Free Republic

Statistic can be misleading. In Russia Muslim population is limited mostly to it's southern Asian part [some called this part of Russia it's inner colony]. In the past they tried to increased the number of ethnic Russian living there by encouraging settlement and forcing prisoners to live there. However those programs hadn't been successful. So significant part of Russian land had and has Muslim majority. If grip of central government weakens those parts may become independent. In European part of Russia I haven't spotted significant number of Muslims, although they are not so difficult to be seen in the western Europe. However it,s enough to go to Vladivostok to see how eastern part of Russia is flooded by people from China. For me the idea that Russia will one day become a Muslim country is strange at least. Russia will probably loose its Asian part, that may disintegrate into a few states. Most of them might be Muslim.

"You look at the hats, I - at the monkeys."
On the contrary. Eastern Europe is my homeland. I obviously understand how it works there. I interact with people living in that region. I share their fears and dreams. I simply know or the fact that given proper economic incentives people in this region display entrepreneurial spirit to the same extent as people in different parts of the world. If we talk about Russia it happened at least two times; at the beginning of XX century, and after Revolution as a part of 3-year plan. Russia problem is not "orthodox civ", but the way it is afflicted with illnesses of western civ. To be precise; dependence on nanny state, disintegration of the family, low birth rate etc. Russia is unlucky to have all western illnesses without western wealth. If you want to believe, that Russia is an exotic country inhibited by people, who are distinctly different from westerners, be my guest, but you are plainly wrong.
The word "rab" was invented by people, that had no idea of American-type of slavery, the word described their reality, not the American one. "Rab" in Russia was a member of household, who contributed to it without having any say. In household hierarchy he was at the bottom. It's truth, however you have to remember, that servants were peasants, who were simply ordered to act as servants. A peasant in Russia even hadn't the right even to leave his village without permission of the land owner. So I'm not so sure whose position was better.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

"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.

"Ed Koch is in urgent need of medical attention. Judging from the above statement, possible Alzheimer. A mix of Byzantium and Sinic [via Mongols] civilizations has its roots anywhere else but in the West."
Russia is a Slavic country like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Ukraine. What's more culturally it's very close to them. You can't say that Poland or Slovakia deserve to be considered European/ western countries and denied Russia's close links with western culture. Byzantium by the way is also part of Christian /European /western [as opposed to Asian]civilization. Byzantium through Orthodox church shaped Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia. Those influences are part of European heritage, If you deny it you cast Greece and Bulgaria as non-european area.
Sinic influences are present in Russia to the same degree as in England and France. Even Islamic influences are stronger. Heart of Russia state has always been in Europe [Europe ends at Ural mountains]. Asian part of Russia has always been simply a colony. But believe me it influenced Russia to smaller degree than India influenced England. At one point Mongols forced Russia to pay tribute, but Mongols also conquered big chunk of Europe in XIV century [it may be XIII it can be checked easily] and stay there for a few years.
If you limit western culture to Anglo-Saxon,then you are right Russia doesn't belong there. However if you definite western culture in opposition to Islamic or Sinic or Indian or African set of values, you can't denied that this definition covers Russia as well.
However the idea of treating Russia as a prospective ally of US is ludicrous. Now Russia is trying to rebuild its influences in the world using its natural resources as a tool. It's strongly felt in eastern Europe. Here Russia sees itself as US competitor. I believe that Russian politician perceive US as the biggest danger to their interests. They would rather forge close relationship with eastern rising powers.

Most of oil and natural gas used in eastern Europe comes from Russia. As far as Ukraine is concerned the number hovers around 90%. In Poland a lot of paper was used to argue for the need of diversification, but nothing was done so far, despite the fact, that on 2 or 3 occasions Russians withhold delivery without warning. Taking all this into account I can't find any rationale behind US government action. What's the point in building part of military infractucture in countries almost totally energy dependent on Russia, that is turning more and more hostile towards US? In my judgment the problem of dependency on Russian energy sources should be solved first.
And for the benefit of those that didn't followed what's going on in Russia. The state's control of strategic resources and using them as political leverage is part of Putin's doctrine.

