History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

To begin with addressing the last question: in the scope of macrohistory, the tentative (in some cases, not-so-tentative) identification of Russia is that it is a failed civilisation, of sorts. I have advocated this thesis myself, although I do put some caveats in place regarding some details.

As discussed a few pages back, the gist of it is that Russia -- or rather: Kievan Rus' or its prospective successor(s) -- had the evident potential to become the nexus of an inchoate Orthodox High Culture. Vladimir the Great, in this context, may be viewed as the great founder-king who put the aspirational ideal in place. Especially considering the decline (and then-upcoming demise) of the Eastern Roman Empire, these aspirations in such a direction had clear promise.

The trajectory of this emergent civilisation, however, was disturbed by the Mongol invasions, and most especially by the boyarism of the Golden Horde (which soon descended into despotic thuggery without the barest hints of nuance). From this mess, Mucovy bubbled to the top as the ultimate claimant to hegemony within the Russian lands. Muscovy had been a collaborator of the Mongols, and had in fact adopted the tactics and motives of boyarism. The legacy of thuggish despotism was thus not reduced to an unpleasant interval, but was institutionalised by a subsequent native regime.

Muscovy quarreled with the other Russian states (most of which had less meat-brained inclinations), and by brute force defeated them. (Their treatment of Novgorod in particular is quite revealing, and hints at the future history of Russia -- and its treatment of all neighbours -- all the way through the present.)

The princes of Muscovy did indeed make themselves Tsars of all Russia, and pretended to the hegemony of an Orthodox world-system, but they failed in giving a meaningful shape to it. It remained always disjointed. This to such an extent that Peter the Great (realising the state of his empire) attempted to integrate Russia (and thus implicitly all Orthodoxy) into the Western Christian world, thus hoping to produce a larger, joint world-system encompassing all meaningful parts of Christendom. A world-system in which he hoped Russia could play a major role. (Essentially, he wanted Russia to pull off something like the Meiji Restoration; learning from the West and lifting itself up to become a power of greater consequence in the wider world.)

Peter's attempts were only partially successful, and many were reversed later. Especially in the intellectual sphere, there was a sort of knee-jerk reaction by the Russians. Rather than admitting they were hardly as refined as the West, they began to decry the West, and to revel in their own boorishness, which they presented as "Orthodox purity". That sentiment, I hardly need to explain, still lives in Russia now. Indeed, it is the only sort of national sentiment they have left. And something only held together by hatred and envy produced by an inferiority complex never has a glorious future ahead of it.

The reason why things are now so very bad as they have become -- much worse than it ever was even under the Muscovite despots, those Romanov Tsars -- is that the Russians reacted to their internal problems (and their external military defeat) by bringing into power the worst socio-political system to have been devised in human history: communism. No greater mistake could have been made. As I've outlined above, they already faced major issues, but before the Great War and its aftermath, there was a future. Russia was boorish and thuggish, and drenched in despotism, but those things don't necessarily stand in the way of geo-political success. Russia was in the middle of a demographic boom, and it was catching up technologically.

There was, prior to the war, still a possibility for the consummation of the Orthodox civilisation. It would have been a far less refined and elegant version of the idea than might have been manifested by better-suited helmsmen, in the absence of a Mongol yoke... but still. There was a way.

And then, communism. The USSR. The brute amongst brutes. The meat-brain amongst meat-brains. Communism killed Russia. Its demographics collapsed. Its economy became a joke. In vainly trying to contend for world-hegemony against the West, the USSR burned into self up from the inside out. What we see now, what Putin governs, is the husk of a culture that was already mangled centuries ago, and has been brutally gang-raped and immolated since. It is a blackened shell, no longer suitable for restoration. Fit only to be torn down so that the land may be re-used for new development.

In practice, this means that it matters not one iota how things play out in Ukraine. Even years before, I noted that Russia came dangerously close to collapse in the '90s, and that Putin's strongman rule had in fact postponed that. Postponed... but not averted. My prediction has been, for quite some time, that Russia will fall apart not too long after Putin croaks or is removed. Recent events have only strengthened my conviction in this regard, and in fact have raised the distinct possibility that Putin himself will cause the bloody anarchy that he had himself postponed to begin with.

