Eurasian idea represents fundamental revision of political, ideological, ethnic and confessional history of mankind, offers new system of classifications and categories overwhelming standard clichu
Changes of notion «eurasism» original meaning
Different terms lose their original meaning though to daily use during many ages. Such fundamental notions as «socialism», «capitalism», «democracy», «fascism» has changed profoundly. They turned banal. «Eurasism», «Eurasia» has also some uncertainties because they are new, they belong to new political language, intellectual context that today is only being constituted. «Eurasism» mirrors very active dynamical process. It’s meaning becomes clear throughout history and needs further development.
Eurasism as philosophical struggle
Western-Europe and American pattern has many attractive features, that can be copied and praised, but as a whole it is local cultural system that has right to exist in its own historical context along with other civilizations and cultural systems.
Eurasian idea represents fundamental revision of political, ideological, ethnic and confessional history of mankind, offers new system of classifications and categories overwhelming standard clichu. Eurasian theory went through two stages – formation period of classical eurasism in the beginning of the XX century by Russian emigrant intellectuals (Trubeckoy, Savickiy, Alekseev, Suvchinckiy, Iljin, Bromberg, Hara-Davan etc.) followed by historical works of Lev Gumilev and, finally, constitution of neoeurasism (second half of 80-s up to recent times).
Classical Eurasian theory undoubtedly belongs to past and can be correctly classified within the framework of ideologies of the XX century. Classical eurasism might have slept away, but neoeurasism gave it second birth, new sense, scale and meaning. When it arose from «ashes» it became less obvious, but revealed hidden potential. Through neoeurasism whole Eurasian theory got new dimension. Today we cannot ignore the huge historical period of neoeurasism and have to try to comprehend it in modern context. Further we will try to describe different aspects of this notion.
Eurasism as global trend (alterglobalization)
Globalization – main body of modern history. In the broad sense Eurasian idea and even Eurasia as concept are not strictly correspond to Eurasian continent as geographical object. It is planet-scale strategy that admits objectivity of globalization and termination of «national states» (Etats-Nations), but at the same time offers different scenario of globalization. No unipolar world and united global government, but several global zones (poles). This is alternative or multipolar edition of globalization. Globalization is the main fundamental world process that determines main vector of modern history.
Paradigm of globalization – paradigm of atlantism
National state today converts to global one; we are facing constitution of planetary governmental systems with unite administrative-economic system. Think that all nations, social classes and economic models that form our planet would suddenly begin to cooperate on the basis of new unified planet-wide logic is wrong. Globalization is one-dimensional, one-vector phenomenon that tries to universalize western (Anglo-Saxon, American) point of view on how to manage human history. It is (very often connected with suppression and violence) unification of different social-politic, ethnic, confessional, national structures to one pattern. It is west-European historical trend that reached its maximum during domination of the United States of America. Globalization is the imposing of atlantic paradigm.
Globalization as the atlantism absolute tries to avoid this definition. Theorists of globalization argue that when there will be no alternative to atlantism, it will stop being «atlantism». American politologist Francis Fukuyama writes about «end of History» that means ending of geopolitical history and duel between atlantism and eurasism. This means new architecture of world system that represents no opposition with only one pole – pole of atlantism and that we may call New World Order. Model of opposition between two poles (East-West, North-South) transforms to the center-outskirt model (center – West, «rich North», «gold billion» outskirt – the rest). This variant of world architecture totally denies eurasism.
Unipolar globalization has the alternative
Today the «New World Order» is nothing more than just project, plan or trend. It is very serious but not fatal. Adherents of globalization deny any alternative plan of future. But today we experience large-scale phenomenon – contrglobalism. And eurasism coordinates all opponents of unipolar globalization in constructive way. Moreover it offers competitive project of multipolar globalization (or alterglobalization).
Eurasism as pluriversum
Eurasism rejects the center-outskirt model of the world, constituting the planet, consists of constellation of autonomous and partly open to each other «large areas». These areas are not national-states, but coalition of states, reorganized into continental federations or «democratic empires» with great inner self-government. Each of them is multipolar itself, including complicated system of ethnic, cultural, confessional and administrative actors.
