Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 47, no. 4 (Spring 2009), pp. 821.

2009 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

10611967/2009 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/RSP1061-1967470401

V.Iu. Surkov

Nationalization of the Future:

Paragraphs pro Sovereign Democracy
People aspire to live freely within communities that are organized upon
just foundations. For the majority these communities, on a certain social
scale, are nations.1 The dignity of free people requires that the nation to
which they belong should also be free in a justly organized world.
The supreme independent (sovereign) power of the people (democracy)
is charged with satisfying these aspirations and requirements on all levels
of civic activityfrom the individual to the national.
Democracy affirms the principles of mass government as natural for
mass cultures in an era of mass access to knowledge (information) and the
means of communication. Democracy is actualized through the increasingly complex interaction of state, corporate, and private influences.
Here, in Russia, democracy faces major challenges. It must test upon
itself and turn to its advantage the might of globalization; overcome
shadow institutions that block its progresscorruption, criminality, the
market in counterfeits and disinformation; withstand the reactionary attacks of isolationism and oligarchy.2 It must create a new society, a new
economy, a new army, a new faith. It must demonstrate that freedom and
justice can and ought to be thought and discussed in Russia.
The idea of sovereign democracy in Russia is consistent with the
provisions of the Constitution, according to which: first, the bearer
English translation 2009 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text 2008 IFRAN V.Iu. Surkov, natsionalizatsiia budushchego. Paragrafy pro suverennuiu
demokratiiu, in Demokvatiia dlia RossiiRossiia dlia demokvatii, ed. A.A. Guseinov (Moscow: IFRAN, 2008), pp. 7085.
Translated by Stephen D. Shenfield.
8

spring 2009 9

of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation

shall be its multiethnic people; second, no one may usurp power in
the Russian Federation.
Thus, we may define sovereign democracy as a mode of the political life
of society in which the state authorities, their bodies and actions are elected,
formed, and directed exclusively by the Russian nation in all its unity and
diversity for the sake of achieving material well-being, freedom, and justice
for all the citizens, social groups, and peoples that constitute it.
Supplement
The brief definitions of the notion of sovereign democracy are introduced
by almost literal translations of this term into old-fashioned Russian
(autocracy [samoderzhavie] of the people) and into modern Russian
(government by free people).
It is worth noticing that the totality of ideas signified by this term
under various names and by various meansis realized by many proud
nations.
These ideas are rooted in the conception of a just world order as a
community of free communities (sovereign democracies) that cooperate
and compete on the basis of rational rules. And they therefore presuppose
the liberalization of international relations and the demonopolization of
the global economy. For this reason, of course, they irritate the planetary
strongmen and monopolists.
With regards to national emotions, in this dimension the conception
of sovereign democracy claims to express the strength and dignity of
the Russian nation through the development of a civil society, a reliable
state, a competitive economy, and an effective mechanism of influence
on world events.
Objection
It is not difficult to rebut the noisy fraction of intellectuals for whom the
sun rises in the West. It suffices to recall that sovereign democracy is by
no means a homegrown venture. On the contrary, it is a concept widely
disseminated and recognized by practicing politicians: The successful
transformation of the newly independent states into sovereign democracies is central to European stability;3 Our [European] Union preserves
its essence: a federation of sovereign democracies.4

10russian studies in philosophy

Serious critics object that democracy does not need definitions: it

is either present or absent. And any clarifying qualifier signifies either
concealed authoritarian intent or deceptive sophistry.
However, it has long and accurately been observed that democracy is
not a fact but a process that involves the most diverse spheres of peoples
lives. And this process did not begin five minutes ago.
Many societies have considered themselves democratic in their
time, while restricting the rights of women and racial minorities and
even (somewhat earlier) trading in slaves. Was that democracy the
same as democracy today? And if not, then how can we get by without
definitions?
For example, relatively recently, at the end of the last century, some
experts began to distinguish pluralistic (more modern) democracy
from majoritarian democracy. That is, in assessing the completeness
of governing by people they shifted emphasis from domination of the
largest group of electors (which, for all the respect it deserves, does not
represent the whole people) to competition for access to the levers of
influence on state power among all groups of the population (including
the smallest). And they were right to do so; it is a pity only that they did
not get by without qualifiers.
A shift in emphasis to specific components of the democratic process
is unavoidable and necessary at each new point of historical spacetime,
in each new context of the permanent rivalry of people and doctrines.
Context
The Russians initiated a grandiose democratizationboth in their own
way of life and in that of the many peoples within the orbit of their
political and cultural influence.5 This enterprise, moved (very much
la Russe) more by audacity than by calculation, burdened by monstrous
errors and sacrifices, nevertheless became a most promising act of global
modernization.
The irreversible complication of the mechanisms of human expansion
(so-called progress) led Russia to revise its strategy of participation in
the race of state, economic, and propaganda machines. The design of
the latest social models is clearly aimed at the softening of political regimes, at growth in the role of intellectual superiority and information
exchange, at the enmeshing of power hierarchies within self-regulating
networksin short, at democracy.

