Replies

"Links with western culture" ought to extend beyond wearing western-looking trousers and using toilet paper. Huntington in its "Clash" did a good analysis, which I was merely elaborating upon in my "civilization is sociology" formula. In Huntingtonian approximation, "civilization is religion". My elaboration is perfectly justified, as the Western civ is not split into Protestant civs and a Catholic civ, as not all catholic or protestant countries [look at the former colonies] even belong to the Western civ, and as a non-christian Israel clearly belongs to it. What unites [or divides] the societies here, and constitutes the in-/ex- clusion criterion is the sociology - including the sociological aspects of the Huntingtonian religion marker.

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.