In this global sense eurasism is open for everyone, independently to the place of birth, residence, nationality or citizenship. Eurasism becomes opportunity to choose the future, different from cliché of atlantism and common to all mankind. Eurasism does not only strive for the past or current status quo, but aims for the future, admitting that current structure of the world needs radical changing, that national states and industrial society exhausted all its resources. At the same time constitution of one «world state» on the basis of liberal-democratic values is not the only way out for the mankind.
In most common sense eurasism in the XXI century is defined as adherence to alterglobalization project, synonymous to «multipolar world».
Atlantism is not universal
Eurasism absolutely rejects universality of atlantism and Americanism. Western-Europe and American pattern has many attractive features, that can be copied and praised, but as a whole it is local cultural system that has right to exist in its own historical context along with other civilizations and cultural systems.
Eurasism protects not only antiatlantic value system, but diversity of value structures , a kind of «poliversum» with personal space for everyone including the USA and atlantism, obligatory along with other civilizations, because eurasism defends civilizations of Africa, both American continents, Pacific area parallel with its home continent.
Eurasian idea promotes global revolutionary project
Eurasian idea on the planet-scale level is global revolutionary civilization concept, called upon to be new platform for mutual understanding and cooperation for large conglomerate of different powers – states, nations, cultures and confessions that reject atlantic version of globalization. If we analyze declarations and statements of all different politicians, philosophers, intellectuals – we will see that major part of them are adherents (sometimes unaware) of Eurasian idea.
If we will think about all those, who do not agree with the «end of history», our good spirits will raise much and risk of failure for XXI century American concept of strategic security, connected with constituting the unipolar world will be much more real. Eurasism is the sum of natural and artificial, objective and subjective obstacles on the way of unipolar globalization that offers constructive, positive solution to the problem instead of simple negation.
These obstacles remain uncoordinated in the meantime, and atlantists manage with them easily. But if they will be somehow integrated into something united, chances for victory will be much more serious.
Eurasism as the Old World (continent)
New World as the part of the Old World. Second, more specific and narrow sense of the word «eurasism» applicable to what we call the «Old World». Notion of the «Old World» (traditionally regarding to Europe) can be considered much wider. It is multicivilizational super space, inhabited by nations, states, cultures, ethnics and confessions connected with each other historically and spatially by commonality of dialectic destiny. The Old World is the organic product of human history.
The Old World is often opposed to the New World – American continent, discovered by Europeans and transformed to platform for artificial civilization, where European projects of modernism became incarnated. It was built, based on human produced ideological patterns, as purified «civilization of modernism».
United States became successful constitution of the «perfect society» project, formed by intellectuals from England, Ireland and France – countries of South and Central America remained colonies of the Old World. Germany and Eastern Europe less influenced this project. In the terms of O. Spengler dualism between the «Old and New World» can be brought to couples culture-civilization, organic-artificial, historical-technical.
The New World as Messiah
As the historical product of Western Europe on the specific stage of its evolution the New World very early realized its «messiah» destiny, where liberal-democratic ideals of the Enlightment got mixed up with eschatological ideas of radical protestant sects – it was called the theory of «Manifest Destiny», that became new symbol of belief for generations of American people. According to this theory American civilization overcame all cultures and civilizations of the Old World and from now on is the universal norm, obligatory to all nations of the planet. Some time passed and this theory directly confronted not only with cultures of East and Asia, but also opposed itself to Europe, that seemed archaic, full of prejudice and antiquated traditions.
In turn the New World freed itself from the heritage of the Old one and right after the WWII in Europe became indisputable.
leader, so called «criteria of a verity» to others. This inspired corresponding wave of seizure and at a parallel time constitution of project, aimed for geopolitical liberation from transoceanic brutal strategic, economic and political control of the «elder brother».
Integration of Eurasian continent
In the XX century Europe became aware of its originality and step by step started moving towards integration of all its states into united Union, able to guarantee full sovereignty, security and freedom to itself and all members.
Constitution of European Union became the supreme event that helped Europe to restore its status of world subject along with the United States of America. This was the response of the Old World to the excessive challenge of the New one. If we consider alliance of the USA and Western Europe as the atlantic vector of European development, European integration under the aegis of continental countries (Germany, France) may be called European eurasism. This becomes more and more obvious if we take into considerations theory of Europe from Atlantic ocean to Ural (Charles de Gaulle) or even to Vladivostok. In other words integration of the Old World includes boundless territories of Russian Federation.
