By Kateryna Levchuk Submitted to Central European University Department of International Relations and European Studies in Parti

CEU eTD Collection

In partialIn fulfilment ofrequirements the for the degree of Department of E URASIA Supervisor: Professor NISM International Relations and European Studies Central European University : Word Count:

Budapest, Hungary Kateryna Levchuk A

R Submitted to USSIAN 20 By

Matteo FumagalliMatteo M 17 ONROE

207

OCTRINE

Master Artsof ?

CEU eTD Collection foreignRussian policy direction. con recommendations some with concludes thesis The divergences. empirical of number a to due project Eurasian a of success the of probability practical low a shows comparison the similarities, theoretical of number a Despite doctrine. Monroe framed si the with analysis comparative a use I integration regional further for ideology Eurasianist of usefulness the illustrate to order In comparison. and analysis historical combin a use I thesis my Throughout failure. or success and prospective its unity for reasons political the outlines Eurasian a of creation the for concept the of utility the evaluates a as used being for currently justification is It region. Eurasian the in place a and mission special a by assertivenessinternationalincreased anjustifying foundation, foreignpolicy Russian a Eurasianism of ideology The Abstract ation of different methods, such as qualitative data collection, small case studies, studies, case small collection, data qualitative as such methods, different of ation

Russia - e itgain rjcs n h fre Sve Uin Ti thesis This Union. Soviet former the in projects integration led

stopped being a philosophical current and transformed into into transformed and current philosophical a being stopped i

cerning cerning milarly CEU eTD Collection HarbordJohn for andfeedback. their comments and Bellers Robin namely Writing, Academic for Center the to thankful sincerely am I valuable regarding and recommendations structure the thedirection thesis. of sugges his for Fumagalli, Matteo Professor supervisor, my to grateful am I and support great a always inspiration for my studies. and life were who parents, my thank to like would I all of First Acknowledgements

To theTo memory Alisa of

tions and and tions

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion Space? Chapter 3.CanEurasianismPost Become MonroeDoctrine aNew the for Answer asan Chapter 2.Eurasianism afterAmbition the Break Chapter “Great of Character 1.The Manifestations the Russian and Power” Introduction T able ofContents Two IdeologiesTwo 3.5. “What’s It In Us?”For Methodological Comparison of Empiricalthe Potential of 3.4. Eurasianism and Monroe Doctrine: Mirror Reflection 3.3. SoWhat is It, Monroe Doctrine? 3.2. Eurasianism 3.1. The Need Greatfor Power Status 2.6. Inte Eurasian Integration 2.5. Russian Public’s Opinion on Restorationthe of Great the Power Status and the 2.4. Eurasianism theFrom Other Side 2.3. Development Eurasianismof 2 2.1. WhyEurasianism is becoming so prominent today 1.5. policy Foreign the in CIS 1.4. Eurasianism Takes Hold pragmatism 1.3. A towaShift 1.2.2. Disillusionment with the West 1.2.1. Russian foreign policy after 1991; “liberal” the period 1.1.1. Need for a New Idea 1.1. Situation after 1991 .2. Elaborations on theRussian Idea 3.5.6. Public Opinion 3.5.6. Economic Underpinnings of the IdeologiesTwo 3.5.5. Integrating Potential theof US 1889 and Eurasianism 3.5.4. Are We The One? Assessing the level of terri 3.5.3. Social Darwinism 3.5.2. Messianism 3.5.1. Against the Status Quo 2.4.3. Foreign Scholars on Eurasianism 2.4.2. Domestic Liberals 2.4.1. Domestic Nationalists 2.3.3. Neo 2.3.2. Modern view onEurasianism 2.3.1. Classic Eurasianists

...... gration Willingness of the Political Elites of CIS the

......

...... -

Eurasian ......

...... rds Centrist government and the Emergence of Great Power and Monroe: What About Them? ......

......

...... ism

......

...... -

......

...... up of theup USSR

......

...... – ...... the instances of the Eurasianist Manifestations ......

......

...... iii -

...... 1933 andCurrent Russia

......

torial integration of Monroe doctrine ......

......

...... - So ...... viet ......

......

24 65 61 42 29 27 24 19 13 11 10 50 46 44 43 42 40 39 35 29 60 58 57 56 55 53 51 38 35 35 32 31 .