spring 2009 11

Corresponding transformations in our country were echoed by and

dramatically combined with profound changes beyond its borders. The
demobilization of the socialist camp doubled the territory of freedom,
but at the same time unintentionally opened up scope for the geopolitical
tyranny of various forces.
The global fruits of enlightenment (economic, informational, and
military instruments of globalization), by their very existence, produce
not only the hope of universal prosperity but also the temptation of global
domination. Among the tempted are certain governments, terrorist bands,
and international criminal gangs.
Of course, subtle connoisseurs will discover important differences
between a universal bureaucracy, a worldwide caliphate, and an omnivorous mafia. But any excessive centralization of the material means
of total control and destruction, total production and consumption, total
manipulation and corruption creates a total (totalitarian) power. And
that means irredeemable injustice and lack of freedoman extremely
undesirable outcome in any single country and absolutely unacceptable
on a global scale.
While preserving a democratic order (unity in diversity) in our country,
its citizens are able to participate, for the sake of protecting their own
rights and incomes, in maintaining a balance of diversity in the world.
Having forever abandoned hegemonic claims, they will not allow anyone
else to live off them. They will take the side of the community of sovereign
democracies (and of the free market) against any kind of global dictatorship (or monopoly). They will make national sovereignty a factor in a just
globalization and in the democratization of international relations.
In such a task there is pragmatism and romanticism. Allies and adversaries will be found. And it may constitute a mission.
The emphasis
The military-police aspect of national independence, which to one degree
or another is intrinsic to all states, has too often in Russias case hypertrophied and taken the extreme forms of isolationism and unconstrained
rule by decree. An understanding of sovereignty as the freedom and
competitiveness of an open society is only just starting to take shape,
hence the topicality of this theme.
Our democracy is in fact coeval with the century, the fresh product
of a tragic transformation through tsarism, socialism, and oligarchy. For

12russian studies in philosophy

many people it is still an unfamiliar business, because never before has

our state been distinguished by a punctilious regard for civil rights.
To maintain sovereignty without harm to democracy and to be open
without losing identity are nontrivial tasks for beginners.
And so, despite the fact that qualifiers are now under suspicion, the
emphasis may be placed [on the word] sovereign.
[About] sovereign
Certain devotees of commercial philosophy working in specialized noncommercial and nongovernmental organizations write that in our age
of integration and interdependence it is foolish to cling to sovereignty.
Among the governments that sponsor such writings, however, it will be
hard to find a single one willing to eliminate its own national legislation,
economy, armed forces, and itself.
People cite the European Union as an example of giving up sovereignty
for the great virtues. They forget the hitch about the European Constitution (which assumedly can be overcome). They also overlook that what
is involved is either the establishment of a stable association of sovereign
states or (in the boldest dreams) the synthesis of a multiethnic European
nation and its, so to say, all-union sovereignty, by whichever politically
correct euphemisms it may be designated.
For Russia today to sacrifice its national freedom for the sake of
fashionable hypotheses would be just as senseless as was in its time
the same sacrifice for the sake of Karl Marxs specters. And to sell our
national freedom for food and clothing (or even for equipment) is both
senseless and humiliating.
Sovereignty, being the plenitude and independence of power, is not
abolished. But its content changes together with the manner of exercising power. The image of the state, diffused from palaces and fortresses
through offices, polling stations, and television screens, is democratized.
Mass actions are more a result of discussion and persuasion than of compulsion. Cutting-edge science, moral advantage, industrial dynamism,
just laws, personal freedom, and everyday comforts appear increasingly
salient as symbols of power.
The basic resource for maintaining sovereignty is recognized to be
not just military but all-around competitiveness, which is achieved in
freedom, in open rivalry, and not in a bomb shelter or hothouse.
Supranational and interstate structures do not grow at the expense of

