NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Perun]

2 minutes ago, sunday said:

Frankly, I prefer the old term used to denote Western Civilization - Christendom.

 

👍

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Yeah, you could say Russia is on the margins. It's not like the definition of "Western civilization" is a clear-cut thing with fixed geographical boundaries that everyone agrees on.

But, it is still broadly possible to say that Russia isn't usually considered to be a central feature of Western civilization. Wrong kind of Christianity (yes, I know), not part of the Roman world, different kind of political traditions, too much Asian influence (I said I know!)... That kind of thing.

This is going to be a contentious view, but as im getting it from the late lamented Kenneth Clarke, whom did the TV series Civilisation, I think its worth pointing to..

He says that for something to truly qualify as a Civilisation, it has to be able to demonstrate an inherent stability, and a capability to enhance its position. For this reason, whilst he was respectful of Viking art, he didnt qualify it as a civilisation. It was a culture. Presumably because they were always fighting among themselves, or with the Europeans.

I think Russia (and Ukraine ultimately) have to both be viewed in this same light. I dont think anyone could qualify what Russia has been through in the last 110 years as 'Stability', and even before then, the corruption and serfdom hampered its ability to expand as a civilisation.

Its in episode one if anyone wants to think about this.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=kenneth+clark+civilisation+on+vikings&mid=C892385ECD4971CB1727C892385ECD4971CB1727&FORM=VIRE

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Frankly, I prefer the old term used to denote Western Civilization - Christendom.

Where do the descendants of the Red Guard squadrons who burned down more churches than Suleiman the magnificent's horde and carry on the tradition to this day fit into that exactly?

Edited June 5 by Martineleca

[ink]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Frankly, I prefer the old term used to denote Western Civilization - Christendom.

 

Yeah, I like it too. Sounds so... weighty.

Just doesn't work anymore though, does it? Barely anyone in Northern Europe still believes in god, much less goes to church. And if Northern Europe isn't part of Western civilization, then what are we even talking about.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is going to be a contentious view, but as im getting it from the late lamented Kenneth Clarke, whom did the TV series Civilisation, I think its worth pointing to..

He says that for something to truly qualify as a Civilisation, it has to be able to demonstrate an inherent stability, and a capability to enhance its position. For this reason, whilst he was respectful of Viking art, he didnt qualify it as a civilisation. It was a culture. Presumably because they were always fighting among themselves, or with the Europeans.

I think Russia (and Ukraine ultimately) have to both be viewed in this same light. I dont think anyone could qualify what Russia has been through in the last 110 years as 'Stability', and even before then, the corruption and serfdom hampered its ability to expand as a civilisation.

Its in episode one if anyone wants to think about this.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=kenneth+clark+civilisation+on+vikings&mid=C892385ECD4971CB1727C892385ECD4971CB1727&FORM=VIRE

I guess "Russkiy mir" is supposed to be some sort of attempt to be civilisation-adjacent or something but I personally would never refer to Russia as a civilisation. Maybe if the Soviet Union had kept on going, but that was too short-lived.

[seahawk]

14 minutes ago, ink said:

I guess "Russkiy mir" is supposed to be some sort of attempt to be civilisation-adjacent or something but I personally would never refer to Russia as a civilisation. Maybe if the Soviet Union had kept on going, but that was too short-lived.

I think it has all trademarks of a civilisation, it just never was a leading or especially advanced one.

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, ink said:

I guess "Russkiy mir" is supposed to be some sort of attempt to be civilisation-adjacent or something but I personally would never refer to Russia as a civilisation. Maybe if the Soviet Union had kept on going, but that was too short-lived.

If the USSR had survived, it would certainly warrant the tag of civilisation, particularly  as its values were exported.

16 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I think it has all trademarks of a civilisation, it just never was a leading or especially advanced one.

No, never stable enough. And it arguably was in decline from the late 60s on.

[Laser Shark]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/

Civilization endures as long as people are able to rebuild their cities between the sacks.

... but anyway, we are getting way off topic (as usual for Tank-net).

[sunday]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Yeah, I like it too. Sounds so... weighty.

Just doesn't work anymore though, does it? Barely anyone in Northern Europe still believes in god, much less goes to church. And if Northern Europe isn't part of Western civilization, then what are we even talking about.

Northern Europe was a pagan land until the lower Middle Ages, so...

[seahawk]

45 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, never stable enough. And it arguably was in decline from the late 60s on.

But Russia has, as without a doubt it filled a gap in the area, that was often dominated by central Asian cultures before. Russia has all trades of a civilisation, just never was a leading one. Like many others and probably countless one we do not even know that they ever existed.

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 minutes ago, seahawk said:

But Russia has, as without a doubt it filled a gap in the area, that was often dominated by central Asian cultures before. Russia has all trades of a civilisation, just never was a leading one. Like many others and probably countless one we do not even know that they ever existed.

