Europe or Euro-Siberia?
What's the geographical concept we, as nationalists, should take of Europe?
Geographically, Europe is a peninsula of the Eurasian continent that borders with the Atlantic Ocean in the West and with the Ural Mountains in the East. Traditionaly Siberia was never considered part of Europe, it was the land of different Turkic nomadic tribes, and it was started being colonised by Russian settlers in the 17th century.
Here, we face two different points of view:
Siberia must be Europe:
- Siberia is part of Russia, and Russia is a European nation, thus Siberia is Europe.
- Siberia is rich in natural resources, which will help the growth of Europe.
- Millions of ethnic Europeans, mainly Russians, but also Poles, Ukranians, Germans, etc., live in Siberia.
- Could be the green heart of Europe, stablishing an equilibrium with urbanised Europe.
Siberia must not be Europe:
- Siberia is just a remnant of European Imperialism, that has brought terrible consequences to all us. We don't want hundreds of thousands of Tatar and other Turks with European citizenship migrating to Europe.
- Siberia has the longest border with non-European countries, what adds difficulties to control immigration.
- It is not natively European, we must respect Siberian natives.
- Eurosiberianism would give wings to those National-Bolsheviks who claim for greater Eurasia.
- It is simply out of Europe borders, it's not about more natural resources or more territory, it's just Europe, nothing more.
So what's your option, Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or Europe from the Atlantic to Kamchatka?
|