbit. The empire would never have survived on bayonets if this idea had not existed.

And of course, the Russian people were and should remain the core and state-forming people. Don't forbid us to call ourselves Russians! Kutuzov also said: “Be proud of the name Russian, for this name is and will be the banner of victory! The biggest mistake stemming from a falsely understood internationalism is that if a state has many different nations, there should not be any national idea, it should be faceless, nationalless. Yes, what Tatar, Chuvash, Kalmyk would want to join some kind of “universal state - a Satanic formation, where there is no faith, no nation? They knew that they were entering the Russian Orthodox kingdom and no one was challenging the role of the Russian people. And what? Have we ever had big conflicts between peoples? No! They beat both Napoleon and Hitler together! Our experience is worthy of study. The Russian people will survive, retain their role, then all other peoples who have consciously linked their fate with us and remain faithful to us will flourish in our state.

I read an amazing sociological study, in which, to the question: “What crime cannot be justified under any circumstances,” our people, the nation—poor and seduced by earthly paradise, subjected to double sterilization—Marxism and liberalism—suddenly answered almost unanimously: "Treason to the Motherland"! Even sociologists were left perplexed: after all, in civilized Europe, the homeland has long been “where taxes are lower.”

The Fatherland is a Gift from God, given to us for continuous national-historical work with its ups and inevitable downs, which do not alienate even a disappointed person from his own country. Such a person, even experiencing her sins and failures, will not reject his history. For it is easy to love your Fatherland when you can be proud of it, when it is strong, and everyone respects and fears it. But precisely when the mother is drunk and lies in sin, spat upon, ridiculed and abandoned by everyone, only the son who does not turn away as he passes by, but will cover up her sin and protect her from reproach.

By the way, in the educated European community, I now notice a delayed, but still noticeable rethinking of their own future. They begin to understand that in the 21st century, somewhere in the middle of it, the balance of power in the world will completely change. Europe will cease to be a place where events of global significance take place. The main characters in history will be China, eastern civilizations, growing powerfully, with billions of people there, and Islam, which the West is now trying in every possible way to fragment and destroy. Libya and Syria were prosperous countries by Eastern standards. It is the West, hyping about democracy there, that in every possible way stimulates all sorts of Wahhabi and extremist movements, simply to destroy it, sowing chaos, which the West imagines controlling, but it will not succeed... But the importance of Islam will still grow.

And many are beginning to understand: the more Europe turns its back on Russia, the less it itself will matter in future international relations. But cooperation with Russia is a whole side of that new triangle in which balance can be maintained.

Interviewed by Vladimir Chernov

Vladimir Chernov prepared this interview at the end of June 2013. On July 28, he died of a heart attack. We express our condolences to the family and friends of a wonderful person and a high professional.

Russian journalist Vladimir Chernov was born on August 12, 1938. Worked for the newspapers Komsomolskaya Pravda and Literaturnaya Gazeta. From 1998 to 2003, he was editor-in-chief of Ogonyok magazine, and since 2007, he has headed Story magazine.

1. K. Marx and F. Engels. Essays. T. 8. M. 1957, pp. 56-57.

Graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In 1982-1989 she worked at the UN Secretariat in New York.

In the 1990s, she was an activist of the Constitutional Democratic Party - People's Freedom Party, the All-Russian National Right Center, the World Russian Councils, the Derzhava movement, and the Zemsky Sobor.

In 2003, she was elected to the State Duma from the Rodina electoral bloc. Member of the faction “A Just Russia - “Motherland” (People's Patriotic Union).” Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, Chairman of the State Duma Commission for studying the practice of ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms, monitoring their implementation in foreign countries

Scientific and political activities

She was one of the initiators and co-chairs of many forums and associations of the Russian public (such as the World Russian Council), the author of their conceptual programs, statements in defense of the indivisibility of Russia, in support of the Russian Orthodox Church, the actions of the Russian army in Chechnya in 1994-1996, against NATO expansion and aggression against Yugoslavia.

He considers an indispensable condition for the success of Russian foreign policy in the modern situation to be a return to its traditional foundations and the study of the experience of Russian diplomacy acquired in situations of the most complex confrontation on the world stage, characterized by the interaction of diverse and multidirectional political forces.

