From Chinese historical perspective, China/Middle Kingdom had interacted quite a lot and learned a lot from the Middle East region. Vast majority of knowledge and cultural exchange in that region was attributed to Arabia and Persia (most Chinese only know of these two groups in the region). Historically the memories were quite positive and left behind many stories. They were known to be traders who facilitated the exchange of knowledge and goods.
I don't want to make arguments against the glory of the Turkic (who exactly is included?) people. My perspective on civilisation and history was that sedentary peoples tended to created the most complex and long lasting civilizations while nomadic ones were good a facilitating informational exchange across the vast steppes of northern and central Eurasia but left behind less physical traces due to nomadic nature. Structurally people groups who stayed in one location for a very long time tended to appreciate the concept of scarcity and ownership thus incentivized the creation of complex legal systems, theoretical frameworks, complex philosophy, social hierarchy, architecture, etc. Personally I appreciate the fractal geometry that is prevalent in Arabian and Iranian architecture, it is really beautiful.
There have been many "Turanian"/Uralo-Altaic theories in the past. I do think the northern and central Eurasian steppe enabled rapid movement of people groups and ideas due to being suitable for equestrian transport. This also enabled rapid conquest across vast distances, resulting in great amount of genetic mixing. The vast steppes also inspires and interbreeds a particular type of culture that is shared among cultures stemming from the steppes.
I think advanced advanced civilizations are by in large a product of geography, at least that is the case I see in Eurasia. The geography that is conducive to development of large and advanced civilizations are the product of major peninsulas attached to Eurasia. While the seeds of each civilization can start anywhere, the geographic confines of that region are important for long term development. Small and less useful landmasses cannot concentrate enough power and resources to create powerful and long lasting civilizations, while spaces too vast are victims to the centrifugal forces of societies.
View attachment 453777
Such theories are not relevant today in the sense of reliving past glories, as people groups part of this "Turanian"/Uralo-Altaic theory attach themselves firmly to regional civilizational peninsulas. They are now extensions of civilizations they proximate due to economic gravity and modern relevance. By some theories, I am in fact not Chinese but a member of the steppes, but I do not share such views. In this day and age and projecting into the foreseeable future, nomadic cultures have no chance in overcoming the major civilizations on its periphery, thus such ideas are fantasies. On the other hand what this does inspire is the idea of pan-Eurasian connectivity. The idea (perhaps even romantic view) of the fast moving equestrian transport can inspire a continental outlook on our world view, a reversal or a balance to the maritime world view shaped in the last few centuries. The result of a the past centuries' maritime world view was the reinvigoration of different civilizational peninsulas but neglect to the continental interior. Only when the reinvigoration is complete do we start to realise the necessity and opportunity in a continental extension to the rest of the world. This extension is largely a luxury to Eurasian powers, unless one artificially inserts itself or be on good terms with Eurasian powers.
Best of Luck to Egypt in upgrading it's nation to meet the demands of the next century. The new capital is a really exciting project, creating a mega city from the desert. A important ingredient is fresh water, which helps me understand Egypt's sensitivity towards upstream dam projects. Keep us posted on any new developments in Egypt.
Just ignore those fools.
