NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Perun]

8 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

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.

Russia is part of western civilization not civilization for them self

[seahawk]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

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

Russia checks all the boxes. And a history spanning back more than 1000 years is long lasting by any means.

[Martineleca]

On 6/4/2024 at 6:49 AM, Perun said:

What do you think how long would it take for Germany to go east again, or Turkey to go west or some other country to mess things up

And how exactly will Turkey's potential actions on the other side of the Black Sea be restrained by Russia when it didn't even deter Azerbaijan from crushing the Armenians a stone's throw away from their own border, even though nominally they had deployed peacekeepers to prevent just that, instead choosing to abandon Armenia for the third time in the last century. Maybe at some point Erevan will get the message to stop fucking around with all their neighbours for the sake of the Kremlin that won't back them up when they find out, though Belgrade still hasn't come to that conclusion either.

[Perun]

31 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

And how exactly will Turkey's potential actions on the other side of the Black Sea be restrained by Russia when it didn't even deter Azerbaijan from crushing the Armenians a stone's throw away from their own border, even though nominally they had deployed peacekeepers to prevent just that, instead choosing to abandon Armenia for the third time in the last century. Maybe at some point Erevan will get the message to stop fucking around with all their neighbours for the sake of the Kremlin that won't back them up when they find out, though Belgrade still hasn't come to that conclusion either.

Russia didnt abandoned Armenia, Armenia turned to the west.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

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

Russia checks all the boxes. And a history spanning back more than 1000 years is long lasting by any means.

First RUSSIAN Tsar was Mikhail of Tver (lived 1271–1318) Considerably less than 1000 years. Particularly when you take the Year zero of 1917 and the Soviet Union, which tried in every way it could to break with that established history by murdering or smashing it wholesale. Post Soviet Russian culture at best has a life of 33 years.

Ukraine in theory COULD claim 1000 years of history with Yaroslav the wise. I think considering how many times its borders have been changed and been obliterated from the map, that isnt really true either. You could say a culture lasted that long, but its not really a civilisation.

I think you can at best take EUROPEAN history and take well over 1000 years of civilisation. But when you try and split it down and say 'This country had 1000 years of civilisation', I think the only one that can really claim that is China. Or, maybe Egypt.

 

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think you can at best take EUROPEAN history and take well over 1000 years of civilisation. But when you try and split it down and say 'This country had 1000 years of civilisation', I think the only one that can really claim that is China. Or, maybe Egypt.

I think Egypt also had too much discontinuity really. China, you could argue, had two really big breaks (the Century of Humiliation and the Cultural Revolution).

Actually, the West too... What with the massive changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, for example. Britain kind of has the best claim to any continuity going back to 1066 (though the Reformation, the Civil Wars, and the Glorious Revolution might need someone to hold their beers here).

Like I said, it's all a bit wishy-washy. Anyone can throw in their own ingredients (Christianity, democracy, the Enlightenment, etc., etc.) and start making a different civilisation stew.

[ink]

4 hours ago, Perun said:

Russia is part of western civilization not civilization for them self

It's definitely possible to make that claim. I would still argue that it's kind of on the fringes of Western civilization at best. One foot in, one foot out kind of thing.

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, ink said:

Actually, the West too... What with the massive changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, for example. Britain kind of has the best claim to any continuity going back to 1066 (though the Reformation, the Civil Wars, and the Glorious Revolution might need someone to hold their beers here).

Considering the 1688 Glorious Revolution could be understood as a invasion on par with the 1066 one...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, fair point about the Cultural Revolution, that was stupid to forget that. They had as much a break as the Russians did.

I dont think Britain can claim to be a civilisation as much a culture. That said, I think there IS such a thing as European Civilisation, largely driven, as Clark contends, at first anyway, but Christianity. And yes, perhaps more so then by industrialisation and commerce. But for all the splits and the breaks in that continuity, there is always some corner that seems to be carrying the torch, no matter how bleak it sometimes appears.

Of course, when are art is now Damien Hirst, and our political movements are Brexit (and Boris Johnson) or AFD or Marine le Penn, then perhaps we shouldnt get carried away about how permament it all is.

Perhaps we should get too enthusiastic about a thousand years marker. If you exclude the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine was to my mind distinctly different civilisation in its own right), the Roman Empire only lasted some 700-800 years. But I dont think anyone would suggest it wasnt a civilisation because it didnt tick the date box.

 

[ink]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

Considering the 1688 Glorious Revolution could be understood as a invasion on par with the 1066 one...

There's absolutely no doubt it was an invasion. But I do think it's generally seen as being invasion lite (there was an invitation, nothing much changed, the City got to keep going, things quicky went back to basically the way they were, the Dutch didn't unify the kingdoms... Just don't mention the Irish).