Supports the desire of Western European national conservative circles to restore Europe's lost role as an independent subject of world history and culture, and to counter the dictates of the United States and NATO.

Best of the day

Natalia Narochnitskaya maintains scientific and public relations with Western European scientists and scientific centers (Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece) that advocate for European states to preserve their sovereignty, against globalization and the dictates of supranational ideological, financial and military mechanisms.

She enjoys great prestige and fame in Yugoslavia, where she was awarded for her scientific and social activities. Her book “Orthodoxy, Russia and Russians on the threshold of the third millennium” has been prepared for publication in Belgrade.

Inimitable!
Anatoly Nemchenko 25.03.2014 12:02:04

I only think one thing: how good this woman is! I think she is very beautiful because she looks like a Georgian... and I have been simply in love with Georgia since the very time when I was engaged in mountaineering...
It is impossible not to fall in love with this woman, listening to her enchanting speeches, observing her manner of communicating with people...
Lord, lucky is someone who is next to her now!!!...

Political scientist, historian and educator Natalya Narochnitskaya, biography, whose family has been associated with academic science for more than one generation, is known for her fundamental works on Russian foreign policy. It is distinguished by a vibrant social position, which is based on conservative Orthodoxy.

Childhood and family

The idea that the family is the main determining factor in a person’s life finds a lot of confirmation. A striking example of this is Natalya Narochnitskaya, whose biography moves along the vector set in childhood. She was born on December 23, 1948 in Moscow, in the family of an outstanding scientist and historian. Natalia's paternal grandfather was the director of a public school, and her grandmother worked there as a teacher.

Her father is an outstanding scientist, academician, and historian. He was a leading expert on Russian foreign policy in the first third of the 19th century; he began his scientific work under the leadership of E. Tarle. The parent was the author of serious works on international politics and history. Despite the fact that he had to live in difficult Soviet times, he maintained traditional patriarchal views. The academician headed the authoritative scientific journal “New and Contemporary History”, and for many years headed the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences. Natalia's uncle, a historian, was arrested in 1937 and went missing. The presence in the application form of a brother being an enemy of the people did not prevent our heroine’s father from making an impressive scientific career; it testifies to his remarkable abilities, which turned out to be necessary for the state.

Natalia’s mother, another historian, was involved in Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century. In her youth, she participated in the partisan movement in Belarus, was captured and managed to escape from a concentration camp. In 1947 she became the wife of Narochnitsky, with whom she lived happily for more than 40 years. The couple had two daughters: Natalya and Elena. Both later became historians, continuing the family tradition. Natalya says that her childhood was extremely happy: her parents loved each other and their offspring, the family read a lot, talked about history. Children were taught foreign languages. The governess worked with them. Already at the age of 7, Natalya was reading Heine’s poems in German. She also studied music, learned to play the piano, and danced.

Education

Having received good training at home, Natalya studied at school with excellent marks. She graduated from a special school with in-depth study of the German language with a gold medal; the choice of her future profession was not difficult. In 1966, Natalya Narochnitskaya, whose biography was predetermined by family interests, entered MGIMO to study at the Faculty of International Relations. Five years later she graduates with honors. Over the years of study, the girl mastered three more languages: English, French and Spanish.

Scientific and professional career

After graduation, Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya comes to work at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. She also enrolls in. Having defended her dissertation, she continues to work at IMEMO, first as a junior and then as a senior researcher. From 1982 to 1989 he worked in New York at IMEMO.

In the 90s, she was captivated by new social perspectives. Narochnitskaya is passionate about the restoration of the national idea in Russia. In 2002, she defended her doctoral dissertation on the topic “Russia and Russians in world history.” She has written several fundamental works on the history of international relations of our country. For example, the book “Russian World”.

Social activity

Since the time of Perestroika, Natalya Narochnitskaya, whose biography is closely intertwined with the Christian movement in Russia, has begun to engage in social activities. In the 90s, she became an activist of the People's Freedom Party, a participant in the "Derzhava" and "Zemsky Sobor" movements. She co-chaired the congresses of the first and second World Russian Councils - this platform was created for people interested in the unity of the Russian nation around the world.