The war in Ukraine has become a boondoggle. Even if Russia "wins", in that it keeps everything it now holds... the war has already cost more than they can bear. The conquered land is ruined, and getting profit from it will take longer than Putin has. This foolish war has already driven the last few nails into the coffin of Russia. If Putin "wins", he can stay for a bit longer, overseeing an economically and demographically blasted country, and when he dies, it'll fall into anarchy. And if he loses, if he's driven out of any major part of the conquered lands... then he gets a bullet, or a noose, or some poison... and Russia falls into violent anarchy just a bit sooner. Either way, the fundamental outcome is the same.

China is already waiting to benefit from this. (Here we get to the other posts I've quoted.) For years now -- in fact, decades -- China has built up a demographic strategy in the Russian Far East. Their goal is evident to all. Once Russia goes down, China marches into to bring order and security. And to get as many natural resources under their control as they can. At the same time, if the West if half-way sane, we can expand our influence into Western Russia. Imagine denazification and Marshall Aid, writ large. In truth, the culmination of what Peter the Great imagined, albeit on terms rather less favourable to truncated Russia. The inclusion of the Russian heartlands into the West-- both territorially and culturally. Because they are now a ruined Fellachenkultur, they can, must and will be given a new cultural frame-work: a Western one. From a Western perspective, rump-Russia will be "made normal" at last.

The only question is where the border will be, between the Western world-system and the Chinese world-system. It could be the Urals; it could be a point further East if we are ambitious; and it could be a point further West if we are imbeciles and let China have it all.
Things may be worse than they were under the Romanovs, but they aren't worse than they've ever been for Russia and definitely aren't worse than the Time of Troubles. The next century will be hard for Russia, that's what this war is all about trying to get a more defensible position for just that, but it's going to be a hard century for everyone on the planet with the exception of maybe the US and that's only if they manage to snap out of their current idiocy.
 
Putin can likely hold together Russia. I don't think what he built will survive him by much though. He won the scramble for the brass ring after the fall of the USSR. he has not groomed a heir to take over the levers of power. they got a pretty bleak future unless there is someone who has kept his head down and similarly capable of taking over after the fact. not impossible but not something I would bet on.
 
Putin can likely hold together Russia. I don't think what he built will survive him by much though. He won the scramble for the brass ring after the fall of the USSR. he has not groomed a heir to take over the levers of power. they got a pretty bleak future unless there is someone who has kept his head down and similarly capable of taking over after the fact. not impossible but not something I would bet on.
Yep it's popular for folks to shit on the man but in reality Putin is frankly the shit. He is an excellent and supremely competent Czar (make no mistake he is 100% the Czar). Once he's gone Russia is near certainly fucked
 
no man can undo hundreds of years of mismanagement by himself.
Sure but he can and is holding the line which is frankly extraordinary. Put aside your distaste for the man's personal morality and look at the situation objectively. He pulled a floundering state out of decline and has returned it to at least a coherent state. That is objectively an incredible feat and after the man passes Russia will be completely done.
 
Sure but he can and is holding the line which is frankly extraordinary. Put aside your distaste for the man's personal morality and look at the situation objectively. He pulled a floundering state out of decline and has returned it to at least a coherent state. That is objectively an incredible feat and after the man passes Russia will be completely done.

While its impressive it would have been better for Russia if he set up a successor.
 
You wrongly assume that is possible,who is he going to get who has the capability to follow in his footsteps?
Preparing someone or an institution to take over after him should have been one of his top priorities considering his age. that he hasn't means either he has chosen not to are there are no good options. neither option says anything good for Russia's future.
 
Preparing someone or an institution to take over after him should have been one of his top priorities considering his age. that he hasn't means either he has chosen not to are there are no good options. neither option says anything good for Russia's future.

