Transitions in Post-Soviet Eurasia

Identity, Polity and Strategic Choices

Archana Upadhyay, Archana Upadhyay

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000423235
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique

This book discusses the ideological and historical relevance of the term 'Eurasia' as a concept in the global geopolitical and ethno-cultural discourse. It focuses on the contested meanings attached to the idea and traces its historical evolution and interpretations.

The volume examines the contours and characteristics of power politics in the Eurasian landscape by exploring the dynamics of the contending and competing interests that have come to occupy the region, particularly in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It further examines the multiple narratives that define the socio-political realities of the region and also the policies of the state actors involved, by reflecting upon the multifaceted dimensions of the Eurasian issues. These include nation building strategies, identity, ethnic conflicts, security, democratization, globalization, international migration, climate change and energy extraction. The geopolitical and civilizational aspects of Eurasianism, in which Russia occupies a pivotal geo-political place creates both opportunities and anxieties for other stakeholders in the region. The book also holistically analyses the developmental dimensions of the post-Soviet space and 'Eurasianism' as a concept and political practice in domestic, regional and global affairs.

The book also analyses the developmental dimensions of the post-Soviet space and 'Eurasianism' as a concept and political practice in domestic, regional and global affairs.

1 Introduction

The Eurasian discourse: from idea to future history

Archana Upadhyay

DOI: 10.4324/9781003193418-5

As a system of profound ideas, ‘Eurasianism’ is broadly understood as a synthesis of the study and methodologies of the humanities and natural sciences along with the political, economic and spiritual aspects of the historical existence of people and societies.¹ However, as a term ‘Eurasia’ is both contested and debated and has different meanings attached to it, both in time and space. Two meanings particularly stand out—the ‘geographical’ and the ‘political-philosophical-ideological’.² While the first accords meaning to the location of Eurasia in geographical terms, the second offers multiple and often contradictory interpretations of the term. Undoubtedly, the term emerged and re-emerged in different stages of history as a powerful idea set in motion by philosophers, historians, nationalists, individuals and political leaders.

The spatial and political dimensions of the Eurasian political project can be traced back to the reign of Peter the Great (1672–1725), when attempts were made to create a geographical identity that sought to shift Russia from the Asian map onto the European map.³ Following the failed Decembrist Revolution of 1825,⁴ there were two fairly defining movements—Slavophile and pan-Slavism—that attempted to offer alternative visions to Russia’s identity and future. While the Slavophiles sought the restoration of the messianic role of the Russian Orthodox church as the ‘third Rome’,⁵ the pan-Slavic thinking called for the unity of the Slavic people, irrespective of their cultural variations, under the leadership of Russia in the geographical landscape between Europe and Asia.⁶ The fact that the Russian state was spread over two continents provided a multidimensional justification for the uniqueness of Russia’s culture and destiny.

The following sections provide a broad overview of the evolution of the concepts of Eurasia and Eurasianism, the interpretations and the policy debates surrounding the concepts and their geopolitical underpinnings in domestic, regional and global affairs.

The early years

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Eurasianist movement took a more concrete shape in the scholarly endeavours of the emigrant Russian intellectual community⁷ as its members strived to comprehend the trajectory of the Russian state in the light of the revolution and the consequent emergence of the Soviet state. Outside of the prism of ideological dogmas and factoring in the civilizational uniqueness and achievements of Russia in science and the humanities, the Eurasianists attempted to promote a novel idea of Russian national identity akin to what may be described as ‘third way politics’.⁸ This unique understanding of politics, sought to create a Russian collective identity that was neither tsarist, liberal, communist nor capitalist.⁹ The most notable among the early creators of Eurasianism were linguist, ethnographer and philosopher Nikolai Trubetskoy (1890–1938); geographer and economist Peter Savitsky; priest and orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky (1893–1979); and musicologist and art historian Pyotr Suvchinsky. Others who subsequently joined the Eurasian movement included philosopher Lev Karsavin (1882–1952); historian George Vernadsky (1887–1973) and literary critic Dmitry Sviatopolk. Significantly, the broad intellectual interests of the proponents of the movement proved to be its enduring strength. The creation of a mutual ideological banner for diverse political movements of right-wing orientation only served to enlarge the canvas of Eurasianism.¹⁰

As reflected in the diverse literature on the subject, the intellectual journey of Eurasianism is complicated and has taken place in phases, although the starting point of the movement has been linked to the publication in 1921 of Iskhod k Vostoku (Exodus to the East).¹¹ The first phase can be traced in the works of the founders of the doctrine, including both its supporters and its detractors.¹² The second phase appeared in the 1960s with the writings on the subject by a host of prominent intellectuals, including Western writers.¹³ The third phase, primarily viewed as the revival phase, was triggered by perestroika, and drew heavily on the writings of prominent philosophers, historians, ethnologists, cultural researchers and a host of leading intellectuals such as Lev Gumilev,¹⁴ Peter Savitsky¹⁵ and Alexander Panarin.¹⁶ As a synthesized doctrine, Eurasianism laid the common ideological foundations for a variety of interrelated discourses on issues related to ‘the Russian idea’—to its past and its future within the geographical and cultural context of Eurasia. It is significant that in the Eurasianist discourse, the national question is deeply embedded with civilizational identification. In this regard, it is worth noting that the geographical and cultural world of Eurasia has a special spiritual and practical bearing for many of the ethnic groups who have traditionally inhabited the region.