spring 2009 13

the plenitude and independence of power. They are delegated not power,
as many fancy, but prerogatives and functions. The right to delegate (and
therefore also to revoke)that is, power properly speakingremains
with national states.
Of course, far from all nations crown their political creation with the
acquisition of real sovereignty. Many countries do not even set themselves
such a goal, traditionally existing under the protection of other nations
and periodically changing protectors. The apparently artificial replication of revolutions as entertainment and of managed (from without)
democracies is in fact quite natural for such countries.
As regards Russia, the firm alien ruling here is unthinkable. Marginal
alliances of former officials, active Nazis, and fugitive oligarchs, emboldened by passing diplomats and by the naive idea that foreign countries
will help them, may try to destroy but will never subdue a society for
which sovereignty is a civic value.
There is a view that no one is interested in depriving our state of its
sovereignty (or that this is an unreal prospect). But the universal and
daily demand for raw material and need for security are so enormous,
our reserves of oil, gas, timber, and water so abundant, our arsenal of
nuclear weapons so large that excessive complacency is out of place,
especially bearing in mind the extent to which our ability to recognize,
protect, and advance our national interests has been undermined by
ubiquitous corruption, by disproportions in our economy, and by simple
tardiness of thinking.
The center of profit from international projects for the use of Russian
resources must be consolidated in Russia. So must the center of power
over Russias present and future.
Democracy
Democracy has taken root in our country, but whether it is mistress of the
house or a sponger remains an open question. The formal characteristics
of democracy (how many parties we need and of what kind, presidential terms, successors, social benefits, courts, municipalities, state
enterprises, independent mass media) are subjects of regular and sharp
discussion. Amid the noise stirred up on such important and diverting
topics, the issues of freedom, justice, and trust get lost in the background.
Social values and morality are treated almost as an academic theme, or
at times quite demagogically.

14russian studies in philosophy

It is much to be desired in this connection that the idea raised by the

president of preserving the people should be well heeded by society as
fundamental to democracy. Our social wastefulness, our habit of squandering people (God has plenty of people), of exterminating one another
countlessly and senselessly have deep roots in our past. Russia has lost
more soldiers in major wars than any of its allies or enemies. And it has
won its greatest socioeconomic achievements during periods of despotic
reforms that resembled wars.
The window to Europe* has been cut through by the means that
cannot be called Asiatic without insulting Asia. The cruel persistence of
Soviet serfdom conquered outer space and atomic energy. Only a haughty
nomenklatura unused to public oversight could have permitted itself the
political carelessness with which democratization was introduced. The
oligarchy that usurped legitimate authority was accompanied by a pandemic of penury, corruption, and contract killings, by a real commercial
terror, by self-extermination for money.
The biographies of all great nations are marked by the gloomy paradoxes of progress. But the consolations of comparative teratology divert
us from the vital question. Is Russia capable of growing in any other
way? Or must it always grow through force? Can it develop freely, build
peacefully, modernize itself without violence?
This is the first time in a thousand years that our society is so free. The
system that is taking shape is an object of criticism. And that is excellent,
because loud indignation at the defects and retreats of democracy is an
inseparable feature of democracy. Some perceive any difficulty as chaos,
diversity as disintegration, music as confusion. Others shy away from
the slightest semblance of regulation and procedure. True, among both
types one encounters fussy hypocrites with unusual levity of thought.
They prescribe a mixture of poorly understood traditionalism and liberal superstitions as a simple cure for everyone suffering from a lack of
money, jobs, and imagination. Persistently and with literary pretensions,
they call for bombings, barricades, coups, and pogroms.
The backyards of democracies always swarm with radicals. They
would not be worth a mention if an attempt were not made to use them
*The author refers here to the achievement of Peter the Great (Peter I), the tsar of
Russia who is credited with dragging Russia out of the medieval times to such an
extent that by his death in 1725, Russia was considered a leading east European
state.Ed.

