"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle." (Ps. 143:1)
Let the saints triumph in glory, let them rejoice on their beds. Let the praises to God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to execute vengeance on the nations, punishment on the peoples, to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron. (Ps. 149:5-8)
On the eve of another year of the 21st century, Europe seems to have been startled by something and has started to act aggressively. Germany has matured into the idea of compulsory military service - the same idea that VMRO has been trying to impose in Bulgaria for many years and mandates, against which waves of Bulgarian boys (and their mothers) protest, with purple ribbons (the boys, not the mothers).
The idea of the Germans is for the Bundeswehr to increase from 185,000 soldiers, which is the current number, to 250-270,000 by 2035, because the Russians are knocking on the door: Ta-da-da-daaaam! I don't know how they see this issue. Their current population is around 84 million, and the birth rate is low - 1.35-1.38 children per woman, compared to the natural population replacement rate of about 2.1. Additionally, the population is aging - 30.5% are over 60 years old. According to forecasts, this trend will not change until 2035, when they want their army to be 85,000 members larger.
And there is another issue. As the unforgettable maxim by Hightov goes: "one thing is to want, another is to be able to, and third and fourth is to actually do it". Germany wants military conscription, but the Germans don't want it. Youth Rise Up in Protests Against Military Service Reform, Finally Approved by German Parliament on December 19.
"Do not be afraid," said Mark Rutte, who is currently the head of NATO, but has previously served twice as prime minister of the Netherlands and as such was the most fervent opponent of Bulgaria and Romania's inclusion in the Schengen area. It is hard for me to imagine him as a military man, but what do I know! In this capacity, Rutte said: "Do not be afraid! When the egg hits the butt, the youth who are protesting now will grab their weapons themselves!"
Well, he did not say it exactly like that, but that was the gist of it. In fact, his words in the interview for Bild were: "I have no doubt: when things get serious, young people will be ready to take up arms." I didn't understand: do they have weapons, will they acquire them from somewhere or will Rute give them to them? But that's irrelevant.
What is interesting is where this tension between East and West is coming from. Is it not logical for them to be allies on a common Christian or, at the very least, post-Christian basis in the sea of paganism, which is becoming increasingly turbulent and hostile? Are they really two different civilizations and not just different, but antagonistic?
It's not just about Ukraine. Ukraine is a consequence, not a cause for the discord. Let's take a look at how East and West resemble each other and how they differ, just as we have been pouring ourselves a drink the night before the holidays. Not that we haven't done it before, but now let's approach it more seriously and systematically.
Nikolay Loski (the father of the renowned theologian Vladimir Loski) wrote in one of his studies on Dostoevsky that while the western man is a moderate individual, the eastern, and specifically the Russian, is a being of extremes; the western is corporate with a sense of collectivism, while the eastern is either apocalyptic or nihilistic, with no middle ground.
Political anthropology.
The West (at least in theory) places the individual before the state and society, to the point of alienating them. For the West, the supremacy of the law is more important than the supremacy of justice.
The East (the Byzantine legacy) views the state as the source of order (taxis), and power as sacred.
Attitude towards history.
The West sees history as a way to overcome the past. Every next generation must fix the mistakes of the previous one and leave a "better world" for their descendants to make it even better. For the West, history is cyclic (Spengler), too similar to the Buddhist concept of endless rebirths (modern Westerners openly fall for karma, and the more they fall, the more progressive they believe they seem).
For the East, history is linear and has its own beginning and end, respectively in the creation of the world (whatever we imagine it to be) and in its end. The East sees history as an argument for legitimacy and mission. The idea is that the historical processes are much longer in time than a human life, and we can not only manage them, but even make sense of them solely from our life experience.
Hence the conflict between "progress" and "historical destiny" between East and West.
Imperial memory and fears.
The West is strongly anti-imperialist and wants to view the world as a peaceful community of sovereign states. Even globalization is not hostile towards state sovereignty, unlike national sovereignty, which it is already hostile towards. This is a little confusing, because the European Union is actually an imperial project, but they do not want to admit it, precisely because of their stubborn adherence to this world view.
The East, especially Russia, thinks in imperial terms, because it preserves the living memory of the Byzantine concept of "one emperor, one state - empire, projection of the Kingdom of God on earth." That is why Simeon the Great is "King of Bulgarians and Romans" - because the projection cannot be more than one.
Attitude towards democracy:
The West - democracy is a universal good. It places great importance on independent institutions and forms of control between them; depersonalizes power to the extent that those exercising it cease to be individuals (e.g. the current European bureaucracy).
The East - democracy is a tool, stability is absolute. In Byzantium, democracy was seen as chaos, disorder (ataxia), a social evil. True, the idea of democracy was quite different at the time. But the idea is that power cannot come from both the ruler and the people.
The end of the Cold War.
When we talk about the East, we will mainly mean Russia. Bulgaria and the other countries from the Warsaw Pact, which are now part of NATO, are in a somewhat awkward position on this issue (I am not referring to the official stance, which does not always reflect the statistical thoughts and feelings of the population). We will not speak about the Third World countries, as it will become heavy. And so:
The West: The end of the Cold War is the "end of history" (Fukuyama, who later rethought this view). Eastern Europe made a voluntary choice (which was the case at the time) in its geopolitical orientation.
Russia: Defeat, humiliation, strategic disaster. And not of communism, not of the Soviet Union, but of the "Third Rome". It took years to realize that the communist USSR was nothing more than a conjunctural packaging of Great Russian imperialism. Even if it seems absurd to some, Soviet communism, like any other, was a Western invention that the Russian autocrats tolerated with reluctance.
Cultural and ideological conflict in the 21st century.
The West: post-nationalism, identity politics, liberal morals; rights of minorities; culture of denial; all kinds of activism and "war for social justice".
The East: traditionalism (against modernity), religion, national conservatism. For the East, modernity and progressivism are soulless because they have severed their ties with tradition. From there, they are harmful to public mental health.
***
Obviously, we are really dealing with two different civilizations and, yes, Ukraine is not the cause but the consequence of the rift between them. The Great Schism of 1054 is also not the cause but the consequence. The reason lies in the divergence of worldviews due to various historical, psychological, and spiritual reasons.
Yet on this small planet there are also other, very peculiar and alien civilizations, and we are moving in some way. Let each person focus on their own work, and when Vidovden (the Eighth Day of Creation) comes, we will see who is right and who is wrong.
Additionally, I believe that Carthage should be destroyed.
For the "Trud" newspaper.
36931 | 28 Dec. 2025 | 18:29
Mobile verison
RSS