Narochnitskaya was among the group of authors of the most important documents adopted by the Council. In particular, the Act on the Unity of the Russian People, which declared our compatriots a divided nation with the right to reunification. The woman took an active part in the creation of a large number of social movements that significantly influenced post-Soviet Russian society: the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, the Russian World Foundation, and the Unity of Orthodox Peoples Foundation. In 2004, she created the organization “Historical Perspectives”, which deals with the problems of the future of the country.

In 2008, by decision of Russian President V.V. Putin, a woman became the head of the European Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris; she does a lot to strengthen friendship between Russia and France. Over the four years of operation, the Institute, under the leadership of Narochnitskaya, held about 50 events aimed at maintaining democracy in Russia and establishing the country’s external relations.

Political activities and views

Politician Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya, brought up on Christian values, preaches conservative Orthodox ideas and is also a supporter of democracy. In 2003, she was elected to the State Duma of the Russian Federation from the Rodina bloc and worked on the International Affairs Committee. The woman was the deputy head of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly and ensured that PACE began a constructive discussion about global problems of interaction between Russia and Europe. During the 2012 election campaign, Narochnitskaya was registered as a confidant of V.V. Putin, represented him at debates, for example, met with V. Zhirinovsky.

Educational activities

Narochnitskaya Natalia Alekseevna, whose photo can be seen in many popular science magazines, is actively involved in educational activities. She is an experienced polemicist and actively participates in television and Internet discussions. The woman writes a lot of articles for various magazines, gives interviews, and publishes brilliant journalistic works. For example, the following works belong to her pen: “The Great Wars of the 20th Century”, “What and with whom we fought”, “Orthodoxy, Russia and Russians on the threshold of the third millennium”, etc.

Awards and achievements

Narochnitskaya Natalia Alekseevna, whose biography is closely connected with the activities of the Orthodox Church, has been repeatedly awarded high awards. She is a holder of the Order of St. Olga Equal to the Apostles and was also awarded the Olympia Prize for public activities, and from the government of the Russian Federation the woman received the President and the Order of Honor for her great contribution to the preservation of traditional Russian culture. Natalya Alekseevna also has several awards from other countries, for example, the Medal of Merit from the Serbian government.

Private life

Natalya Narochnitskaya, whose biography is full of social activity and work, also succeeded as a woman. She got married while still a student. The couple had a son, who followed in the footsteps of his ancestors and also became involved in international activities. Today he works as an attaché at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh. Narochnitskaya’s marriage lasted more than two decades, but still broke up. Today Natalya Alekseevna continues to do what she loves, in addition, she reads and travels a lot.

The goal of the Phanar is to assert the right to dictate one's will

The actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to hold a Pan-Orthodox Council threaten the tragedy of schism

Natalya Narochnitskaya: The philosophy of the end of history reigns in Europe

Narochnitskaya: “Aggression from political homosexuality is growing”

Why don't they love us? Interview with Story magazine, August 2013

Natalia Narochnitskaya: “A war of all against all has been unleashed in Syria”

Temple as a symbol of freedom. March 3 – the day of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke

Time to get down to history?

The Russian Historical Society was recreated

“Unholy Saints”: about the Church without cloying tenderness and unnecessary edification

He was so Russian!..
In memory of Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.F. Smirnova (1925-2009)

Greeks don't want to be Germans.
Notes on Modern Greece

Natalia Narochnitskaya: “Everything in our country was created by us ourselves...”

Freedom is a deeply Christian category

Natalia Narochnitskaya: “Russia must more actively resist attempts to nullify its leading role in the victory over Nazism”

Valentin Varennikov: “We won because the state was ready for Victory!”

The future of Russia is the future of Europe.
Lecture given at the Sorbonne

We are orphaned...
In memory of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II

Natalia Narochnitskaya: “Georgia has trampled all the rules and customs of war”

The war continues, but against whom?

“Why and with whom did we fight?”