spring 2009 15

to weaken the national immunity, if free Russia did not still have so little
experience, if the genetic memory of a radically revolutionary, radically
reactionary, and radically bureaucratic country were not so strong and
appealing. The fragility and shallow roots of democratic institutions
feed hopes in certain circles for a return to an oligarchic or quasi-Soviet
model, for the appropriation of power by specific groups of moneyed
and bureaucratic interests.
For the first time in our history, we have a chance to cure our chronic
disease of convulsive (revolutionary-reactionary) development. The complication of reality (the rise in the quality of life and, correspondingly,
in the quality of discontent with life; the making of increasingly strict
demands on leadership; the fabrication of unusual explosive illusions;
the maturation of unexpected economic problems) will astonish the near
future with unavoidable and unprecedented crises.
Will Russia master the people-preserving technologies of democracy
that are needed to overcome these crises? Or will it, as usual, resort to
ruinous and merciless statification? Or will it capitulate and fall apart?
Optimistic answers to these questions presuppose national solidarity on
the basis of shared values of freedom, justice, and material well-being.
Preservation of the people may become a goal and means of renewal, a
program to humanize the political system, social relations, and the culture of daily life, the habit of taking a solicitous approach to the dignity,
health, property, and opinion of each individual.
There has been little time for observation and it is too early to draw
bold conclusions, but the first steps of Russian freedom inspire hope.
Democracy has coped with destitution, separatism, public despondency,
and legal chaos, halted the disintegration of the armed forces and of the
state apparatus, suppressed the oligarchy, gone over to a decisive offensive against international terrorism, and strengthened the economy.
It continues to work.
Work
Sovereign democracy is distinguished from other kinds of democracy
by its intellectual leadership, its united elite, its nationally oriented open
economy, and its ability to defend itself. Its absolute priorities are:
civic solidarity as a force that prevents social and military clashes.
A free society will not tolerate mass poverty (against the background of
mass tax evasion), wretched social protection, or an unjust distribution

16russian studies in philosophy

of social return. Nor (under conditions of an undeclared arms race) will

it doubt the necessity of reasonable defense budgets to maintain the
prestige and technical resupply of the army, fleet, and special services.
The hope of future peace must be paid for here and now;
the creative estate as the leading stratum of the nation, renewed in
the course of the free rivalry of citizens and of their political, economic,
and nongovernmental associations.
The synergy of creative civic groups (entrepreneurial, scientific, culturological, political) in the common (that is, national) interest seems a
positive alternative to the impostures of the offshore aristocracy with its
defeatist psychology. Manipulation and corruption may somehow maintain the illusion of a state. Seriously rebuilding of the state is within the
capacity only of a creative estate of free people, united by their values,
capable of innovation (that is, of competition), and moved by personal
advantage to pursue national goals;
culture as an organism of meaning-formation and intellectual influence. Russia must say what it does, and not do what others say, in the
role not of an ordinary philistine but of a coauthor and coactor of European civilization. The production of meanings and images that interpret
pan-European values and name Russian goals will enable us mentally to
reunite our unsettled nation, which up to now has been gathered in at the
conventional-administrative level, in rough and ready (albeit decisive)
fashion. In the polemic between cultures, the Russian message must be
weighty and distinct, free in nature, just in essence, attractive in form, and
acceptable in tone. We must claim our own positions in the philosophical, sociological, and politological discourse of the West. And through
support of the arts (above all, cinema and literature) we must gradually
recover the conquering charm of Russian culture;
education and science as sources of competitiveness. Certain competitive advantages that we have inherited from the Soviet Union (obvious
in energy, the transportation network, and defense, as well as in the sphere
of education itself) must be used for the stable development of a globally
significant national economy. Russia will attain the status of a mighty
energy power (this is still a long way off) not through hypertrophy of its
raw material sector but by acquiring high technologies in information
and communications, in power engineering and energy saving, and in
the production of fundamentally new types of fuel.
Intellectual mobilization for development of promising sectors [of the
economy], access to the scientific and technological resources of the great