"they stated that 7% of EU babies were Muslim last year, and that if trends continued 10% of the populace would be Muslim by 2020. That's a sign that the EU may be majority Muslim in the far future, but it is hardly urgent"

When Christianity took over the Roman Empire and become recognized as the official religion, the Christians weren't even close to constitute majority. However they were well organized, and they were in big numbers in the Roman army at that time. That was enough to persuade the Cesar to convert to Christianity and [if I'm not mistaken] to declare his new faith the official religion of the empire. The truth is not always in numbers. Remember French farmers account for 2% of the French population, but they have enough power to force France and EU to subsidize them in a way that is ludicrous beyond any imagination.

East of Russia is taken over by Chinese population at lighting speed. It's enough to go there as a tourist to see this. Contrary to western press coverage Muslim related problems are not a major headache for Russian leaders.
As far as ethnic Russians are concerned, they are too close culturally to Europe's native population to survive. At least in my judgment. The feeling of decadence, decay, helplessness, lack of interest in future is prevailing.

This cruise ship situation is a minor misunderstanding. Such things happen. Obviously the situation wasn't handled well by both sides [why the captain didn't permit control, why the shots were fired at cruise ship full of people?], but the press coverage seems over the top. By the way, the Polish-German conflict is a journalistic invention. On the Polish side of the border no one notice either. On the contrary, in terms of trade, investment, cross-border services and employment Polish-German relationship seems to flourish.

I'm willing to challenge anyone who says that there is something wrong with Polish democracy. Polish democracy was strong enough to survive a few years of former communists rule [as the result of their policy Poland is now almost totally dependent on Russia as far as oil and natural gas is concerned], so I'm 100% certain that it will survive any bunch of idiots claiming to be the Government. If this doesn't prove the resilience of the country's economy [growing at 5% or something] and political system than what does?
To be quite honest I fail to grasp why the current Polish government has such bad press. It's simply the last in the succession of rather awful governments. The previous ones were unable to kill the economy. So what's the problem with this one

I'm willing to challenge anyone who says that there is something wrong with Polish democracy. Polish democracy was strong enough to survive a few years of former communists rule [as the result of their policy Poland is now almost totally dependent on Russia as far as oil and natural gas is concerned], so I'm 100% certain that it will survive any bunch of idiots claiming to be the Government. If this doesn't prove the resilience of the country's economy [growing at 5% or something] and political system than what does?
To be quite honest I fail to grasp why the current Polish government has such bad press. It's simply the last in the succession of rather awful governments. The previous ones were unable to kill the economy. So what's the problem with this one

I read Asia Times religiously. They have the tendency to present Russia as a reemerging powerhouse. I disagree with this analysis. As far as I'm concerned Russia is part of the Western/ Christian/ european-originated civilization [I don't know any longer what is the PC name of this culture]For God's sake even communism was a western invention adopted by Bolsheviks. The iron curtain wasn't air prove either. All the western cultural trends, fashion etc reached Russian people with a small time lag. Now Russia has all the illnesses of the West;
1. apathetic people with shortsighted, hedonistic attitude towards life [the only difference is that in EU or US there is more goods consumption and in Russia more alcohol ] unwilling to invest in the future
2. the clientele like attitude towards the state [product of nanny states or years of communist indoctrination]
3. political and business leaders who are selling the future of the nation for few bucks
4. broken institution of the family with resulting demographic collapse and complete fragmentation of the society
5. immigration problems, even more severe than US or EU [the east of Russia is literally taken over by the Chinese population]

Now Russian government is trying to buy influences for itself with oil and gas money. But with collapsing society I don't believe it's a long-lasting investment.
My gut instinct tells me that if the West decide that it doesn't want to commit suicide after all, Russia will survive and prosper as well. If the West sticks to its self-defacing ideology, it will take Russia down the same road.

I read Asia Times religiously. They have the tendency to present Russia as a reemerging powerhouse. I disagree with this analysis. As far as I'm concerned Russia is part of the Western/ Christian/ european-originated civilization [I don't know any longer what is the PC name of this culture]For God's sake even communism was a western invention adopted by Bolsheviks. The iron curtain wasn't air prove either. All the western cultural trends, fashion etc reached Russian people with a small time lag. Now Russia has all the illnesses of the West;
1. apathetic people with shortsighted, hedonistic attitude towards life [the only difference is that in EU or US there is more goods consumption and in Russia more alcohol ] unwilling to invest in the future
2. the clientele like attitude towards the state [product of nanny states or years of communist indoctrination]
3. political and business leaders who are selling the future of the nation for few bucks
4. broken institution of the family with resulting demographic collapse and complete fragmentation of the society
5. immigration problems, even more severe than US or EU [the east of Russia is literally taken over by the Chinese population]

Now Russian government is trying to buy influences for itself with oil and gas money. But with collapsing society I don't believe it's a long-lasting investment.
My gut instinct tells me that if the West decide that it doesn't want to commit suicide after all, Russia will survive and prosper as well. If the West sticks to its self-defacing ideology, it will take Russia down the same road.