Thus eurasism in this context maybe defined as project of strategic, geopolitical, economic integration of the north of Eurasian continent, considered as cradle of European history, matrix for its nations.
Parallel with Turkey, Russia (alike ancestors of the Europeans) tightly connected with Turkic, Mongolian and Caucasus nations, gives integrating Europe Eurasian dimension in both symbolic and geographic senses (identification of eurasism with continentalism). During last few centuries European integration project has been initiated by revolutionary part of European elites. In the ancient times similar attempts were made by Alexander the Great (integration of Eurasian continent) and Genghis Khan (founder of world biggest empire).
Eurasia as three great spaces, integrated across meridian
Three Eurasian belts (meridian zones). Horizontal vector of integration is followed by vertical. Eurasist plans for the future presume division of the planet on four vertical geographical belts (meridian zones) from North to South. Both American continents form one common space, oriented on the USA and controlled by it within the framework of the «Monroe doctrine». This is atlantic meridian zone.
Three other are considered eurasist. They are: - Euroafrica with its center – European Union; - Russian-middle Asian zone - Pacific zone. Within these zones take place regional division of labour, interaction of development areas and corridors of growth.
Each of these belts (meridian zones) counterbalance others and all of them counterbalance atlantic meridian zone. In future they might be the frame of multipolar world: number of poles is more than just two, but much less than the number of national states. Eurasian model of the planet proposes that number of poles must be four.
Meridian zones in Eurasian project consist of several «great spaces» or «democratic empires», each possess relative freedom and independence, but strategically integrated in proper meridian zone. «Great spaces» correspond to civilization limits and include several national states or state blocks.
European Union and Arabian great space, which integrates North, Trans-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, form Euroafrica. Russian-middle asian zone is formed by three «great spaces» that sometimes partly duplicate each other: first one is the Russian Federation with several countries of CIS – members of the Eurasian Union. Second is the «great space» of continental Islam (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). Asian countries of CIS intervene them. Third «great space» is Hindustan – self-dependent civilization sector.
Pacific meridian zone is determined by condominium of two «great spaces» – China and Japan and also include Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Australia (some researchers relate it to American meridian zone). This geopolitical region is very mosaic and can be differentiated by many criteria. American meridian zone consist of American-Canadian, Central and North American «great spaces».
Importance of the «forth zone»
Structure of the world based on meridian zones admit most of American geopoliticians, who implement «New World Order» and unipolar globalization. Stumbling block is the existence of Russian-middle Asian meridian space: presence or absence of this belt radically changes geopolitical picture of the world.
Atlantic futurologists divide the globe on three zones: American pole, close-range periphery – European Union (Euroafrica as an exemption), long-range periphery – Asian and Pacific regions. Russia and Middle Asia are fractional, but without it as an independent meridian zone our world is unipolar. This last meridian zone counterbalance American pressure, providing European and Pacific zones ability to act like self-dependent civilization poles.
Real multipolar balance, freedom and independence of meridian belts, «great spaces» and national states depend on successful constitution of the «forth zone». Moreover its is not enough to be one of the poles in the two-polar model of the world: drastic progress of the United States of America might be counterbalanced only by synergy of all three meridian zones. This four-zone superproject is what eurasism is called upon to constitute on geopolitical strategic level.
Eurasism as Russian-middle Asian integration. Moscow-Teheran axis
Fourth meridian zone – russian-asian meridian integration. Central issue of this process is the implementation of Moscow-Teheran axis.
Whole process of integration depends on successful establishment of strategic middle and long-term partnership with Iran. Iranian and Russian economic, military and political potentials together will set up the process of the zone integration, make it irreversible and autonomous. Moscow-Teheran axis will be the real frame for further integration. Both Moscow and Iran are self-sufficient powers, able to constitute their own organizational strategic model of the region.