Questions about the situation in Ukraine

Ukraine: historical retrospective and geopolitical perspective

“Ukraine split not along social or class grounds, but along civilizational grounds”

Interview with State Duma deputy Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya

Russia and the problem of the Kuril Islands: tactics of defense or strategy of surrender

Kuril Islands: a problem created by Russian lack of will

From nihilism to values

Interview with State Duma deputy, historian Natalia Narochnitskaya

Dubrovka and Beslan

From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Russia and European members of the CIS. Part 3

From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Russia and European members of the CIS. Part 1

Don't forget about the Great Victory!

“Pilate would be very pleased today”

Interview with State Duma deputy, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Natalia Narochnitskaya

Social and national identity in a divided Russia

Russian natural resources “should belong to humanity”?

The treaty that changed the course of the war

Did the Russians want war?

Islamic world: geopolitical and civilizational rivalry

Terrorism as an inevitable feature of globalization

On the problem of the Kaliningrad region

All the events of the last decade were progress towards NATO's obvious goal, the obstacle to which was Russia's strategic position in the Baltic and the existence of its last bridgehead - the Kaliningrad region. The most important role in undermining these positions was played by the programmatic attitude towards the processes on the territory of the USSR - first of all, the recognition of the Baltic states not as seceding parts of the Soviet Union, but as restored pre-war states.

Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya

Russian development code

Preface

Russian code of Natalia Narochnitskaya

Natalya Narochnitskaya entered politics in the early 90s, in the dark memory of the perestroika years, immediately becoming an active participant in the patriotic movement. At first, she joined the Constitutional Democratic Party - the People's Freedom Party of Mikhail Astafiev, then took part in the work of the All-Russian National Right Center, the World Russian Councils, the Derzhava movement, and the Zemsky Sobor. Natalya Alekseevna was one of the initiators and co-chairs of many forums and associations of the Russian public (for example, the same World Russian Council). She was part of the team of authors of their conceptual programs, statements in support of the indivisibility of Russia, in support of the Russian army in Chechnya in 1994-1996, and spoke in defense of the Russian Orthodox Church, against the expansion of NATO and aggression against Yugoslavia.

However, the general public recognized her only in 2003, after Narochnitskaya was elected to the State Duma from the Rodina electoral bloc. I learned and remembered, noting that sometimes in life excellent external characteristics can still be combined with intelligence, brilliant erudition, an equally brilliant polemicist talent and a strong character.

Now it’s even hard to believe that less than 10 years have passed since then - it seems that Narochnitskaya has always been on the political Olympus of the country, that there can be no other place for her, with her knowledge, powerful intellect and political gift. Today Natalya Alekseevna Narochnitskaya is a recognized Russian political figure, historian and political scientist. She is the founder and president of the Foundation for Historical Perspectives, and the head of the Paris branch of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation. Doctor of Historical Sciences. Specialist in the USA, Germany and general problems and trends in international relations. Author of the fundamental work “Russia and Russians in World History”, which went through several reprints. Finally, an excellent publicist, whose pen includes many books: “Why and with whom we fought,” “Russian World,” “Great Wars of the 20th Century” and others.

During the last presidential election campaign, Natalya Narochnitskaya, to the surprise of many patriotic opposition figures who counted her among their ranks and opposed the current government, became a confidant of presidential candidate V.V. Putin, speaking in televised debates as his representative. However, for her there was nothing strange about it. “I am with Putin,” she says, “because I want to preserve the prerequisites for the agenda that has been unchanged for me for 20 years: the rise from the decline of the Russian people - the founder and core of Russian statehood; a truly social state is the imperative of the 21st century; Russia's independence as a great power on the world stage; eternal successive national interests; Russian culture, spiritual values. Without these foundations, without a moral goal setting for life and history, the projects of modernization and industrial breakthrough are meaningless and fruitless. I strive for a society in which Faith, Fatherland, honor, duty, love, family, justice and protection of the weak are the highest values ​​for which it is worth giving your life, as our ancestors did. The overwhelming majority of protest sentiments close to my spirit have accumulated due to the fact that not enough has been done in this direction.”