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, ink said:

It's definitely possible to make that claim. I would still argue that it's kind of on the fringes of Western civilization at best. One foot in, one foot out kind of thing.

They have most definately flirted with Western civilisation, definately. But for various reasons, it never seems to last, presumably because they recognise they would have to commit to being distinctly less asian and more European to make it stick.

There was a pretty interesting drama set in the Hermitage called 'Russian Ark' (2002), about the role of Art in Russian society, and how they seem to feel somewhat conflicted that they lack the artistic tradition of Europe.  Im not saying that is true, I dont believe it is, just seemingly how they protrayed themselves in the drama, ie the French aristocrat mocking Russian art, saying 'Why dont you make something of your own instead of just copying us?'

Its a very strange drama, but surprisingly thought provoking, if you can stick with it.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, ink said:

There's absolutely no doubt it was an invasion. But I do think it's generally seen as being invasion lite (there was an invitation, nothing much changed, the City got to keep going, things quicky went back to basically the way they were, the Dutch didn't unify the kingdoms... Just don't mention the Irish).

Well... There is a case for saying it was, to a significant degree an armed coup. Namely Parliament practically invited in William to take over. Im trying to find a parallel in history when something like this happened, but it was I think damn near unique. The nearest you could get would be yanukovich fleeing, and there was clear differences there.

I dont think the Dutch would have stood a chance against the Royal Navy if it had ben an actual invasion. And Im given to understand that when King James II tried to launch a counter invasion with the aid of the French a few years later, its shipping was spectacularly destroyed by the Royal Navy. KingJames watched it whilst it happened, and couldnt help but point out to the French whom were trying to help him, that at least it still pointed to the superiority of his beloved Royal Navy.

 

[futon]

Yamato period (Kofun period, Asuka period) for Japan.

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They have most definately flirted with Western civilisation, definately. But for various reasons, it never seems to last, presumably because they recognise they would have to commit to being distinctly less asian and more European to make it stick.

There was a pretty interesting drama set in the Hermitage called 'Russian Ark' (2002), about the role of Art in Russian society, and how they seem to feel somewhat conflicted that they lack the artistic tradition of Europe.  Im not saying that is true, I dont believe it is, just seemingly how they protrayed themselves in the drama, ie the French aristocrat mocking Russian art, saying 'Why dont you make something of your own instead of just copying us?'

Its a very strange drama, but surprisingly thought provoking, if you can stick with it.

 

If we, for reasons you mentioned, exclude Russia from western civilization then we allso could exclude Greece, Latin America, US and Canada, Australia and NZ...

[seahawk]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

First RUSSIAN Tsar was Mikhail of Tver (lived 1271–1318) Considerably less than 1000 years. Particularly when you take the Year zero of 1917 and the Soviet Union, which tried in every way it could to break with that established history by murdering or smashing it wholesale. Post Soviet Russian culture at best has a life of 33 years.

Ukraine in theory COULD claim 1000 years of history with Yaroslav the wise. I think considering how many times its borders have been changed and been obliterated from the map, that isnt really true either. You could say a culture lasted that long, but its not really a civilisation.

I think you can at best take EUROPEAN history and take well over 1000 years of civilisation. But when you try and split it down and say 'This country had 1000 years of civilisation', I think the only one that can really claim that is China. Or, maybe Egypt.

 

The traditional start date of specifically Russian history is the establishment of the Rus' state in the north in 862, ruled by Varangians. And most importantly Civilisations are different from cultures, so a lasting civilisation will experience different cultural periods. Like Egypt of BC has really nothing in common with Egypt today. Even the language changed completely, while Russian evolved from the Slavic dialects spoken in the area.

Where you are wrong is in the believe that a Civilisation needs to be lasting or advanced or having a lasting influence. Most are neither and appear and disappear without much notice. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any place on earth that was inhabited by modern humans that did not have a civilisation. Research points to the fact that even early humanoids had a civilisation, as we are finding traces of meeting places, trade, monuments and art. Which implies that they had some sort of government and a way to communicate.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

If they dont leave a trace, then they arent civilisations, they are cultures. Thats the point Clark was making, and frankly, I cant find much fault in his logic.

[seahawk]

This is stupid, because leaving a trace depends entirely on how advanced they were, where they were and finally luck, for the traces to survive and to be found and to be understood.  What Mr. Clark describes is the difference between a Great Civilisation and a Civilisation.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

If we, for reasons you mentioned, exclude Russia from western civilization then we allso could exclude Greece, Latin America, US and Canada, Australia and NZ...

No, because Greek Civilisation has never really died. It exported its values to central Europe, thence to England, and thence to North America, Australia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Those werent ENGLISH values. They are Greco-Romano values that the rest of Europe has added to.

