A Strong Alliance with Russia is in Our Best Interest

The United States should work hard to develop a strong alliance with Russia. I believe such an alliance would be in the best interest of both nations.

During the Cold War, Russia -- then known as the Soviet Union -- was our enemy. But today, with radical Islam on the march, we should remember that Russia's roots are in Western civilization. We should nourish those roots and cooperate closely with Russia in the war on terror.

Russia has suffered large numbers of injuries and deaths as a result of terrorist actions, primarily by Chechnian Muslims who have been responsible for major terrorist acts in Moscow and the town of Beslan. The latter involved the killing of over 325 hostages -- half were children -- and hundreds more were wounded. Many of those deaths appear to have been the result of incompetence on the part of Russian forces seeking to free the hostages. Nevertheless, it was the taking of those children hostages by the Chechnian terrorists that caused their deaths.

Friendship with Russia is also important to the West because Russia has huge reserves of oil and natural gas. Russia is capable of supplying Europe's energy needs on a scale comparable to Saudi Arabia. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, however, Russian self-esteem has suffered in many ways. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is no longer seen as a world super power equivalent to the U.S. Some countries, which used to be part of the Soviet Union, have joined NATO, greatly reducing Russia's sphere of influence. Some of those former Soviet nations now have NATO weaponry in place.

Based on statements that President Putin made on February 10, Russia clearly feels threatened by the U.S. You don't have to be a psychiatrist...

"Orthodox civ in this regard is an intrinsically despotic civilization, and belongs squarely with islamic and sinic civs, despite being nominally Christian."
"Orthodox civ" is not limited to Russia. You would have known this if you really have grown up in Russia. I suppose that Greeks will disagree with you statement about "orthodox civ".
I don't dispute that Russia is on authoritarian site, but its cultural references are closer to western civilization. Anyone, who says, that Russia is culturally close to Islamic or Sinic civilization doesn't have a clue about any of them. Sorry.
Cultural references and political system are not synonyms. Fact that UE with its ludicrous bureaucracy begin to resemble imperial China doesn't mean, that these countries have similar roots or cultural references.

You are correct saying that Russia doesn't belong to the West and there are certain reasons for that but to me the whole thing is not so much about the culture based on religion factor. Russian elites may have contributed to the development of 'Western thought' (literature, music, science) but clearly not 'Western society'. Russia over centuries clearly developed it's own authocratic model of ruling (in which far-East bonds are most clearly visible). Like in physics heavier bodies attract other, smaller ones. And Russia clearly was large enough to feel entitled to go her own, separate way. Every time I have contact with Russians I somehow feel stubborn pride and conscious choice that has been made about it. Putin also very well epitomizes these features of Russian psyche and the dream of baroque greatness to majority of Russians. Maybe that's also where religious and political perspectives meet...? I don't know.

If any country where people wear western looking trousers and use proverbial toilet paper is considered as belonging to western civilization, then I haven't heard about a country that doesn't fulfill these conditions. So called developing countries don't look like a photo in National Geographic. Broadly defined middle class looks very similar in most countries around the world. What's more cities around he world look very similar.
Cultural differences are hidden deeper. For example if you aren't polite to your host's wife you are considered extremely rude in any western country, if you behave in similar way wife in Muslim country you are considered extremely indecent. In east Asia people are so polite, that you feel either like a Hollywood celebrity or like a butt of a joke. As far as I understand they consider our open way as rude and uncivilized. People in both Muslim and east Asian countries consider their culture as distinctly different from the western ways and much superior [which I considered healthy]. You would never find this kind of attitude in Russia.
I don't know why you bring Israel into this. Israel was mostly built by Eastern European Jews [among them Russian Jews]. In my native Poland, before WW2 more than 15% of population were Jewish [for comparison 60% were ethnic Poles]. Before WW1 most of polish land [with Jews living there] belonged to Russia. So it gives you idea how strongly Israel is linked to eastern European countries [Russia is one of them]. So the argument that part of Russian population that moved to Israel is part of western civ, and that part that stayed is barbaric doesn't make any sense.
Actually western civilization is split into Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox, the same way the Muslim civ is split into Sunnis Shiites and God knows what else. In Eastern Asia is even more complicated. You can argue, that Christians in f. ex. Africa don't belong to western civilization. Maybe, but Christians in many African and Asian countries are considered as western fifth column and persecuted. Just think about it.
By the way, culture is not ethnicity. You can choose one.
Judging by your devotion to Huntington, we have already clashed over Russia. Either you grossly misinterpret his book or his book is a simple BS.