Among the advocates of ‘classical Eurasianism’, the views of Nikoloi Trubetskoy particularly stand out. He points out that ‘Every nationalism is something like a synthesis of the elements of chauvinism and cosmopolitanism, the experience of reconciling these two opposites’.¹⁷ This distinction between chauvinism and cosmopolitanism, he states, is in degree and not in principle. According to him national ‘self-knowledge’ is vital for understanding Eurasian ethno-sociology. He further states that ‘self-knowledge’, in the context of a nation, is a constantly evolving phenomenon and that its key perquisites are ‘know thyself’ and ‘be yourself’.¹⁸ It is through this self-actualization that an individual or a group of people will never come into self-conflict. For Trubetskoy, ‘nationalism’ is the equivalent of self-knowledge for a nation, while true nationalism, in contrast to destructive nationalism, is fundamentally tolerant and peaceful towards other nations. According to him, ‘militant chauvinism’, ‘cultural conservatism’ and ‘state nationalism’ are manifestations of destructive nationalism that emerge out of the desire to forcibly impose one’s notion of nationalism or way of life on the rest.¹⁹ Significantly, one of the key assertions of the Eurasianists is the need for a broad inter-cultural and inter-ethnic openness among the Eurasian people. There is a recognition that the development of national potential is directly dependent on the development of relations with other ethnic peoples as each ethno-social group is characterized by specific traits that has its own unique place in the network of international relations.

As an ideological alternative, Trubetskoy thus presents the concept of ‘pan-Eurasian nationalism’ that recognizes the national identity of all Eurasian ethnic groups but also acknowledges the existence of a common chain of values that binds people across national, cultural and religious boundaries. However, it is important that these values evolve organically from the shared historical and cultural core of Eurasian civilization. The supra-national identity, therefore, does not deny the national but rather gives it a unique dimension of being not only Eurasian but also universal in its outlook through cross-cultural fusion.

In the 1960s, Gumilev once again revived the discourse on Eurasianism by depicting the region as an independent dynamic centre for ‘ethnogenesis’ and ‘cultural-genesis’.²⁰ According to him, Russian civilization was created by the joint Turkish-Tartar and Slav ethnogenesis which in the geographical sense was effectuated by the historical alliance between ‘the woods’ and ‘the steppe’.²¹ For him, this alliance was the basis of the ‘great Russian statehood’ that presented the reality of cultural-strategic control over Asia and Eastern Europe. Gumilev’s historiographical work replenishes a continuity of the traditions introduced by the Eurasianists. Among the aspects elaborated by him in greater detail and included in the geographical nature of Eurasia and its history was Russia’s relationship with the Eurasian nomads. Although he supported Eurasian views by applying his theory of ethnogenesis to Russian history, his theory, remained an independent intellectual paradigm that was distinct from Eurasianism. His theory of ethnogenesis supplemented the Eurasianists’ ideological debate of the 1920s and 1930s by providing a unique formula of Russian identity. Therefore, his theory of ethnogenesis, being unique and specific to the study of ethnicities, came to be regarded as the ‘scientific justification for the neo-Eurasian ideology’.²²

Neo-Eurasianism

Neo-Eurasianism as a diverse intellectual movement emerged in the late 1980s and drew on the intellectual tradition of Russian exceptionalism and in opposition to Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ that called for a ‘conciliation with the West’.²³ As a school of thought, it encompasses disparate political narratives whose common denominator is antipathy towards Western liberalism and Western hegemony.²⁴ Furthermore, it also seeks political and economic rapprochement among Eurasian states on the basis of a shared civilizational history of all people living in the region understood as Eurasia.²⁵ Civilization and culture have been recognized as historical constants that accord a deeper meaning to the understanding of political events.

One of the prominent exponents of the Neo-Eurasian orientation in geopolitics is Alexander Dugin.²⁶ He envisages Eurasia as ‘sacred geography’ i.e. a combination of spiritual and geopolitical reality spanning from Dublin in the West to Vladivostok in the East. The central concepts in his geopolitical-theological vision of Eurasia include the concept of civilizational originality and its foundations; the existence of a Russian-Eurasian civilization characterized by traditional values, religiosity, multi-ethnicity, inter-ethnic tolerance, a strong state and the concept of a world order that endorses multipolarity and plurality of civilizations.²⁷ Dugin asserts that neo-Eurasianism has supplanted the ideas of ‘classical Eurasianism’ by drawing attention to ‘traditionalism, geopolitics, structuralism, the fundamental-ontology of Heidegger,²⁸ sociology and anthropology’.²⁹ Unlike the classical Eurasianists, Dugin strives to internationalize his theory and seeks a ‘third way’ not apart from Europe and Asia but through the inclusion of both Europe and Asia.³⁰ In his words, ‘Our goal is Indo-European Empire—from Vladivostok to Dublin’.³¹ He goes on to say that

[t]he new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.³²

An important aspect of Eurasianism is the relationship between the church and the state. The church is recognized as an important pillar in the development of the Eurasianism project, although in partnership with other traditional religions of Russia. In this regard, it is significant that the notion of ‘traditionalism’ espous...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• The editor
• The contributors
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1. Introduction: The Eurasian discourse: from idea to future history
• PART I: Imagining Eurasia: past in the present
• PART II: Identity issues and inherited legacies of ethnic conflicts
• PART III: Geopolitical transformations and strategic choices
• PART IV: Global connections and local transformations
• Index