Eurasian plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Integration vector with Iran vitally important for Russia from one hand to have access to nonfreezing seas and oceans, from the other – for political-religious reorganization of whole Middle Asia (asian countries of CIS, Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Close cooperation with Iran presumes transformation of afghani-pakistani area into free Islamic confederation, loyal both to Moscow and Iran. The reason is that unitary states of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the continuing source of destabilization, threatening neighbor countries. Joint geopolitical struggle will provide ability to implement new Central-Asian federation, transform this complicated region into cooperation and co-prosperity area.
Russian-Indian cooperation is second most important meridian axis of integration on the Eurasian continent – axis of Eurasian collective security systems. Moscow will also play important role, lowering the tension between Deli and Islamabad (Kashmir). Eurasian project for India, sponsored by Moscow, is in constitution of real federation that will mirror diversity of Indian society with high range of ethnic and religious minorities including Sikhs and Muslims.
Main regional partner within the integration process of Central Asia is Turkey. Eurasian ideology is already rather popular there today, western trends interlaced with eastern. Turkey realizes its civilization differences from European Union, its regional goals and interests, risks of globalization and further desovereignty. Strategic imperative is to establish strategic partnership with Russian Federation and Iran. Turkey will be able to maintain its traditions only within the framework of multipolar world. Various groups of Turkish society understand this situation – from temporal power and socialists to religious and military elites. Thus Moscow-Ankara axis becomes geopolitical reality, despite of long-term period of mutual estrangement.
Caucasus is the most problematic area to Eurasian integration, because mosaic of cultures and ethnics easily leads to tensions between nations. This is one of main means, used by those who want to foil integration processes across Eurasian continent.
Caucasus is habited by nations that belong to different states and civilization areas. This region must be polygon for testing different methods if cooperation between people, because what succeed there, will success all over Eurasian continent.
Eurasian solution to this problem lies not in constitution of monoethnic states or including nations strictly to one state, but in development of flexible federation on the basis of ethnic and cultural peculiarities within the common strategic context of meridian zone.
Result of this plan is the system of half-axis from one hand between Moscow and Caucasus centers, (Moscow-Baku, Moscow-Erevan, Moscow-Tbilisi, Moscow-Mahachkala, Moscow-Grozny etc.) and between Caucasus centers and Russian allies within the Eurasian project from the other (Baku-Ankara, Erevan-Teheran etc.).
Eurasian plan for Middle Asia
Middle Asia must move towards integration into united strategic and economic block with Russian Federation within the framework Eurasian Union, successor of the CIS. Main function of this specific area is the rapprochement of Russia with the countries of continental Islam (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan).
From the very beginning middle Asian sector must have various vectors of integration. One programs will set Russian Federation as the main partner (similarity of culture, economic and energetic interests, common strategic security system), other – putting the accent on ethnic and confessional resemblance – Turkic, Iranian and Islamic world.
Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific cultural and lingual context: Russian eurasism wont be the same as French, German or Iranian ones. But the main frame of the philosophy will remain invariable.
Eurasian integration of post-soviet territories. Eurasian Union
More specific meaning of eurasism, partly similar to definitions of eurasist intellectuals of 20-30th of the XX century, connected with the process of local integration of post-soviet territories. Different forms of similar integration can be distinguish during centuries: from Hun steppe and other (Mongol, Turkic and Indo-European) nomad empires to the empire of Genghis Khan and his successors during centuries. Later integration function was led by Russian Romanian Empire and later – USSR.
Today Eurasian Union continued integration traditions, worked out special ideological model that takes into consideration democratic procedures, respects rights of nations and pays attention to cultural, lingual and ethnic features of all participants.
Eurasism is the philosophy of integration on the post-soviet territory on democratic, non-violent and voluntary basis without domination of any confessional or ethnic group.
Astana, Dushanbe and Bishkek as the main force of integration
Different Asian republics of the CIS treat the process of post-soviet integration unequally. Most active adherent of this idea is Kazakhstan. President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev is the staunch supporter of Eurasian Idea. Kyrgyz and Tajikistan similarly support process of integration, though their support less tangible in comparison with Kazakhstan led by Nazarbayev.
