Dichotomies of Eurasianism: A Socio-Geographical Analysis

Abstract

Eurasianism is among the traditional and most significant intellectual-political currents for Russia and its geostrategy. The importance of the postulates and approaches cultivated within Eurasianism has notably increased in the context of the sharply manifested conflict in the “Russia-West“ system in recent years and the corresponding reorientation of the Russian Federation’s geoeconomic priorities towards the countries of the “Global Majority.“ The actualization of Eurasianism and its broad entrenchment in Russian academic discourse is combined with its contemporary conceptual “fuzziness,“ variability of interpretations, and the presence of deep contradictions and problematic areas inherent to Eurasian ideological concepts, which the author conceptualizes as “dichotomies of Eurasianism.“ The article emphasizes the essential duality of Eurasianism, combining elements of verifiable scientific knowledge with ideological principles, allowing it to be considered a unique form of geo-ideology. It identifies substantive differences between the positions of classical Eurasianism (works of N. S. Trubetskoy, P. N. Savitsky, G. V. Vernadsky, etc.) and the prevailing directions of Eurasianism in the 21st century (“neo-Eurasianism,“ concepts of “Greater Eurasia,“ “Northern Eurasia“). The simultaneous presence of universalism (on an all-Russian and continental scale) and pronounced “Russia-centricity,“ as well as the combination of geoeconomic and geocultural isolationism with a strong integrative message across nations and countries, inherent in Eurasianism, are demonstrated. The necessity for the further development of Eurasianism, including within the framework of social geography issues, is substantiated.