This underscores that Russia is a failed culture. It's not just a low-trust society, it's a zero trust society. Essentially comparable to a Central African shithole, in that regard. Since it runs on thuggery, the thug-in-charge has a succession problem by default. If he culls all potential threats to his position, he's pretty safe, but everything will go to shit once he croaks. If he grooms a competent successor, said successor is automatically the number 1 threat to his position...

Putin's gone with option A, which is why Russia is facing implosion.
 
Preparing someone or an institution to take over after him should have been one of his top priorities considering his age. that he hasn't means either he has chosen not to are there are no good options. neither option says anything good for Russia's future.
The thing is, Russia has no institutions except the secret police, since communism destroyed and hollowed out everything else.
 
This underscores that Russia is a failed culture. It's not just a low-trust society, it's a zero trust society. Essentially comparable to a Central African shithole, in that regard.
“Failed” is a touch too strong a word to my mind. Gravely ill however is something I’d accept. High trust societies tend to form quite naturally and fall apart usually due to some idiot meddling with them. Give them that hundred years to get away from the toxicity of communism, and I believe the Russians will naturally revert/fall back together so to speak (probably after a nasty bit of balkanisation).
 
This underscores that Russia is a failed culture. It's not just a low-trust society, it's a zero trust society. Essentially comparable to a Central African shithole, in that regard. Since it runs on thuggery, the thug-in-charge has a succession problem by default. If he culls all potential threats to his position, he's pretty safe, but everything will go to shit once he croaks. If he grooms a competent successor, said successor is automatically the number 1 threat to his position...

Putin's gone with option A, which is why Russia is facing implosion.
True.Russia was mortally wounded by mongols,killed by Moscov - but,thanks to westernization,started to live again in 19th century.And then,communism killed it.

There is very good book about Russia "Letters from Russi" wrote in 1839 - it show country as corrupted shithole with few good things - old nobility still have honour,and peasants still love their lands.Well,not their,but still love.

Communism killed old elites,best farmers,and turned survivors into soveks.There is no good things there now.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been a front for the NKVD/KGB/FSB since Soviet times, after they realised they couldn't exterminate all religious people.
Sadly,true.Current Primarch is KGB officer.What even worst - from Vaticanum II Catholic Church for unknown reasons pretend,that they are real Church,not kgb.Dunno why.
 
Following on from could have been High Cultures, would Carthage/Phoenicia count as such?

Yes. Certainly so. Although the Canaanite High Culture is a bit of an odd one, geared towards mercantile ventures from the start. I've suggested that this was a result of being located on the cross-roads where other cultures met (often violently!), which droven the Canaanites towards a role al traders who could do business with multiple parties.

As I've argued briefly, Carthage was the "Rome" of the Canaanites (and retained this powerful mercantile impulse):

Rome was not part of Greece, and "a sea away". Qin was a frontier marcher state separated from the Chinese heartland by mountains. Carthage, the equivalent of this for the Canaanite High Culture, was also "a sea away" from Phoenicia.

Carthage was (...) in most ways not part of Classial culture-- but rather of Canaanite culture. These two cultural spheres greatly overlapped, but I'd argue that Carthage was to the Levant as Rome was to the Greeks and as America is to Europe. So it is no surprise that Carthage was a great rival to Rome. They were peers and competitors: one fated to eclipse and strangle the other.

There is much more to be said (for instance, regarding my view that Hannibal was roughly the Carthaginian equivalent of Gaius Marius); and I do have lots of notes on that. But not immediately at hand. I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
Given that we’ve spoken of High Cultures, failed High Cultures, destroyed High Cultures, could’ve been High Cultures, what about High Cultures yet to be? Because I note there is a part of the world that has yet to make its attempt at that for reasons not entirely its own fault.

I think “African Charlemagne“ has been mentioned in the past, but on further thought one is quite overcome by the sheer power such a man would wield. He who could make himself master of Sub-Saharan Africa will make himself of Saharan Africa.

And he who makes himself master of all Africa, may make himself master of the world. The peoples of Africa are hardy and resilient, sitting on untapped unimaginable wealth. The makings of a mighty empire indeed sits somewhere beneath all the poverty and desperation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top