Pascal Bruckner’s figure has very little in common with our image of a French intellectual, at least because he defends the US foreign policy and stands up for the ideas of liberalism in his books and articles. However, his opinions are respected in France. Bruckner cooperates with influential daily newspaper Le Monde and magazine Le Nouvel Observateur. A student of famous French post-structuralism philosopher and semiotician Roland Barthes, in the 1970s he became close with the so-called nouveaux philosophes (new philosophers), a group of French thinkers who were disappointed in Marxism. Among them were Andre Glucksmann and Bernard-Henri Levy; the latter actually introduced the term nouveaux philosophes. Let us remind that this year Levy came to Ukraine to demonstrate his solidarity and support Maidan’s demands. Regardless of all this, the general public knows Bruckner first and foremost as a writer. In 1992, Roman Polanski adapted Bruckner’s book Bitter Moon into an eponymous film. The philosopher visited our country to present the Ukrainian translation of his work The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism (translated by Petro Tarashchuk), which was published by Tempora Publishing House. And the timing is perfect, because in this book the author brings up a lot of currently relevant questions. In particular, the book gives a better understanding of the reasons of Western Europe’s weak reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This is Bruckner’s second book that was translated into Ukrainian. The first one, The Paradox of Love, was published in 2012 by Hrani-T Publishing House.

According to Pascal Bruckner, modern Europe critically lacks realism in attitude towards foreign relations. “Europe dreams about a utopia of infectious happiness, which will turn its opponents into partners: if we are kind to them, they will become kind to us,” the thinker explains in his book The Tyranny of Guilt. “In its hardest moments, Europe was looking for peace at any cost, even for a bad peace, a peace that sanctifies injustice, willfulness, terror.” Bruckner thinks that Europeans have stopped believing in evil and acknowledge only misunderstandings which can be settled through dialogs and agreements. According to this logic, the enemy must be understood, not fought. A vivid example of that is the attitude towards terrorism. In Bruckner’s view, it is too hard for Europeans to accept the fact that fanatics simply hate them and the principles European society is based on. Instead, they attempt to produce reasonable explanations of terrorists’ actions, look for social or historic reasons, risking to justify these crimes and even to take the responsibility for them to some extent. (Isn’t it an example of “Western masochism”?) “When a conflict ignites, we resort to endless delays, dilute our indignation with cynicism, do not join either the aggressor’s or the victim’s side. We display sagacity of a coward who swears not to give in to provocations... A timid colossus feeling the threat of gigantism and losing effectiveness proportionally to its territorial expansion, Europe risks becoming a Pontius Pilate for nations,” Bruckner warns. Oddly enough, in his book he warns about the threat of autocratic Russia many times, though it was written even before Russia’s aggression against Georgia. “There is an opinion in France that Europe is to blame for Russia’s attack on Ukraine,” the writer says during a meeting with readers in Kyiv. “Saying, we humiliated this country and Putin, and it caused this kind of ‘protest’ in him. Now we need to apologize in order to appease him.”

The reason for such a distorted reaction is the guilt complex typical of Western Europe, a kind of “reversed ressentiment,” an ability to see only the worst pages of its history, a hypertrophic critical attitude which leads to self-hatred and self-condemnation. According to Bruckner, Europe still cannot forgive itself for colonialism, the crimes of dictatorial regimes, the Holocaust, etc. And the reason for this peculiarity is not that all Europeans have historically been greater “criminals” than other nations (“there are no innocent nations from the moment when they acquire a political stand,” the author states), but they were the first to start noticing and admitting their own cruelties and mistakes. Bruckner thinks that Christianity, which is at the core of European culture, invented the phenomenon of guilt in its modern shape. However, with time, as it often happens when we lack a sense of proportion, an advantage turned into a defect: Europeans have developed a kind of “self-blaming mentality” on the level of reflexes, critical opinion became a new conformism. Instead of recognizing an ability to see (and overcome in time) their dark sides as an indisputable advantage of the European culture and move on (as the US does), Western Europe trapped itself and made self-reproach its obsessive habit. Suffering became a value, a source of exclusive rights and an object of blackmail. In such conditions, believes Bruckner, representatives of the intellectual elite become “functionaries of the original sin.” To support his words, he adduces excerpts from Baudrillard and Derrida’s works, in which they virtually justify terrorists’ actions.

Bruckner sees Europe’s hidden messianism, its arrogance, and desire to be the center of the world, despite the opposite declarations, in its tendency towards assuming responsibility for all crimes and misfortunes that happen in the world. At the same time, such paradoxical combination of arrogance and self-hatred, which is typical for Europeans, and especially the French (Bruckner calls France “a symptom of Europe”), leads to isolation from the rest of the world and attempts to remain a detached observer of history. The sense of guilt grants Europeans a secure alibi, which lets them keep their distance from all surrounding problems. “The fear to repeat past mistakes makes us too indulgent towards the shameful phenomena of the present,” Bruckner says. But Europe, complacent with democracy within its borders and refusing to defend it elsewhere, risks losing this precious and fragile achievement in general, the writer thinks. According to Bruckner, the greatest danger lies not in the West’s expansion, but in its indifference towards the rest of the world.

