The Saga of the Rejected

Or why the West decided to snub Russia

Queen Elizabeth I rejected offer of Russian tsar Ivan IV of a union by matrimony

What is the best way to eloquently describe Putin and the Russian ruling class in general? In my view the best term to use is the "Rejected", or to expand a little, they are supporters of the globalist movement rejected by the ruling class of the Western countries. Why Russia, despite all of their recent actions and rhetoric until the very recent in support of the emerging NWO, got refused the "Civilized Nations" club membership is a question requiring a long and complicated answer, but I'll try to do it in less than 1500 words.

This question has its history tracking back 1000 years to the time of great schism in Christianity when formally united Christian church was officially divided into what would later become the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. A century earlier, before the official church separation, Russians, known back then as Rus', have chosen the "wrong side of history", as Barak H. Obama would've put it. Instead of aligning with Rome, they aligned with Constantinople, even though their decision was very understandable at a time - why would anyone choose darkness of a medieval Europe vs. cultural splendor and riches of the surviving part of the Roman empire? Constantinople was also geographically closer and Rus' had a history of relationship with them even in pre-christian time. This was one of the initial factors, lasting to this day, that prevented further integration between Russia and the West.

The next factor was the Mongol invasion and subjugation of a bigger part of the ancient Rus' duchies to Mongol-Tatars. That took Russia out of European political circles for about two and a half centuries until Ivan III married princess Zofia (born Zoe Paleolog), niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Paleolog. Zofia was sent to Russia by the Roman Pope with a Catholic bishop to promote Russian conversion to catholicism, but the plan failed and Russia remained defiantly Orthodox and increasingly more centralized. There were many other attempts at a Catholic conversion until 1917, but most of them failed. The only successful example was the Union of Brest when Orthodox churches of what is today Western Ukraine were allowed to keep their Orthodox ceremonies but were subjected to the rule of Pope in Rome like the rest of catholic churches. Questions of religion aside, Mongol rule over Russia made them very different people than the former Rus' that remained under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania later Rzeczpospolita or independent as the North West Rus' with the capital in Novgorod. Power vertical was strengthened there significantly, but above all the emerging Russians were getting confidence in themselves as they not only survived under Mongol rule, they managed to overcome and subjugate former Mongol Khanates incorporating them into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

The next factor was the Russian revolution of 1917 that eventually brought Bolsheviks to power. Think what you may of this era that lasted 70 years, and a surprising number of otherwise enlightened people remain victims of the antisoviet propaganda that they absorbed with the "mother's milk", but with all of its shortcomings this was a system that defied existing convention and created a real global alternative to the capitalist way of life.

So to go summarize the main reasons for the eternal suspicion of Russia by the West:

- It is the Orthodoxy

- The traits of the Asian tyranny inherited from the Mongol rule, and

- The socialist experiment attempting to build a more just society in the XX century.

To summarize further it is a mix of religious and cultural factors adding to mutual estrangement especially in light that Russians look European, but as one goes to interact with them more, he or she quickly discovers that they are not, at least not in a sense what people of Sweden or Germany, or even Poland, that genetically are nearly identical to Russians, are accustomed to consider European.

After some flirting with Russia in the early 1990s and 2000s and the attempt to switch Western public's attention to the idea that the main enemy was the international islamist terrorism, consensus was reached by 2010 that Russia represents a better image of a public enemy then some people with AKs in Afghanistan caves or the deserts of Iraq. Tried and true for centuries what could better serve the purpose of consolidation of the West other than "adversarial" Russia? This first became evident after Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 where he presented Russian complaints to the West about them setting one obstacle after another on a way of a further integration. Envisioned in the 1990s formula of united Europe stretching from the Lisbon to Vladivostok was not to be, as the conflict continued to deepen. There was a 5 day war with Georgia in 2008 that came as Russian response to then president (now in jail in Georgia) Saakashvili giving order to attack South Osetia where Russian peacekeeping troops were stationed. There were of course the events of 2014 resulting in the Russian annexation of Crimea and Ukraine being lowered to the status of a puppet state of US, country that largely sponsored conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There were 8 years of low intensity proxy war against rebellious Donbass region and finally we have today's medium intensity conflict that Russia calls Special Military Operation and Ukraine calls war.

However in all this time of the last 30 years and I can even say 50 years, since early 1970s when USSR started selling oil and gas to the West, the reason for existence, the goal of the Soviet and later Russian state was convergence with the West. Russian philosopher, playwright and director Sergey Kurginyan calls this movement amongst Russian elites "entrantism" (vkhozhdenchestvo, вхожденчество). Putin as someone who was Boris Yeltsin's hand picked appointee for the president's role had never deviated from this chosen course and did what he could to further integration with the West. He did it despite frequent harsh and humiliating treatment of Russia and him personally, always calling Western adversaries - partners and avoiding any overtly hostile actions towards the West. He still does avoid harsh actions even though Putin's rhetoric against the West became much harsher. From this point of view Putin is not a devout Globalist, he simply follows and supports most of dominant trends in the West, with notable exception of sexual deviations. If it is digital control of the population or the mandated vaccines, so be it. If it is freedom of press, he is ready to support it too, but if, like it is happening now, the Western trend turns to increased censorship, he is ready for Russia to reverse the course on the freedom of speech too.

But how do you explain the current situation, you may ask? Putin's war in Ukraine doesn't go along with the goal of eventual convergence of Russia and the West and it is just the opposite, it deepens the rift between Russia and the Western world.

This is where the big mystery lies, what were the real reasons behind this military campaign? I can assure you, these were not the security concerns about imminent Ukrainian attack on Donbass. It would have been to Russia's advantage to wait for Ukraine to start attacking and then to unleash all out war against the aggressor, as they did in Georgia in 2008. The reasons for the military campaign are foremost internal to Russia. One possible explanation of this action is seeing that West had made its final choice and decided not to integrate with Russia in its present undivided form, Putin's action starting a war forces a choice by Russian elites to decide what side they are on and to begin a long and painful process of gaining economic and financial sovereignty back to at least the extent of USSR during their heydays. The other option, however, that explains the reason for the military conflict is much more devious. If we look at what is going on in Ukraine, Central and Western regions there remain largely intact: business suffered somewhat but many continue to work, key infrastructure components like electric, water, sewage and gas networks, internet are not targeted by Russian military and continue to operate. One can still get on a train in Kiev and go to Lvov or Mukachevo in the Western part of the country. Who really suffers in this war are the "Russian" cities of Ukraine, including Mariupol and Donetsk and their inhabitants. This war contributes to economic suffering in Europe (at their own making) and elsewhere and seems to play right into the goals of Globalists to create a shock for the population that is going to help the transition to the NWO by 2030 or even earlier. Is it possible that Putin is playing right into the hands of global elites? I would not exclude that option. Other possibility is he is playing on both sides, Russian patriotic circles, giving them hope for the shake-up in the country that can bring some meaningful and positive changes as well as in the hands globalists, giving them what they want and when they want it.

So, these are the complexities of the modern world. For better or for worse Russian politics are far from the relative simplicity that we could see during Gorbachev times. I hope this perspective on the old and the newest history makes it easier to understand why Russia seems to follow apparently opposing vectors of development. Hegelian "dialectics" in action - the unity and disparity of the opposites.