Greeks in Orthodox civ are a somewhat of an outlier. Still, they are not too much of an outlier - just watch their church-state relation and see, for example, the attitudes towards their own Greek civil war of late 40s.
Those [sociologically westernized] Jews from Russia and Poland who built Israel brought with them their sociology [including such things as the worldviews and the ideas about how people ought to relate to one another and to their groups]. For this very reason of sociological incompatibility these Jews, or their ancestors, were getting out of russia and ussr, starting even prior to May laws 1882. When they were getting out of so-called Russian Poland - was there any such movement out of the Austrian or German parts of the then partitioned Poland? They did not belong there [in sociological terms] just as the Balts did not. And so, the country they finally built [israel], just like the Baltic countries of today, clearly reject civilizational "Russity" and return to their true civilizational, i.e. sociological roots.
Culture is the stuff like national cuisine and architecture, arts, literature, song, dance and pottery shards - the stuff for the ethnologists and archaeologists.
Economics is nowadays mostly the same, or similar, around the globe - and that includes access to toilet paper.
Societies are distinguished primarily by sociology - by how their people relate to one another and to their groups in socially important situations, and how these societies exist and self-perpetuate as sociologically distinct entities. The social etiquette [of moslems, asians etc.] you touch upon belongs in this sphere, too.
When and if you read Huntington, use "umnoye chtenie" [archaic Russian = read thoughtfully.]

BS.

Russia didn't have to look anywhere for examples of authoritarian model. It's been directly under Mongolian boot for more than 150 years (Batu Khan conquered Russia in 1223). And I don't have to say that it wasn't Mongolian democracy. It stopped paying tribute to Tatars in 1472.

And French was language of courts all over Europe, just like Latin was in the Middle Ages and like English is today. Does not have anything to do with government model.

My main thesis is that ONLY "accomplishments as a society" matter in defining the civilization level. A Stone Age tribe could have a great singer or a dancer - and still it would remain an uncivilized and barbarous Stone Age tribe, albeit one with a great singer or a dancer. Hence I'm drawing a sharp division between culture as the stuff for the archaeologists and ethnographers and the civilization as sociology.

First of all, let us correct the dates. Batu conquest is 1239-1240, and Mongolian overlordship is officially counted till 1480. Secondly, it is not so much the authoritarianism [which is secondary], as such sociological characteristics as the degree of individualism [connected with the development of civil society], which are more fundamental. This, after all, is what distinguishes absolute monarchy of Louis XIV from "asiatic despotisms" [Karl Marx' term] of, say, his contemporary russia or china. His monarchy was despotism all right, but it was not "asiatic" - his subjects had rights [like property rights against arbitrary confiscation - the king could tax, but he could not simply grab without what passed for the due process], even if those rights were honored more in breach than in observation. In Germany, they coined the word "Rechtsstaat".

1. Greece was under strong influences as Ottoman empire. as far as I remember it was even part of Ottoman empire for some time. So obviously you can describe it as an outlier, but in a different way you seem to suggest.
2. If Jews are so incompatible with "Russian civilization", why they prospered there, why they were so numerous?
3. The Zionistic movement, that aimed at establishing Jewish state,didn't drew significant following until the WW2. Establishing of Jewish state has much more to do with Hitler actions, than with Jewish incompatibility.
4. Moving from USSR or other Warsaw Pact countries to Israel was simply one of few routs of escaping communism. At some time there was some sort of treaty or agreement, that allowed Russian citizens of Jewish origin move with communist government blessing to Israel. I personally know people, who married a Jew in other to be able to go to Israel, and after few years move to US.
5 Balts are part of that region. I haven't noticed anything exceptionally different in those nations. They are there for too long to stand out. By the way if they were in any way superior, they would have conquered and ruled that region. It didn't happen.
6. Culture is a set of references that are common to a group of people. Those references create a feeling of community and sharing. Culture is a glue that makes possible working for common good and creates sort of responsibility for the whole group. Without shared culture it would be impossible to create nation or civilization. So it's a very useful thing, not a stuff for ethnologists and archaeologists.
7."umnoye chtenie" in modern Russian means "reading wisely". "Umnoy" means wise and "chtenie" is a noun not a verb. I speak Russian better than English, so you don't have to translate Russian for my benefit. I regret, that I don't have Russian letters on the laptop I'm using now.
8. There is no doubt that Huntington is an interesting reading, but he represents western point of view. Now the most interesting and important things are happening outside the western circles. I'm much more interested in the voices from there.