7 1 9 8 7

CEU eTD Collection Eurasianism.”Eurasianism: In Hist V.F.Petrenko. andthe “Eurasianism National In Identity.” Viewpoint.”Eur In Greatnessof Empire,104 MarleneLaruelle, “Eurasianism Limited,2009; A.A.Sviridenko.F.S.Funzullini, and Temptation: Eurasian InsightinUfa, theModern Problem. 200 1 post break ambition power great Russian the of development the of character and reasons answer to order in Doctrine of concept framed similarly theoretically a with outlook policy space. Eurasian of economy and geopolitics mentality, Eurasian the on works of number great Eurasianism of indication important an An formations. political Eurasian polic foreign Russian in Eurasianism with dealing literature of abundance and astonishing rhetoric Eurasist the of intensity increased t the in observed period The thought. political nation’s every in concepts and ideas key significantgeneral. worldIt processesin influence on the todistinguish possible certain is states surrounding has Russia the all on influence and relevance high country’s the of because research for field fertile a and exciting an only not is development policy foreign Russian Introduction

hesis, starting with the creation of the Russian Federation, can be characterized by an an by characterized be can Federation, Russian the of creation the with starting hesis, Didier Chaudet,Didier When Empire Meetsthe andRussia.Nationalism:US Power Politics in Cornwall: Publishing Ashgate - Soviet “bigSoviet space”? - up of the USSR and how is Eurasianism helpful for the creation of a Russia a of creation the for helpful Eurasianism is how and USSR the of up The novelty of novelty The las en aaon o h eeomn o uai,a wl s ha as well as Eurasia, of development the to paramount been always asiansim:key political ideas, values, 6 priorities,

– 190. Moscow: Natalis,190. U.V.2004; A.V.Moscow: Ivanov, Popkov andE.A. “EurasianismTyugashev. as a

this work this -

a GeographicaThe Ideology.” In ThoughtsIdeologyof RussianorThe Eurasianismon the

oryandModernity, 22 the

lies in an attempt to compare to attempt an in lies

following research question research following s rmnne in prominence ’s – 44.2009. RAN, Eurasian Mentality 1

– 85. Barnaul: Barnaul,85. AGAU 2007;

,21 –

45.Moscow,2012; I.I.Orlik, “Neo cdmc circles. academic s the :

What are the underlying the are What

current Russian current the mrcn Monroe American I.N. Karickiy, and I.N. 1

There is a a is There after the the after

foreign ving 8; - - y is y led led

a , CEU eTD Collection 5 4 3 Press,2008. 2 to able was I Eurasists. Russian modern especially Eurasianism, on authors various of perspectives the for instrumental was Library Public Moscow Library. European Central on sources of number considerable A space”, available oftool a establishment toRussian Russia for therealization power status. great for bid its legitimizing and civilization original distinct a it making thus components Asian and European of mix p unique a as essence, civilization culture, the government, explain to striving are that concepts, Eurasianism foreignmore assertiveand expansionist policy. p ambition power great Russian the point starting a as hand, other the On affairs. American Latin in interference and propagated actively were Hemisphere Western pe time a such of point starting The comparison. methodological performed the of sake the for taken was which frame, Policy). Neighbor Good the of advent Americas” in hegemony facto “de realizing towards steps taken had States United the scholars, American to According

Beslantragedy, 2004; 1889 HedleyBull, Theof OrderinAnarchical Society: Study World Politics.A New York: University Oxford York:New Ed. 3rd World. the and States, United the America, Latin Eagle: the of TalonsSmith, Peter - 1890

S I triangulated triving for a balanced and unbiased evaluation unbiased and balanced a for triving

in this thesis is understood as understood is thesisthis in http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~queir20r/classweb/pages/thebeslantragedy.html

a wide range of domestic and foreign sources using qualitative data. data. qualitative foreignusing domestic rangeand a of sources wide

eriod start eriod

riod is riod 2

from the late 19th century through roughly 1933 (the (the 1933 roughly through century 19th late the from s

in 2004, in

the 3 Russian great power restoration were found in the in found were restoration power great Russian

The abovementioned statement justifies the time the justifies statement abovementioned The

Washington conference, Washington

a historically developed complex of ideas andideas of historically a complex developed 5 2

when Putin’s government began pursuing a pursuing began government Putin’s when

led to the the to led

of Eurasianism as a foreign policyforeign a as Eurasianism of ae n rl o Rsi, its Russia, of role and lace