And further: “...We need not only fair elections, but above all an honest society in which honor and duty will be higher than money. It is not a change of power that will destroy corruption, but a change of moral guidelines in each of us!” - she said, explaining her decision. “I believe, I see, I know that Vladimir Putin not only sympathizes with the aspirations of those 80% of the population, to which I belong, but, without a doubt, wants to be a leader who has done and will do a lot to establish himself in the history of great Russia.

The authorities clearly understand how acute the problems are and how important it is to quickly make a breakthrough in areas where everything screams about the necessary changes. It is clear that the authorities will draw up their agenda, think about personnel and analyze the reasons for the emergence of harsh sentiments. Our task is to participate in this agenda. I consciously, precisely for the sake of this agenda, support Vladimir Putin,” says Narochnitskaya.

Well, you can agree or disagree, but this is a position, the position of a strong person who is confident in his rightness.

Where did this amazing woman come from in our politics?

Natalya Narochnitskaya is the daughter of academician Alexei Leontyevich Narochnitsky, who belonged to that narrow and, as they say, almost disappeared galaxy of Russian historians who had a classical education and encyclopedic knowledge. As the scientific director of the publication of diplomatic documents on Russian foreign policy of the 19th century, he left behind fundamental works on the history of international relations, impressive in the breadth of issues covered and theoretical generalizations, enormous archival, factual and historiographical material, and rare general humanitarian erudition.

Born in 1907, Alexey Leontievich became an eyewitness and, to some extent, participant in the events of almost everything that was so rich in historical cataclysms of the twentieth century. His father, Natalya Alekseevna’s grandfather, Leonty Fedorovich, served as director and teacher of the Chernigov Public School. His mother, Maria Vladislavovna, a hereditary noblewoman from a bankrupt family, worked there as a teacher.

The “wrong” origin almost prevented Alexei Leontyevich from receiving a higher education, although the high school graduation certificate was filled entirely with excellent grades - then the campaign to “proletarianize universities” began. However, soon the new government made concessions for those whose parents worked in the field of public education. As a result, Narochnitsky graduated from Kyiv University. The talent and erudition of the young researcher soon attracted the attention of the outstanding Russian historian E.V. Tarle, and Alexey Leontyevich, before even becoming a candidate of sciences, was invited to join the team of authors of the famous “History of Diplomacy”, which still impresses with its freedom from class spells for any reason and in depth. As a result, A.L. Narochnitsky became a laureate of the Stalin Prize. This played an important role in his life; in any case, it helped to avoid tragic consequences after the arrest of his older brother Yuri in 1937.

It would seem that Narochnitsky, with his not entirely trustworthy origins, and then with the profile of “brother of the enemy of the people,” would be safer to become a conductor of the Bolshevik class approach to Russian history. And after perestroika began, it would be understandable and understandable to talk about the “prison of nations”, about “damned Soviet totalitarianism”, from which his family also suffered. But he did neither one nor the other. He always defended the scientific picture of history, most often moving in his research against the dominant line and always remaining a patriot of his Fatherland. He was never a real “ideological” communist, but he was never an “anti-Soviet” either. Aware of the sins and even crimes of the Soviet period, he nevertheless recognized its enormous significance, its inseparability from the entire continuous history of Russia. He was repelled by only one thing - the eternal nihilism of the Russian “intelligentsia”, its contempt for its own Fatherland.

It was the father, Alexey Leontyevich Narochnitsky, who had a decisive influence on Natalya Alekseevna’s views and attitude towards life. And therefore it is not surprising that she kept his last name, also became a historian, and professes the same views. “He did not hide from me his skepticism towards Marxism and the revolution,” recalls Natalya Alekseevna, speaking about her father. -...And although my father’s brother was repressed in 1937, he said that it was the 20s (Lenin’s) years that were a terrible mockery of everything Russian, of everything Orthodox and traditional: Pushkin was called a chamber cadet, and Napoleon - a liberator, Tchaikovsky a mystic, Chekhov a wimp, Russia a barbaric country... My father rejoiced that in the 30s (precisely the thirties!) the rehabilitation of Russian history took place, although this rehabilitation was seasoned with class spells.”