spring 2009 17

economies, and mastery of up-to-date research and production culture

may become the chief task of schools and universities, of foreign policy,
and of international scientific and industrial cooperation.
The education system is the infrastructure of the future knowledge
economy in the same way pipelines are the infrastructure of todays oil
economy. And it requires no less attention and comparable investment.
Doubts
People say: Russia has overstrained itself. Prolonged imperial exertion
has weakened its powers; it has lost passionarity* and is leaving history.
Russia is breaking apart: the Far East is depopulated, the Caucasus embittered. Russia has fallen behind forevera raw material backwater, a
country of masters and slaves and eternal poverty, living from hand to
mouth, off hemp and gas. Russia is dying physicallya lethal outcome
from population loss is inevitable.
In general, during times of trial there are always plenty of shrieks
about impossibility, immobility, abstention, and nonexistence. But the
most reliable of the arguments of decadence are laziness, indifference,
ignorance, and weakness. The attempt to ward off the future, to hide
Russia in the past from the nightmare of global competition is the
chief design of both restorations, oligarchic and bureaucratic. Revanche
of the oligarchya final decision in favor of the unconstrained transnationalization of Russias economic and political assetswill doom the
country to loss of subjecthood, to dissolution in globalization instead of
participation in it.
Reconstruction of the bureaucratic state, the aspiration of those who
revere the good old days of the Soviet Union, will lead us away from the
struggle of competition into the dead end of political isolation and economic vegetation. Restorationist conceptions are inspired by cowardice
and lack of faith (advertised as common sense). They grant specific
corporate groups the privilege of appropriating power, postulate the
failure of modernization, and are fraught with disorder and confusion
for Russia, with all their sorry consequences.
The project of sovereign democracy is one of those that admit of a
futureand not just any kind, but a distinctly national future. For the
*Passionarnosta concept in Lev Gumilevs theory of the life cycle of the
ethnos.Trans.

18russian studies in philosophy

nation has not given currently living generations the right to terminate its
history; the citizens of a country renowned for its great civilizing work
are entitled to a worthy place in the world division of labor and profit.
According to the principle the one who rules, determines the faith a
ruling nation that has not lost faith in itself will live.
Ethnic Russians
The destiny of the civic-Russian [rossiiskaia] nation is continuously being
solved as a nonlinear equation of diverse interests, customs, languages,
and religions. The ethnic Russians [russkie], tireless rulers of this lofty
destiny, are tightly interwoven with the peoples that have been drawn
into the creation of the multifaceted civic-Russian world. Outside of the
Tatar, Ugrian, and Caucasian dimensions, ethnic-Russian political task
is incomplete. The departure of peoples from Russia in 1991 was an
extremely painful experience. A repetition of such an experience would
be mortally dangerous.
The separatism of certain ethnically named territories, which appears
now to have subsided, left behind everywhere smoldering hearths of
cultural isolation and archaic intolerance. Ethically colored criminal
conglomerates (above all, those of a terrorist character) have infected
many people of various ethnic groups with xenophobia. Among ethnic
Russians too, some have succumbed to the propaganda of an implausible
life without neighbors or newcomers.
Charlatans who preach the delights of ethnic segregation are in fact
trying to expel ethnic Russians from multiethnic Russia. Where are we
to be resettled? In a Russian republic within the borders of the early
Muscovite kingdom? In an ethnographic reservation where no one can
reach us, with a do not disturb notice on the fence? In every region both
newcomers and locals must conduct themselves within the bounds of
the law and of decency. Ethnic criminality and its concomitant xenophobia
it will destroy the Russian multiethnic state unless they are vanquished
by law enforcement, by education, and by successful development.
The greatest Russian political projects (such as the Third Rome and
the Third International) were addressed to people of other nations and
open to them. While critically analyzing the past, while acknowledging
its errors and failures, we have the right to and shall take pride in all the
best of what we have inherited from the Empire and the Soviet Union,
including the unique experience of mutual understanding between the