I know that it's beside the point, but Pilsudski died in 1935. He was a great man. Few years ago I read an interesting article, by an Polish historian. He claimed that already in early 30's Pilsudski saw the growing danger of German militarism. He sent an envoy to France to suggest preemptive action. Guess what was the response!!! As far as I can remember French considered the suggestion as embarrassing. It's a pity, because in 1933 or 1934 Nazi Germany wasn't so difficult to defeat

And I have naively thought that every chutzpah has its limits..... I wonder, whether this guy wrote the article by himsself or simply copied an old piece on III Reich and sexed it up by adding Middle East and Zionism from time to time. The dangerous part is that for many people abroad he might seem a reliable source of information. He has high position at an American university after all, he presumably lives there, so the obvious conclusion is that he knows what he is writing about.

Let's try your way
1. Different circumstances, different scope, different countries. I still don't know specifically what you are referring to in terms of financing what guerrilla wars.

USSR was financing a lot of proxy wars. Out of top of my head Vietnam, Angola, PLO members were trained in Poland so obviously USSR participated in this effort as well. USSR meddled in all those places where US was engaged. It was Cold War only in the western world. It was quite hot in other places.

2.The Soviet Union was trying to match the US in terms of weapons systems and armaments in addition to funding proxies in the Cold War. Iran does not any such pretensions anymore than North Korea does.

The quest for nuclear weapon and import of weapons form China doesn't qualify as upgrading? USSR has never been a match for US in terms of sophisticated weaponry. USSR was good at producing good quality arms [not cutting edge technology] and selling it. It was quite profitable business and still is. Iran doesn't make any money in this business sector. It's simply a buyer. It's very expensive

3.I spent two years in Warsaw, 1981-83, and found the struggle very heroic

There is nothing heroic about a real struggle. It looks good on the TV. Real struggle is quite prosaic matter. You simply are doing things you have to do or are expected to do. I was there for real. You was looking for experience, so you saw it.

4 Were you a member of the Communist Party?

I was to young to be a Communist Party member. My family wasn't considered trustworthly enough to be accepted. We have family abroad and my grandparents generation was in the wrong army [the one that swore alliance to the previous, non-communist government]. Sorry You cannot hurt me there,

5. Ask people like Sharansky about life in the Soviet Union in the post-Stalinist era. Read his The Case for Democracy

Come on! You are saying that I should ask Sharansky what I have seen. Sharansky sells books and opinions to the western public. He is trying to prove his point, he has agenda. I lived there, most of my family lives in former Soviet Union. I don't need Sharansky to tell me what is happening around. By the way, do you really think that the best way to learn what is going on in your village is to read books about your village publish in China and written for Chinese public. No offense, but the idea is ludicrous.

6.How do you "know Iran a bit?" I would rather not live in either place. Of course, a lot depends on who you are in terms of where you live. If you among the controlling elite, it really doesn't matter that much.

There are places where live is better for an average person. And there are places where an average person has worse quality of life. It as simple as that. I have seen places much worse to live than Iran.
Knowing a place a bit means seeing few things and having few friends. I suppose that after living in Poland for 2 years you know that place a bit. Although knowing what was going on in Poland then and knowing the Poles' attitude towards people from the West at that point of time, I have a strong suspicion that you simply paid few bucks to some people [at that time the currency exchange rate was ludicrous, a physician could buy only 2-4 dollars with his month salary - you should remember that], and they felt obliged to show you all the excitement you wished to see. No offense, but it's a rule of thumb if I go to a poor country, I always take into account that the natives have the tendency to look at me as a retarded source of a quick buck. Sorry, the same applies to you.

7. If you know just a little bit about Iranian history, you must know that the mullahs will not go away peacefully.

I can always hope. However, unfortunately, I also don't consider it very likely. They have to much to loose and little to gain, by allowing to modernize the country. However eventually they will go, because their time is up. Good night