The author criticizes European society’s state paternalism, excessive individualism, and skepticism, its inability to rise above its immediate interests, typically European negligence of freedom for the sake of equality and welfare (which, in the philosopher’s view, is clearly shown by “European politicians’ curvets in front of autocrat Putin for a bit of gas or oil”). But Bruckner’s stand is attractive, because while criticizing Europe, he does not prophesy its collapse (for an umpteenth time during the past 100 years), but instead, he calls on to fight for the revival, through reinterpretation and restoration of sources and values which shaped and allowed to implement the exceptional civilization mission in the history of humankind. While criticizing multiculturalism and European policy on national, religious, and sexual minorities, he offers an alternative, which cuts the ground from under various extremist movements, both far right and far left. Bruckner urges to revive civil patriotism, preservation and reconstruction of national identities, search of the single uniting narrative in history. He thinks that Europeans must learn to combine the acknowledgment of their own faults with self-assertion, pride for their country, as the United States do. According to him, all this will allow to consolidate polyethnic European societies and make their productive dialog with the world possible. Besides, Bruckner supports closer relations between Europe and the US, and the restoration of European military power. Since democratic countries are responsible for the preservation of democracy in the world, they have to possess an effective tool for this: powerful armaments. At the same time, the thinker rejects the possibility of spreading democracy by military means.

Curiously enough, Bruckner gives Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, a special role in the process of Europe’s revival. According to the philosopher, thanks to their complicated histories, full of suffering and hardships, they can promote the establishment of self-confidence among their “Western brothers,” which the latter desperately lack. “Western and Eastern Europe have very different histories,” Bruckner explains during the meeting with readers. “We were freed by the Allies, and you – by the Red Army. Thanks to this, Eastern Europe managed to preserve what we have lost, some kind of ‘sense of resistance.’ In the West, a general reaction to the European idea is indifference, especially among the young, and it is often immediate. Instead, for residents of eastern countries Europe is still some sort of an ideal. I think that today you need to fight not the negative attitude of Europe, the task is much more complicated: you must overcome its lack of interest and indifference to your situation.”

We can admit that the interest for Eastern Europe became one of the reasons that did not let Bruckner miss the opportunity to visit Ukraine. The Day, in its turn, could not miss the opportunity to talk to the French philosopher. The conversation took place in the foyer of one of the cozy Kyiv hotels near the Golden Gates; despite the early hour, Mr. Bruckner patiently answered all the questions.

In The Tyranny of Guilt you describe how during the conflict in the Gaza Strip European journalists saw there only what they wanted to see. Do the European media cover events in Ukraine objectively?

“The conflict in Palestine is rather old. But it does not evoke as much interest in French society as it should have. The same can be said about the conflict in Ukraine. French society is rather indifferent, it does not worry over such problems too much. Even if mass media somewhat distort reality, their position does not influence the society greatly.”

That is, the propagandist machine Russia created in the West turned out to be not quite efficient too?

“There are so many various mass media and television channels in Europe, and in France in particular, that the voice of Russian media is simply lost among them, it is practically not heard.”

“PRESIDENT POROSHENKO SHOULD RE-READ MACHIAVELLI”

Russia’s aggression became a genuine shock for Ukraine. Before it, Ukrainians were firmly convinced that war is simply impossible here and now. What can you advise Ukrainian society today?

“Ukraine must arm itself with two things: cunning and intelligence. In the case when direct confrontation initiated by such a large country takes place, responding to confrontation is not a way out. Ukraine must avoid direct collision with Russia. President Poroshenko should re-read Machiavelli, I think, the principles he formulated could help Ukraine defend its independence and continue developing. Sometimes it is necessary to know how to retreat or give in, so as not to lose the most important. Besides, one must know how to lie in order to weaken the enemy. Today Ukraine faces two great challenges, but I am convinced it can find a way out of this situation. For this, among other things, it must completely abandon communist ideas and institutions, which strangely enough still exist. Perhaps, then it will transform and become a truly modern and liberal country. Russia will not be able to survive solely by means of natural resources in the future. Instead, Ukraine, which does not have these resources, must demonstrate its intellect and oppose it to Russia’s brutality. Besides, I am sure that Ukraine should start the process of joining NATO. Even if it is going to take years, it must be done.”

At the meeting with readers you said that Europeans still tend to think that post-Soviet countries still belong in Russia’s influence and responsibility zone. What can we do to change this attitude so that Europe would recognize Ukraine as a part of itself?

“In my opinion, Ukraine should not worry over how the West (or the East) perceives it: as a European country, or a country that is part of Russia’s influence zone. You should not give a damn about what others think of you. If Ukraine wants to integrate into Europe, it must take full responsibility for this process.”

“EUROPE RESEMBLES A HOUSE OF CARDS”

A lot of people in Ukraine think the West does not help us enough. Do you agree with this?