spring 2009 19

Orthodox Church, the Muslim community, and other confessions, and

of all-sided interaction and mutual aid between lands and towns.
Russian thought is organically tolerant. Russian political culture takes
interethnic peace as its starting point and strives for it. There is no doubt
that the Russian democratic project is open and must be attractive to all
the peoples of Russia.
Europe
In Europe there are all sorts of attitudes toward our country. There are
rigid supporters of the Latin slogan contra omnes moscos et tataros.6 And
there are those who doubt whether Europeans inhabit Europes Far East.
There are pedagoguessome kind, others sternwho try to teach the
restless pupil unforgettable lessons of various degrees of gravity. There
are those for whom Russia is a belated European and those for whom it
is a strategic partner and potential ally. We cannot allow these attitudes
to become wholly negative. Nor, however, shall we ever manage to make
them uniformly pleasant.
All the most influential European nations (including Russia) have
ambivalent opinions of one another. Building century by century a truly
unsurpassed civilization, they have not only worked together for their
mutual enrichment. They have also known much woe from wit. The fascist
hallucination, the delirium of Nazism, and the mechanized carnage of
191418 and 193945 were (in case anyone has forgotten) products of
100 percent European manufacture.
There is no need to idealize Europe. Its present-day advantage lies
in its outstanding quest for a rational and peaceful order, as far as possible without political disasters or bouts of insanity. God knows whether
the quest will succeed, but at least in this sense Russia, as it masters
democracy in its turn, is in Europe. Here in Europe are the intellectual
resources, and without an access to them the modernization of our country is impossible. Cooperation in the spheres of science, technology, and
higher education as well as among transnational corporations in scienceintensive and high-technology sectors could connect our economy with
the European and transatlantic economies more reliably and to greater
advantage than primitive deliveries of raw material.
To Russias west, let me repeat, there are people of different kinds:
some seek to subdue Russia, while others count on mutually advantageous
partnership. Our democracy is capable of responding to the former with

20russian studies in philosophy

determination to uphold our sovereignty and to the latter with openness,

flexibility, and productive cooperation. Not to fall out of Europe, to hold
on to the West is an important element in building Russia.
Modesty
Terrorism is not finished. Our infrastructure is worn out. Our hospitals
and schools are inadequately equipped. It is painful to contemplate how
far behind we are technologically and how poorly we are provided with
everyday services. Our creative forces are meager and scattered. While
the nation urgently needs a new economy for its survival, the passage of
time is rapidly devouring the old economy. Modesty and sobriety in our
self-appraisal will not damage our ambitions. On the contrary, they will
make them more realistic and more honest. They will remind us that it
is high time for us to learn how to invent, manage, and compete.
Greatness
Whether Russias great history will obtain a great continuation depends
only on us, its citizens. Whether Russia is great today is open to dispute;
whether it will be great tomorrow is not obvious. President Putin constantly reminds us that our agenda is not leisurely talk about our great
country but active work to modernize it.
For the time being, the adjective great better describes the prices
of hydrocarbon fuels than it does the goals that we have achieved or
the values that we proclaim. A gas-based economy seems to invigorate
and refresh. But if and when it expires we shall see the true worth of its
productsfizzy ambitions, sparkling rhetoric, and hollow prosperity.
We must lay the basis for an innovative culture, for a system to create
unique knowledge, because knowledge is power and capital for preserving
the nationboth now and in the postoil era, which will inevitably come.
We must convert a raw material economy into an intellectual economy, in
order to pave Russias road upward, into the future, into the community
of creative nations that shape history.
P.S. This text on sovereign democracy, compiled in the course of discussion by the joint efforts of supporters and critics, is one possible interpretation of our recent past and near future. It is based on the assumption that
social structures will inevitably grow more complex and differentiated.

spring 2009 21

Its purpose is to draw public attention to the interconnected questions

of personal freedom (democracy) and national freedom (sovereignty).
It is open to consent and to controversy. It contains almost nothing that
is obligatory and nothing at all that is didactic. The only thing on which
this text insists is justice for everyone in Russia and for Russia in the
world. The only thing that it strives to facilitate is the development of
an effective practice of reproducing the intellectual, moral, political, and
economic resources of freedom.
Notes
1. Here a nation is understood as the supraethnic aggregate of all the citizens
of a country. As applied to Russia, nation in this text refers to the multiethnic
people of the Constitution. That is, the civic-Russian [rossiiskaia] nation (people)
unites all the nationalities [natsionalnostia term inherited from the Soviet
period, meaning ethnic groupsTrans.] of Russia within shared borders and a
shared state, culture, past, and future.
2. It is the crudest and most foolish of errors to call every big entrepreneur an
oligarch. Oligarchic capital is only that which is used deliberately to institutionalize
corruption and manipulation and unlawfully usurp state functions.
3. W. Christopher, U.S. secretary of state, 1994.
4. R. Prodi, president of the European Commission, 2004.
5. It will not be superfluous to note once again that Russia was brought to
democracy not by defeat in the cold war but by the European essence of its
culture. And once again: there was no defeat.
6. Against all Muscovites and Tatars.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.