Is Russia part of European or Eurasian civilization?

The other day I noticed a discussion: does Russia belong to Europe? In other words: does Russia belong to the circle of European or Eurasian civilization? Is the Russian nation closer to the other European nations in terms of civilization, or is it closer to the Mongolian, Turkish, Paleo-Siberian, and so on; to the Indo-European or “Turkic” nations?

There is some misunderstanding of the concepts of “Europe” and “West” in the context of Russia as a distinct civilization. In my view, of course, it is right that Russia is Eurasia, a civilization, separate from Europe and Asia. This is an undisputed point of view. However, it is also worth dwelling on the details of these concepts, in particular: what is “Europe”, “West”.

In my opinion, this argument, “Is Russia part of Europe or Eurasia?” - is a big misunderstanding. First of all, I ask you: what is the civilization of Europe? Do you mean the modern, postmodern (and formerly modernist), liberal, globalist and non-Christian civilization of the West? Or is it perhaps the Christian (Catholic) civilization - Europe? Or is it the Greco-Roman heritage going back, for example, to the time of Greek philosophy and Roman political thought? After all, European civilization is not homogeneous. Yes, the history of European civilization in the mainstream led directly from the Catholic phase (medieval and Catholic civilization of Europe) through the phases of the Enlightenment (18th century), positivism (19th century) to the final phase of postmodern liberalism, the LGBT era, modern technologies, artificial intelligence and globalization. European civilization was going in the same direction: toward desacralization, the loss of community, the apotheosis of the “free” individual, the “liberation” of the individual from his own biological nature. Moreover, liberalism, the official ideology of current European civilization, was born in the heart of Catholic Europe. But the different stages of the development of European civilization, based on nominalism, globalism, etc., have been the same. Compared with the current postmodern phase of liberalism, the Catholic heritage is more traditional.

We forget, however, that in addition to the Catholic inheritance and modern, liberal, godless Europe, there is a Greco-Roman inheritance (and incidentally that of other Indo-European peoples: Celts, Germans, Slavs, etc.) dating back to pre-Christian times. For this reason, for example, representatives of the European and anti-liberal “New Right” have distinguished the following concepts:

a) “Europe” as a civilization based on the ethno-cultural heritage of the Indo-Europeans: a conservative and social heritage; a heritage that affirms the values of tradition, community, brotherhood;
b) “West” as a liberal, modern, mercantile, materialistic, technocratic civilization, with institutions such as NATO, the European Union, and a monocentric international order (with the U.S. as the “world gendarme”).

Thus, in a grand generalization, we can distinguish three paradigms within European civilization:

a) the pre-Christian heritage of the Indo-European peoples (Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Slavs, etc.);
b) the Catholic heritage;
c) the modern, liberal, Enlightenment (and postmodern), materialist, positive, secular (modern Western civilization) - here this paradigm has prevailed from the late Middle Ages (according to Western historians) to the present.

These three paradigms are completely separate, but sometimes they overlap, e.g. Christianity picked up from pre-Christian Greece the legacy of some great Greek philosophers (including Plato, Aristotle, etc.) and later also became interested in Roman political thought. The turning point in the history of the Roman Empire was its Christianization, which began with the edict of religious toleration issued by Constantine the Great in Milan in 313 (and perhaps an earlier circular by his rival Licinius) and was crowned by the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by Theodosius I the Great in 380. At that time, in fact, the civilization of Europe was identical to that of the Christian empire.

However, in 395 Theodosius I the Great divided the empire into two parts: western (Roman-Latin) and eastern (Greek). The political unity of the empire, which had always had a sacred and universal mission (here: spreading the Truth of God), disintegrated. Subsequently, the Western Roman Empire collapsed due to political chaos and moral depravity. The last emperor, Romulus Augustus, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, while the Eastern Roman Empire (according to Western historians: Byzantium) existed until 1453 (fall of Constantinople).

Moreover, later, from about the 9th century AD, Christian church structures began to be torn apart from within by dogmatic differences and eventually split into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Of course, the pillar of Catholicism at that time was Western Europe and the pillar of true Christianity, that is, Orthodoxy, was Eastern Europe. As a result, Orthodoxy prevailed in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was a true Christian (Orthodox) empire, the rightful heir to the Roman Christian Empire (reigns of Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great).

European civilization was thus divided into:

a) the western, Catholic, Romano-Germanic and Latin part;
b) the eastern part, Orthodox (true Christian), Byzantine, Greek (later Russian).

In this way, surprisingly, a conflict of civilizations emerged within Europe:

a) the civilization of the West;
b) the civilization of Eastern Europe.