'Germans, Jews, Poles, and the Balts were [even in pre-1917 russia] much more highly individualistic than the rest. High degree of individualism is a sociological hallmark of the Western civ, and is conspicuously missing in the other civs, which you are "much more interested in", and which I find inferior.'
I suppose that the Natzi movement is for you the prove of highly individualistic character of German culture [sarcasm]. German culture is one of the most anty-individualistic I have ever met with. The German proverb "Ordnung must sein" is the gist of German approach to life. In case You don't speak German and simply use a translator, I want to draw your attention, that "ordnung" is much closer to 'discipline' than to 'order'
As far as Poland is concerned, the line of thought before 1939 was described by proverb 'God, honor and my country'. I don't see any individualism there, do you?
Individualistic approach to life is a product of the last decades, and the speed of implosion of the Western civilization is the best indicator of how beneficial this attitude is for a nation. If you are talking of highly individualistic nations before 1917, than gosh you don't have a clue. At that time people even didn't know that one day they may be considered as equal!!!
The hallmark of successful society is not an individualistic approach, but freedom to better one's life, freedom to keep fruits of your work and working legal system. To sum up a successful society is a society that motivates its people to create wealth. Anglo-Saxon culture met this condition. Individualism has nothing to do with it.

I found it very refreshing, that in this insane times of PC a person belonging to western civilization says, that he/she finds other cultures inferior. [I'm dead serious, there is no sarcasm here]. What's more I think that it's a fair statement, because people living in non-western circles usually have no doubt, that their culture is superior to any other.

Nazis in Germany were a historic blip. As for your trouble with seeing individualism [happens when one has imbibed too much "russity" and has not puked it out], compare "rab bozhij" [god's slave - "rab" is used, not "sluga"] with "servant of god". The same idea, but translated within two different [Orthodox and Western] civilizational mentalities: a slave is not an individual, while a servant is, or could be. Orthodox civ [in huntingtonian nomeclature] is that of the slaves and their masters, i.e. a despotic civ, whether the despot is a landlord to his serfs, or a kegebuchij nomenklaturist in relation to mere inhabitants. Thus that dunghill is to be rejected, root, branch, trunk and leaves.

1. Before WW1 Germany was organized as military state. By the way, have you ever heard of Bismark? I'm not going to deionized Germany. It's a nice country and quite complex. South is different from the north. However German culture is on the disciplinarian side and to present it as an ideal of individualism is a little strange.
2. The word slave has different meaning in a country with long history of slavery and different in a country with no history of slavery. In order to translate you have to know both cultures. If you translate "rab bozhij" into English you have to take this into account. "Rab" has nothing to do with American "slave". The same goes for "servant". The difference between those two words in Russian is much smaller, and at same point of history nonexistent. Using "rab" not "sluga" indicates God's responsibility.
3. I'm not "imbibed with too much russicity". My family was forced to leaved their homes and everything their owned by soviets. For few decades my great parents were unable to meet their siblings. Part of my family died in Siberia [By the way in Poland Siberia has different meaning than in most of the world. In Polish Siberia is much closer to 'gurlag' than to 'a region in northeast Russia'.] All I do is to argue that Russia is a quite civilized country with strong links to western culture. Many Russians see themselves is part of it.
4. It's a pity that after so much effort you haven't accepted even the fact, that Orthodox culture is not limited to Russia.

Sredi rabov, kuyushchikh rabstvo,
Sredi blyadi, poyushchikh blyadstvo,
Mudretz zhivyet anakhoretom,
Po vetru kher drzha pri etom.
"Rab" has everything to do with American "slave", except the racial connotation. Russian language has a separate word for "servant", but does not use it too frequently, except in "lakei burzhuazii" and the like. And the mentality of slavery, whereby a person is seen, even if not proclaimed [as in North Korea], as belonging like a property, to the group, the society, or to the state - is the essence of "Russity". Hence the lack of individualism there. When true individuals, like the late Politkovskaya, appear, everyone knows what usually happens to them. They are seen as civilizational apostates [having absorbed Western sociological values], and dealt with accordingly. Thus one could state that Western cultural links are superficial, at the level of toilet paper and trousers. 2000 years ago Chinese historian Sima Qian used expression "monkeys in the [formal Confucian] hats", which is a good figurative here. You look at the hats, I - at the monkeys.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.