Russia has borrowed from that civilisation occasionally, not least its church. For the most part though, its ploughed its own furrow. Pretty much the same way the Vikings did.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

This is stupid, because leaving a trace depends entirely on how advanced they were, where they were and finally luck, for the traces to survive and to be found and to be understood.  What Mr. Clark describes is the difference between a Great Civilisation and a Civilisation.

Watch the episode. He draws a distinction between a civilisation and a culture.

Hey, im not the world respected academic that made a groundbreaking tv series. I didnt make the rules here.

 

[seahawk]

And others defined it differently, like V. Gordon Childe.

[ink]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, because Greek Civilisation has never really died. It exported its values to central Europe, thence to England, and thence to North America, Australia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Those werent ENGLISH values. They are Greco-Romano values that the rest of Europe has added to.

This is good stuff, no doubt, but there was a break, especially in Northern Europe with those Greco-Roman values called the Dark Ages. Particularly affected Britain, as I recall.

Not to mention the Reformation.

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Russia has borrowed from that civilisation occasionally, not least its church. For the most part though, its ploughed its own furrow. Pretty much the same way the Vikings did.

Its church and its writing system and its medieval/early modern ambitions to become the third Rome. And, I suppose it might be worth mentioning, but it could be argued that the Eastern Church didn't experience as great a break from the original Roman church as did the churches in the West.

Also, why were Greco-Roman values "exported to" Western Europe but "borrowed by" Russia? I suppose the Roman legacy (that is, the legacy of being ruled from Rome).

[Perun]

2 minutes ago, ink said:

Also, why were Greco-Roman values "exported to" Western Europe but "borrowed by" Russia? I suppose the Roman legacy (that is, the legacy of being ruled from Rome).

Because he has issues with Russian culture, Russian people in fact all Russian (I said "issues" but we could openly call that russophobia if not racism). That is conclusion from his posts about Russia on This Great Forum

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, ink said:

This is good stuff, no doubt, but there was a break, especially in Northern Europe with those Greco-Roman values called the Dark Ages. Particularly affected Britain, as I recall.

Not to mention the Reformation.

Its church and its writing system and its medieval/early modern ambitions to become the third Rome. And, I suppose it might be worth mentioning, but it could be argued that the Eastern Church didn't experience as great a break from the original Roman church as did the churches in the West.

Also, why were Greco-Roman values "exported to" Western Europe but "borrowed by" Russia? I suppose the Roman legacy (that is, the legacy of being ruled from Rome).

If you watch the film (and I really encourage to watch it) Clark says almost exactly the same thing.

His contention was that it only survived 'by the skin of its teeth' with the monestaries in the Scottish highlands and in ireland, by going to the edge of the known world and keeping the knowlege base alive, almost like a medieval equivalent of doomsday prepping. There was also the European libaries that survived. it just required someone with the level of interest to go and decipher them from the ancient greek or, rather easier presumably, the Roman texts. for that to happen, and for the text to survive, you needed a period of stability.

It would be fair to say that recorded history came to an end for a few centuries. But that didnt mean prior teachings justwent away. We know that they didnt, because people carried on using the wheel, even using Roman Roads and aquaducts where they survived.

Id argue the reformation was at least as much springboard to reviving many of the old Roman aesthetics and histories. It wasnt just the end of an old era, so much as a revival of appreciation of a much older one.

Russia certainly borrowed much from Byzantium in Religion and art. But it clearly didnt borrow anything from the rule of law, or the philosophical texts. We can see that simply because Russia developed into an autocracy, whereas Europe did grasp something from the ancient Greek and old Roman concept of Democracy. Even in the reign of King John, England still had some concept of the rule of law, and codefied them in Magna Carta. Can anyone say the Tsar or the Bolsheviks really took on board that tradition?

 

 

[ink]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Russia certainly borrowed much from Byzantium in Religion and art. But it clearly didnt borrow anything from the rule of law, or the philosophical texts. We can see that simply because Russia developed into an autocracy, whereas Europe did grasp something from the ancient Greek and old Roman concept of Democracy. Even in the reign of King John, England still had some concept of the rule of law, and codefied them in Magna Carta. Can anyone say the Tsar or the Bolsheviks really took on board that tradition?

Fair enough, really. System of government should come into it somewhere. Although, I'm not too sure how strongly the Eastern Romans were clinging on to the rule of law by the time Russians started being influenced by them.

As for democracy, I'm sceptical but willing to be swayed. Western Europe has an extremely patchy history when it comes to democracy. Britain less than most but it is more a kind of outlier in this regard, rather than being indicative of a broader trend.

[bojan]

Historically looking democracy is an aberration in the western Europe (and everywhere else), not a norm.