Colombia University Press,ColombiaUniversity 1977. xrie f tegh and strength of exercise 4

where the ideas of ideas the where - led post

- Soviet “bigSoviet the the

CEU eTD Collection Center,2002. 16 15 14 Eurasianism Center,2002; on Russian “TheTrubeckoy, View West, notHistory fromthe from the but In East.” 13 Countries, CIS 218 12 Rowman&Littlefield2011.Publishers. Inc, Former SovietRussianForeign Union.”In Policy: Return ofGreat PowerThe Trenin,Dmitrii 407 11 Russian,Post Soviet and 10 9 West 8 2010. Policy:Foreign Change in Nationaland Identity Continuity no.2 (April2008):38 7 6 Eurasianism of coherence economi ideology, Eurasian the of messages main and premises the understand to order in analyzed been have sources Eurasian Classic of number A employs Russia understanding ofthe toadvance “great tools its power” ambition. politico of usage Russian on Eurasianism of emergence current t and position, assertive more a to liberal used I Conservative Studies. Eurasianis on sources many obtain Trenin, Tsygankov,Andrei “Russia’sIt Mean Assertiveness:International What for the West?”Does http://konservatizm.org/ beonly The In an Empire.” Foundationsas Eurasian of Eurasianism AlexandrosPeterson P.N.Savickiy, Savickiy,“The Continent Trubeckoy,“The EurasianCommon Nationalism.” N.S.Trubeckoy, In “The EurasianCommon Nationalism.” Trenin,Dmitrii Power andIn Greatness.”“Of Bertil Nygren,“Russia The aIn as RegionalRebuilding Power.” of Greater Russia:Putin’sTowardsForeign Policy the Ily ,81 aPrizel, ForeignPolicy: in NationalandPoland, and Leadership Russiaand Identity NationalismUkraine. Cambridge

e rsrain f h Rsin post Russian the of preservation he – Post 112.SecurityBarbara: Santa International, 2011. Praeger the the ,208 c - Imperium:EurasianA Story

15 literature discussing a shift in the Russian foreign policy outlook from a more more a from outlook policy foreign Russian the in shift a discussing literature –

“The Eurasianism as a“The as EurasianismHistorical In Fate.”

266.2002. Center, Moscow:Arctogaia ainl fr uain integration. Eurasian for rationale – – 249.Routledge Contemporary Eastern Russiaand 433.New York New York: University 2011;Jeffrey Press, “Back Offensive?Mankoff, onthe The – , “The World Island in, the “The World 55;Tsygankov - Soviet Studies 103.Studies Soviet Cambridge:University Cambridge Press, 1998. - Ocean.” In In Ocean.” 6

,“The Post a .Washington CarnegieforDC: International Endowment Press,2011; nd the possible ideological rivals of the concept (pan concept the of rivals ideological possible the nd The FoundationsThe Eurasianismof - military and politico and military

10 - Russ XXICentury.” In Western World andRussia’s Western In World Search for a New Direction.”

7 and the possible existing alternatives. existing possible the and

,201 especially in the area of Russian special interests, special Russian of area the in especially ia:ChallengesTheTransformation of m in the Moscow State University Center of of Center University State Moscow the in m L.N.will Gumilev, tell you“I a secret:be ifsaved, Russiawill will that

– 221. Second. Plymouth: 221.Rowman&LittlefieldSecond. Publishers. Inc, The Foundationsof The Eurasianism - 3 meil status imperial The FoundationsThe Eurasianismof

TheWorld Island: Eurasian theFateof the Geopoliticsand ,305 16 - economic arena economic , 479 ,

EuropeSeries. Routledge,2008.London:

h dsusos n h ideological the on discussions The – 324.Moscow: 2002. Center, Arctogaia – 485.2002. Moscow Center Arctogaia

Politics,241 13 9

s el s cultural a as well as n re t understand to order in , edited by, edited Piotr Dutkiewicz and ,281 ,200 –

