Suchergebnisse

Books review: Bassin M. The Gumilev Mystique: Biopolitics, Eurasianism, and the Construction of Community in Modern Russia. Cornell University Press, 2016. 400 p.; Bassin M., Pozo G. (eds). The Politics of Eurasianism: Identity, Popular Culture and Russia's Foreign Policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 384 p.; Clover Ch. Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism.Yale University Press, 2017. 360 p. The review considers three works on Eurasianism, the theoretical geography of Lev Gumilev and contemporary Russian ethnonationalism. It places the reviewed works in the context of the historical ideological evolution of Eurasianism. The principal argument in all three reviewed texts is that there are three forms of Eurasian ideology: classical Eurasianism, Gumilevian Eurasianism and neo-Eurasianism. This essay argues that instead of a rank appropriation of Eurasian ideology into contemporary Russian ethnonationalist discourses, there remains a great intellectual and theoretical power in Gumilevian Eurasianism that could yet be applied to contemporary Eurasian and Russophere geographies in a more positive and empowering manner than the current misappropriated form of Russian ethnonationalist Eurasianism. While neo-Eurasianism is a misappropriation of Gumilevian Eurasianism, a revival of a new fork of neo-Gumilevian Eurasianism could diffuse the contemporary Russian misappropriation and return to a more objective and inclusive Eurasian ideology.

PurposeAfter the collapse of the USSR, Eurasian integration projects, proposed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey, began to develop in the post-Soviet space. Hence, there is growing interest in Eurasianism as an ideology. In this context, the study of the use of the Eurasianism's ideas in practice becomes relevant. The argument of this article is that Russia, Turkey, and Kazakstan have their own interpretations of Eurasianism's ideas to develop the ideological basis of their own integration projects. The purpose of the article is to answer the question: How is the Eurasianism used in integration projects of Russia, Turkey and Kazakstan?Design/methodology/approachThe concept of Eurasianism has been viewed in terms of constructivism. On the basis of the principles of social constructivism, and in particular the works of constructivist ideologue Alexander Wendt, a comparative analysis was made. The ideas of Eurasianism in the integration processes of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey has been carried out based on the criteria such as the role of common ideas, identity, consciousness, memory and culture. The examples of mentioned countries were compared, to consider the development of the ideas of Eurasianism in practice.FindingsThe ideas of Eurasianism have a significant impact on the integration processes of the post-Soviet space. Eurasianism advocates for important factors such as respect for cultural and civilizational differences between different nations, their equality in the overall union and common development opportunities. Such factors are undoubtedly important for the success of integration projects. The reflection of many individual thoughts of classical Eurasians and Neo-Eurasians can be seen in the statements of various ministers and leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. The initiatives of these countries in creating integration projects also show the influence of the Eurasian concept.Originality/valueIn the 1990s, the study of Eurasianism gained new significance in academic circles. Articles and periodicals devoted to this concept were published. However, all parallels between variations in concepts of Eurasianism have been conducted on a theoretical level. The importance of this article lies in the fact that conceptual differences are compared in practice. Researchers had not previously considered the study of the relevance and productivity of Eurasianism in practice by comparing examples and experiences from different countries. The novelty of this article lies in its attempt to solve this problem.

Over the past decade or so, there has been a convergence between the Eurasianist and Kemalist ideologies in Turkey. A number of Kemalist and Socialist intellectual and political actors together with sections of the military have started to articulate Eurasianism (Avrasyacilik in Turkish) as a new geopolitical discourse for Turkey and as an alternative to Turkey's pro-Western foreign policy orientation. In this perspective, Eurasianism stands for a political, economic and cultural alliance with 'Eurasian countries', such as Russia, Iran, and Turkic countries in Central Asia, as well as Pakistan, India and China. This article aims to deepen the analyses carried out thus far on this emerging geopolitical discourse. To this end, it contextualises the emergence of the Eurasianism in Turkey within the wider social, political and historical context of which it forms a part, including the framework of asymmetrical political and economic relations that developed between Turkey and its Western allies in the post-Cold War period. Adapted from the source document.

In order to determine the possibilities of wider application of the ideas of Eurasianism in the foreign policy of Russia, including the EAEU, but not limited to it, an analysis of various methods and approaches used for integration processes is carried out. At the same time, the current geopolitical situation and the factors of multi-vector approach in international relations are taken into account. It is also proposed to take in attention the role of identity in a broad sense as a political attraction. At the same time, various problems at the organizational, social, humanitarian and economic levels are also considered. The broad security factors that also play a role in the Eurasian integration are also taken into account. The relevance of this study is due not only to the implementation of strategic directions within the EAEU, but also to the general course towards multipolarity that Russia is pursuing. In addition, the crisis of liberal democracy in the West provides an additional opportunity for Russia to implement its own ideas and doctrines at the international level. The author believes that Eurasianism, including its classical version, can become one of the imperatives of Russia's foreign policy.

The article is devoted to the problem of N. A. Berdyaev's ambiguous and contradictory attitude to Eurasianism - the ultra-right political trend of Russian emigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The author sees the reasons for Berdyaev's rapprochement with the Eurasians in the collapse of the religious and mystical ideal that captured the philosopher's imagination during the First World War. Under the influence of religious excitement that seized part of the Russian intelligentsia in the pre-war period, he believed in the nearness of the end of history and the onset of the millennial Kingdom of God on earth. According to Berdyaev, Russia was called upon to fulfill its historical mission in this final act of the world drama. This role (the "Russian Idea") was to unite the East and the West in a global religious and cultural synthesis. The revolution of 1917 destroyed Berdyaev's eschatological ideal and forced him to radically reconsider his view. From a Christian anarchist, he turns into a statesman, a defender of conservative values and social hierarchy. During this period, his social philosophy is very close to the ideology of fascism. But fascism was a pan-European phenomenon and in each country had its own original versions. The Eurasian movement was one of the varieties of Russian fascism. Berdyaev's political sympathies brought him closer to this movement and became the main reason for long-term cooperation with its leaders. However, the commitment to the values of individual freedom and Christian personalism as the basis of his worldview did not allow Berdyaev to go far in his passion for right-wing conservative ideas. In the late 1920s, he sharply criticized the totalitarian features of the Eurasian ideology. After the National Socialists came to power in Germany, Berdyaev gets the opportunity to compare European far-right regimes and creates a general theory of totalitarianism. In this theory, he uses Eurasian concepts and terminology. Thus, Eurasianism becomes a model for him, on the basis of which he develops his theory of totalitarianism. After the end of the Second World War, the philosopher got deeply disappointed. After the end of the Second World War, the disappointment of the philosopher was due to the failure of his hopes for a softening of the political regime in the USSR. He was again seized by gloomy forebodings of an unsuccessful end to human history. And although the hope for a favorable outcome of the struggle between good and evil did not leave Berdyaev until the end of his life, a sense of realism weakened those hopes and faith in the feasibility of the "Russian Idea".