Yes, like I said, a culture. A very vibrant, visually stimulating and fascinating  culture by any measure. But its not a civilisation, its simply not stable enough for that.

Like I say, watch the Ken Clark episode above. You will find it fascinating. I certainly did.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/

Civilization endures as long as people are able to rebuild their cities between the sacks.

... but anyway, we are getting way off topic (as usual for Tank-net).

The trick is not being sacked in the first place. Chinese civilisation has managed that for Centuries. Russians regularly sack themselves. Ask Roman if its true. He regularly complains about the oligarchs.

[Laser Shark]

Russia, for all its faults, fits every criteria to be considered a civilization, and to state otherwise is quite bizarre IMO. Yes, they deserve every criticism for their actions towards Ukraine, as well as the consequences they’re now facing, but make no mistake, this is the work of a civilization. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited June 5 by Laser Shark

[ink]

I feel like we haven't agreed upon anything approaching a definition of civilisation and we're now all just talking past one another.

[ink]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Northern Europe was a pagan land until the lower Middle Ages, so...

Aye, indeed it was. Serbs like to point out that the nobles at Dušan's court were eating with golden forks while the British were tearing meat apart with their bare hands. But we can surely agree that a lot has happened since then.

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, ink said:

...a lot has happened since then

Precisely - part of Christendom is devolving into Paganism.

Edited June 5 by sunday

[ink]

13 minutes ago, sunday said:

Precisely - part of Christendom is devolving into Paganism.

It's worse than that, Sunday, my friend, if you want to approach it like that, it's devolving into godlessness.

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, ink said:

It's worse than that, Sunday, my friend, if you want to approach it like that, it's devolving into godlessness.

In practice, it is another name for the same.

[Laser Shark]

7 minutes ago, ink said:

I feel like we haven't agreed upon anything approaching a definition of civilisation and we're now all just talking past one another.

While there is usually some academic disagreement on exact definitions, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that would disqualify present day Russia from being considered a civilization. If the Russian cities are abandoned for the hills and countryside, I’ll reconsider.

[Laser Shark]

2 minutes ago, sunday said:

In practice, it is another name for the same.

To the Atheist, it is the Christian and the Pagan who are cut from the same (superstitious) cloth.

[ink]

17 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

While there is usually some academic disagreement on exact definitions, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that would disqualify present day Russia from being considered a civilization. If the Russian cities are abandoned for the hills and countryside, I’ll reconsider.

Oh no, see, we are talking at cross purposes. You're saying Russia is a civilised country. They have the qualities of civilisation. Fine, who could disagree. But I'm talking about whether or not they are a civilisation. As distinct from other civilisations. Like the Abyssinians or Egypt.

[Laser Shark]

4 minutes ago, ink said:

Oh no, see, we are talking at cross purposes. You're saying Russia is a civilised country. They have the qualities of civilisation. Fine, who could disagree. But I'm talking about whether or not they are a civilisation. As distinct from other civilisations. Like the Abyssinians or Egypt.

I see. That's another matter, yes.

[sunday]

8 minutes ago, ink said:

Oh no, see, we are talking at cross purposes. You're saying Russia is a civilised country. They have the qualities of civilisation. Fine, who could disagree. But I'm talking about whether or not they are a civilisation. As distinct from other civilisations. Like the Abyssinians or Egypt.

Part of Christian civilization, I would say. A guy from Irkutsk would have more in common with another guy from Córdoba (Argentina) than with one from Tehran.

[urbanoid]

There are Christian countries in Africa, I wouldn't necessarily say they belong to the Western civilisation. Aforementioned Abyssinia/Ethiopia is even one of the oldest Christian countries in the world and... well...

Let's not forget Mongol influences on Russia (well, especially Muscovy, but since it was Muscovy that united Russian states...), that's something that other European countries haven't experienced, at least not for prolonged period. Princes were submitting to the khan to be allowed to rule, that kind of resulted in the more khan-like position of the tsars and the system of dependencies between tsars and boyars and down the totem pole. 

Russia has pretty much missed renaissance, hasn't experienced that much of enlightenment either, especially politically. 'Dangerous foreign ideas' were being suppressed throughout the 19th century. I'd say that 1905 gave a small ray of hope for 'normalisation' (from our perspective) of Russia, but that hope died in 1917, when a determined and ruthless minority believing in literally the dumbest Western idea in history took over the country and stayed in power for more than 70 years.   

 

[sunday]

If the name of the game is nitpicking counterexamples, then Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria are geographically west of Denmark.

It would be better to consider that Africa is Africa.

Poland, too, was Communist for a time.

 

Edited June 6 by sunday