So, if you say, “Russia is not Europe” or, “Russian civilization is incompatible with European civilization” (or, “...with Western civilization”), thinking only of liberal, Western, Roman-Latin Europe, today's Europe, the West in the broadest sense, the transatlantic “community” the modern European/Western heritage and the Catholic heritage of Europe, you are right! Russian identity is based on traditional Orthodox principles, Byzantinism, mysticism, the superiority of spirit over matter, Orthodox concepts: the symphony of the two principles (imperial and priestly), God-humanity, sobornost, and, among others, Fyodor Dostoevsky's concept of “all humanity”. This legacy goes back to the Christian Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, and Russian Empire and is at odds with the Catholic and - even more! - liberal, Western, rationalist, modernist (and postmodernist), Western, technocratic, materialist, thus equating the terms “Europe” and “West”. By the way, the antagonism: Rationalist-Catholic-liberal Europe versus Orthodox-Byzantine Russia was realized by Slavophiles (including Alexei Khomyakov, Konstantin Aksakov, Ivan Kireevsky), by Nikolai Danilevsky, by poventists (e.g., Fyodor Dostoevsky), by Eurasians (including Nikolai Trubetskoy, Peter Savitsky, Peter Suvchinsky, Sergey Efron, Lev Karsavin, George Vernadsky).

But if you think that “Russia is a part of Europe” (without going into details!) or “Russia is not Europe” (I repeat - without going into details!), if you define the civilization of Europe as an entity without further explanation (even as “Christian European civilization”!), as a single whole, as a monolith, then - I warn you - you will be heading for a series of misunderstandings, heated debates and obscurities.

Yes, the legacy of Europe's history in its mainstream has developed in a certain direction from Catholicism through the Enlightenment, the ideologies of liberalism, socialism, and nationalism to post-modernism and LGBT affirmation. But there is also a “second Europe”, a “Europe-2”: essentially peripheral, mystical, anti-liberal, anti-Western, strongly anti-globalist, distinctive and social, based on brotherhood, community and tradition, very close to the heritage of Eastern Europe - the Slavic, Byzantine and Orthodox heritage. This “Europe-2” is expressed in statements and programs, partly in nationalist and socialist parties skeptical of the EU, U.S. domination, globalism, the monocentric international order, and the technocratic power of U.S.-comprador bankers and politicians.

Moreover, the anti-liberal, anti-Western, social and conservative “Europe-2″ is unequivocally closer ideologically and culturally to Russia-Eurasia than to mainstream, liberal, globalist and materialist (Western) Europe! Look at the antagonism: modern Western civilization affirms individualism, freedom, progress, globalism, and rationalism, while Russian-Eurasian civilization affirms community, tradition, “blooming complexity”, and mysticism. Yet Europe-2 has many identity, national, conservative, communitarian, and religious strands (e.g., Catholicism, obviously only in its more traditionalist and anti-liberal variety), but no sign of affirming liberal values.

In addition, Russian (Eurasian) civilization, Russia-Eurasia, combines not only the political and administrative legacy of Genghis Khan's empire from the East, but also-or perhaps especially! - heritage from Eastern Europe: Orthodox, Byzantine, and... Russian (in between, strictly speaking, are ethnic Russians).

In other words, the “Russia vs. Europe” thesis is sometimes vague, generic and unspecific and is accompanied by many misunderstandings. Russia is confronting the dominant, Western, liberal, enlightened, postmodern, mercantile, LGBT-affirming (to a lesser extent, Catholic) line of Europe, but not the entire cultural heritage of the Old Continent!

And the “Russia vs. the West” clash thesis is the one that I think is most appropriate. It is worth remembering the justness of such a conflict of civilizations:

Liberal, Western, individualist, globalist, mercantilist, materialist and, to a lesser extent, Catholic Europe (the West) versus the communitarian and social “Europe-2″, Byzantine and Orthodox Eastern Europe (i.e., the indirectly Russian-Eurasian civilization, the Russian people as an imperial and multi-ethnic community, with Russians in the narrow sense as the core).

In addition, I said that I think it is undeniable that Russia is Eurasia, thus a distinct civilization and empire, which guards the richness of the Russian people as a multi-ethnic community, with Russians in the narrow sense as the core. Yes, I think it is undeniable that Russia combines the essentially Byzantine, Orthodox and Slavic identity heritage, then the essentially Eastern European heritage, and the political and administrative heritage of Genghis Khan's empire from the east.

In short: “Europe vs. Russia” is not. “Liberal and Western Europe versus 'Europe-2' and Byzantine and Orthodox Europe (i.e., indirectly, Russia-Eurasia)” - Yes. “The conflict between the liberal, globalist and transatlantic civilization of the West and the civilization of Russia-Eurasia can be defined as follows.

The liberal, globalist and transatlantic civilization of the West vs:

a) the Russian-Eurasian civilization (uniting mainly Orthodox, Byzantine and Slavic Eastern Europe, but also many Mongolian, Turkish, Finno-Ugric, Manchurian and Paleo-Siberian peoples and ethnic groups);
b) a peripheral, anti-liberal, conservative, socialist, popular and nationalist “Europe-2,” which includes a Catholic in its traditionalist and pro-Russian component;
c) Asian, African and Latin American civilizations.

Traduzione di Costantino Ceoldo