“Today we are witnessing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, just as it was happening against Georgia and Moldova. I think Putin wants to somehow take revenge for the collapse of the USSR. Europe does help Ukraine, in financial sense in the first place. But it has enough problems of its own, that is why it is unable to provide the kind of support you expect. Despite this, I am convinced that today Ukraine has a chance, partially because the United States have put it on the list of priority tasks that must be solved in the near future. Perhaps, it is the US that will be able to help you. Europe can be divided into Western, Eastern, and Central, and each European country falls into one of the echelons. Eastern Europe can be conventionally called the third echelon. Its issues, including the conflict in Ukraine, are not of high priority for Europe in general.”

What are the prospects of such organizations as the EU and NATO? Can some alternative structures appear?

“As regards NATO, this organization had been in a rather melancholic state before the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The war in Ukraine became a sort of tonic for it: now the Alliance is trying to objectively evaluate its powers in relation to such threats. Maybe this conflict will give it a second wind. Today NATO feels like a weak vis-a-vis against Russia’s aggression. Too many European countries would rather receive defense from the US than defend themselves with their own forces. Only Great Britain and France allocate enough financial resources for defense, other countries have very small military budgets. Perhaps, the current situation will force Europe to assess the existing military threats anew and increase its defense expenses. It should be kept in mind that Europe is very disunited now, it resembles a house of cards which can fall any moment.”

Calls for the deepening of integration between Eastern European countries are heard in Ukraine increasingly more often. Do you see prospects in this regard?

“Poland and the Baltic States are already members of the EU. The last expansion of the European Union might have happened too soon. Turkey’s prospects on this path are quite illusory. I think that the next enlargement of the EU is possible no sooner than in 10 to 20 years. But the institutional apparatus of Europe is rather flexible, therefore I do not rule out various unions within the framework of the European Union. Poland is joining the eurozone soon. At the same time, it might choose some other way. It is possible that other countries form some alliances, but within the EU. Meanwhile, Switzerland, for example, is not an EU member, but it is doing great nevertheless. I think other countries are watching it and thinking that the EU is not that desirable for them as it used to be. As for Ukraine, creating a powerful defense system is of primary importance for you. You must develop your army, it is crucial today.”

You wrote in your book that the world modernized under Europe’s influence, but it westernized only partially, because not all countries accepted values that shaped Europe.

“It is rather about the modernization of the appearance, while the hearts of those countries remain archaic. Perhaps, they borrow some scientific values and ways of economic development from Europe. Europe can do a lot, but it is not omnipotent. In reality, it cannot even take full responsibility for itself today, let alone the rest of the world. The only country that can afford it today is the US.”

“THE GREATNESS OF DEMOCRACIES IS THAT THEY CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR FAULTS”

You encourage to support reformist movements in Islam, make it more secular, motivate Muslims to go through a process of self-criticism and acknowledgment of their own guilt, as it happened in Christianity. But don’t you think that doubting its own truths knocked the bottom out of Christianity once, consequently leading to the decrease of its active followers in Europe. Since some principles are doubtful, any other ones might be questionable as well. Instead, the uncriticality of Islam attracts new followers. What caused the decrease of active Christians in Europe?

“This is a very complicated question. First of all, we must remember that Christianity is divided and exists as Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It was a great achievement when Rome acknowledged that religion must not interfere with political processes in order to avoid various disasters. The problem with Islam, especially its radical movements, is that they are very closely tied to political processes. If Islam realizes it should slightly shift away from politics, perhaps it, and its radical movements in particular, will cease being a danger factor for society. As for the decrease of the number of active Christians in Europe – why does it happen? Firstly, because religious dogmas make people think. And when people start thinking, they abstract away from these dogmas. It cannot be said that all European countries abandoned the idea of Christianity. There are a lot of active believers in France. At the same time, fewer people become Christians in Poland, even though this process used to be very intensive. I think that if a person constantly attends masses and goes to church, it does not mean they are a true believer. This aspect is not as important, because a person either has God in their soul, or they don’t. The Christian religion is mild, it gives more freedoms to people. For example, I profess the Christian idea of tolerance and first and foremost, I think that each of us must be tolerant in relation to representatives of all other religions. Of course, I would like to see more of such mild approaches in Islam.”

Some philosophers, Charles Taylor in particular, think that cultural and social crisis that the Western world ended up in, is accounted for by the fact that it rejects any positive values. That is, Western morality tells people what cannot be done (for example, they cannot infringe on the freedom of others, etc.), but it does not say what should be done, it does not say what is good, implying that each person should make a decision on this individually. Do you agree with this opinion?

“I do not. The corpus of the EU principles includes the following things: equality between man and woman, pluralism of opinions, freedom of speech. All these are European achievements. You can only reproach Europe for not always being firm in defending these principles and not adhering to them scrupulously. Perhaps, this is the only drawback. Europe is not always consistent in matters that relate to the East, Muslims, etc. But it undoubtedly formed certain most crucial principles, and they are of primary importance for it. The greatness of European democracies, and also of the US, India, etc., is that these countries can acknowledge their faults before humankind. But the matter of measure arises here: the line should not be crossed. Instead, only dictatorships like Russia and China cannot afford to honestly admit that they have committed a crime, and always shift the responsibility for it on others.”

We thank the French Institute in Ukraine for help in preparing this material