Huntington wrote in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order “In the post-cold War era, the most significant differences between peoples will be cultural not ideological, dogmatic, or economic. The clash of civilizations will dominate world politics and the future battle lines of the world will be fault lines between civilizations. Clash of civilizations. With his notion that countries would return to their historical and cultural foundations, he foresaw the Ukrainian issue, and the cleft countries will create a great power conflict.

Ukraine is a cleft country separated along the topographical, historical, sacred, and cultural lines; western Ukraine’s inclination towards Europe and Eastern Ukraine and Crimea is in the trajectory of Orthodox Russia.

Huntington argues that Ukraine could fragment along its fault lines into two units. Most civilization blocs developing in the post–Cold War world, Huntington contended, would have ordinary leaders, or “core nations,” such as China, Russia, and USA. These basic states are critical for dealing with the issues that will arise in cleft countries like Ukraine. The United States’ approach to Ukraine has been the polar conflict of what Huntington would have recommended. It has been a crusade for the republic that has resulted in a US-backed upheaval in Kyiv, a snub to acknowledge any authentic Russian interests in Crimea and eastern Ukraine contempt of their strong historical bonds and the patronage of an undefined proxy war in eastern Ukraine.

Huntington’s theory of the Clash of Civilizations is surprisingly valuable in assessing the current Ukrainian conflict. The issue is that the dividing line is not only between the civilizations of Ukraine and Russia but also within the civilization of Ukraine. It’s vital to recall that modern Ukraine is a product of its Soviet history and that Soviet leaders established borders based on political concerns rather than Huntington’s ideas, with little regard for local cultures, dialects, faiths, or mentality. Putin clash of civilizations The crisis in Ukraine began in 2013 against the Ukrainian President and Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 to protect the rights of Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Crimea and Southeast Ukraine. These crises highlighted the ethnic divisions and later on, Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Eastern Ukraine declared independence from Ukraine. Over the last few years, there was an increasing demographic, political, and economic transformation in Ukraine. Demographically, Eastern Ukraine is inclined with Russian and Communist Influence while Western Ukraine and Central Ukraine are influenced by West and Capitalism. The society of Ukraine was tilting toward the Western form of governance. Eastern Ukraine’s population is influenced by the Orthodox Russian regime while Western Ukraine’s population wants a Western form of democracy.

In the political structure of Ukraine, the parliament has a tilt toward Europe led by the PM while the President of Ukraine till 2014 influenced by Russia

Bruno Macaes has explained that the world is divided into “Civilization States” Great powers with a shared culture that strive to become universes unto themselves, possibly each with its own nuclear umbrella rather than to rule the world. In this light, the invasion of Ukraine appears to be a bid for the “Russian world” — a “largely self-contained technological civilization, complete with its own IT ecosystem, space agenda, and technological visualizations stretching from Brest to Vladivostok,” According to Russian nationalist writer Anatoly Karlin “in other words, the goal is civilizational Self-Containment — a unity of “our history, culture, and spiritual space,” as Putin described it in his war speech — with a few misbehaving, wayward children pulled back home unwillingly. Modern Ukraine Russia wants to create an orthodox bloc but at the same time, Russia has an identity crisis as Russia defines her entity in opposition to the West. The discourse of civilizationism started in Russia after Putin’s authority. It is considered that Russia has unique civilizational values as universal and different from the world.

The materialization of Russianness is an emotional concept with the emergence of the Russian world in which Russians outside Russia and anyone who feels a sense of Russianness belong to Russia.

Huntington contends that Russian moves are relevant to conflict of cultures or clash of civilizations in opposition to Western civilization because Russia considers itself vulnerable to Western normative and cultural systems. 25 years on a classic civilizational conflict is one in which an imperial center seeks to seize or regain control over populations on its borders who look to other civilizational centers instead of it.

Despite being “‘a daughter'” of European civilization in part, Russia’s governmental structure reflects Mongol rather than European principles. Ukraine, on the other hand, wants to reintegrate into “maternal” European civilization. Ukraine and clash of civilizations The current dispute resembles that which existed at the end of the 15th century when Muscovy’s “Orthodox sultanism” attempted to repress European values in the western territories it wished to rule. The “historic separation of Russia into West and East” took place at that time, with the former being affected by Europe and the latter by the Mongols. Both of Muscovy’s attempts to conquer Belarus in the 16th and 17th centuries were standard borderland civilizational conflicts, but they took on an especially acerbic tone due to the local “Litvin” population’s resistance. The conquerors utilized genocide as a result to maintain their rule.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email