Tashkent and Ashabad
Uzbekistan and especially Turkmen avoid integration process, trying to gain maximum positive results from achieved national sovereignty. But very soon due to stirring up the globalization projects both states will face the dilemma: to lose sovereignty and melt in unified global world with domination of American liberal values or to save personal cultural and confessional identity in the context of Eurasian Union. In our opinion unbiased comparison of these two options will lead to the second one, naturally sequential for both countries and their history.
Armenia consecutively gravitate towards Eurasian Union, consider Russian Federation as main supporter and conciliator that helps to manage with Muslim neighbourhood. It is notable that Teheran prefers to establish partnership with ethnically close Armenian. This fact allows us consider two half-axis – Moscow-Erevan and Erevan-Teheran – as positive prerequisites of integration.
Baku remains neutral, but this situation will drastically change in the case of consecutive and unavailing strive of Ankara towards eurasism (it will immediately affect Azerbaijan). Analysis of Azerbaijani cultural system shows that this state is closer to Russian Federation and post-soviet republics of Caucasus and Middle Asia than to religious Iran and even temporal Turkey.
Georgia is the key problem to the region. Mosaic character of Georgian state is the reason of serious problems during constitution of new national state that is strongly rejected by minorities- Abkhazia, South Osetia, Adjaria etc. Besides this state does not have any serious partners in the region and forced to seek partnership with the USA and NATO to counterbalance Russian influence.
Georgia is the main threat, able to sabotage the very process of Eurasian integration. Solution of the problem is in orthodox culture of Georgia, eurasian features of traditions.
Ukraine and Belarus – Slav countries of CIS
It is enough to gain strong support from Kazakhstan and Ukraine to succeed in constitution of Eurasian Union. Geopolitical triangle Moscow-Astana-Kiev is the frame that is able to guarantee stability to Eurasian Union. That’s why negotiations with Kiev are urgent like never before. Russia and Ukraine have very much in common: culture, language, religion and ethnic commonality. These aspects need to be highlighted because from the beginning sovereignty of Ukraine revealed Russophobe and disintegration.
Many countries of EU can positively influence Ukrainian government, because they are interested in political harmonization in Eastern Europe. Cooperation of Moscow and Kiev will demonstrate pan European policy of both Slav countries. All mentioned above fits to Belarus, where integration intentions much more evident. But strategic and economic status of Belarus is less important to Moscow than positions of Kiev and Astana. Moreover domination of Moscow-Minsk axis will harm integration with Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
That is why integration with Belarus must proceed fluently without any sudden incidents – along with other vectors of Eurasian integration process.
Eurasism as Weltanschauung
Last definition of eurasism characterizes specific weltanschauung, specific political philosophy combining tradition, modernity and even elements of postmodernism. This philosophy issues the priority of traditional society, admits the imperative of technical and social modernization (without breaking-off traditional culture) and strives for adaptation of its ideological program to postindustrial, informational society, called «postmodernism».
Postmodernism formally removes contraposition of tradition and modernism, disfranchising and making them equal. Eurasian postmodernism on the contrary consider alliance of tradition and modernism as constructive, optimistic energetic impulse towards creation and growth.
Eurasian philosophy legitimates realities that were forced out by the Enlightment – religion, ethnic, empire, cult etc. At the same time best achievements of modernism are used broadly: technological and economic advance, social guarantees, freedom of labour. Extremes meet each other, melting into uniting harmonic and original theory, inspiring fresh thinking and new solutions for eternal problems that people face along their history.
Eurasism is open philosophy
Eurasism is open philosophy without any dogmatisms that can be enriched with any new content – history of religion, sociological and ethnologic discoveries, geopolitics, economics, national geography, cultural, strategic and political research etc. Moreover Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific cultural and lingual context: Russian eurasism wont be the same as French, German or Iranian ones. But the main frame of the philosophy will remain invariable.
Paragraphs of eurasism
Eurasism basic principles are:
- differentialism, pluralism of value systems versus conventional obligatory domination of one ideology (American liberal-democracy in the first hand);
- tradition versus humiliation of cultures, dogmatisms and initiations of traditional society;
- rights of nations versus «gold billion» and neocolonialism hegemony of «rich North»;
- ethnics as values and subjects of history versus depersonalization of nations, imprisoned into artificial social constructions;
- social fairness and human solidarity versus exploitation and humiliation of a man by man.