12 293.Plymouth: –

Problems of Problems Post 295.Mosc – provided 208.Moscow: Arctogaia The F 11

ow: Arctogaia ow: The literatureThe oundationsof a -

Communism

necessar Russia’s

- Turkic Turkic 14

and the

55, y 8

CEU eTD Collection KnigniyMir,2 21 PraegerSecurity International, 2006. StewartBrewer, andBrid Borders HaroldMolineu, PolicyLatinU.S. Towards America: Regionalism toGlobalism. From Press, Oxford: Westview 1990; 20 PressDuke PolicyUniversityDuke Studies. Durham: 1986. Press, 19 Geopolitics.Center,Arctogaia 2000. Moscow:TheCenter,Arctogaia Forth 2002; PoliticalSt. Petersburg: Amfora, Theory. 2009;Th 18 17 advices whose position, international Russian the perspectiveson thinkers’ foreignliberal Eurasianism integration, further and for urged Russia a create to potential future Russia’s and processes integration Eurasian the of evaluation balanced a for important extremely were works authors’ different of compilations Two t development regional the on impact and legitimacy projects. imperial observed the of area geographical the of match existing the to due helpful was USSR and US War Cold the of dominant of analysis An Eurasianism. Russian and ideology imperial American of comparison revealing and thoughtful a of US the on discussions Analytic Russian the foreign polic in element chauvinist and nationalist the of evaluation the for revealing the to devoted was thesis my of part movement) he neededcriteriafor comparison. JanTriska, 20Years USSR:“The TimeAftertheof Gather uptoBreak the Stones...” Today. orThe Integration Eurasian Moscow: Mark EricU.S.Williams, Understanding AlexandrDugin,“The ThreatRussia The forIn and theFoundations Searchfor Indentity.” 759 of Eurasianism, Ivanov,,Laruelle - le d “big space” due to the fact that one of them was mainly advocating advocating mainly was them of one that fact the to due space” “big d Dominant Powers and Subordinate UnitedPowers The in Dominant States: States Latin in Union AmericaEasternand Europe Soviet the 012. 17 yto the CIS inrelation region.

were paramount for determining the viability of the concept. A considerable A concept. the ofviability determiningforthe paramount were

ges:History A of US

- Latin American Relations: Theory and History.Latin Relations:American Theoryand Rouledge,New York: 2012; - Latin American relations were necessary for the conduct conduct the for necessary were relations American Latin

- subordinate subordinate - Latin American Relations. LatinSecurityAmerican Praeger International. London: thoughts 18 19 4

21 The evaluation of the Monroe Doctrine Doctrine Monroe the of evaluation The

while anotherdomestic and compiled one

f lxnr ui. i wrs were works His Dugin. Alexandr of states relations bas relations states 20

w as an important source important an as eFoundations of ed

on the examples the on to obtain to – 766. . CEU eTD Collection 24 2013. http://www.mgimo.ru/users/document234078.phtml Mehdiev,April 25, Elnur. Elnur,2013. Interview MGIMO, with Mehdiev http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201006/20100622cv_arbatova_en.pdf 23 22 interviews the after However, opinion. their of expression the in strained c closed been have might interviews my of point weak Another information. needed obtaining from me precluded not have nevertheless, which replied, them of number small relatively contact t The conducted interviews. Semi integration. Eurasianism Rus of views the and process integration policy library CEU in available not num considerable a gained I there as Moscow to trip field A wider political contextofRussian thought. u and balanced a ensure and findings the to validity and credibility increased an give used scenario. Eurasist the on Interviewwith Alexa bae eauto o te usa frin oiy n te lc o Ersaim n the in Eurasianism of place the and policy foreign Russian the of evaluation nbiased Arbatova,AprilNadia 26, Arbatova,Interview Nadia. 2013.with IMEMO, MariaNikolayLipman eds. and Russia Petrov, Future. Moscow:2020:forScenarios the Center, Carnegie2012. Moscow http://www.mgimo.ru/nikitina/ hesis had a number of limitations, first of all linked to the conduct of interviews. I interviews. of conduct the to linked all of first limitations, of number a had hesis - makers d nme o shlr daig ih post with dealing scholars of number a ed ute dvlpet f usa n post and Russia of development further haracter of of haracter 24 ndr Dugin,MSU, ndr April 24, 2013.

ee ey epu fr ciia eauto o te urn Eurasian current the of evaluation critical a for helpful very were

A considerable match of the arguments among these and other sources other and these among arguments the of match considerable A the

Russian political system, which could mean my interviewees were were interviewees my mean could which system,political Russian in April 2013 April in .

. - h itriw wt poiet usa scholars Russian prominent with interviews The tutrd neve dsg hs en sd n l the all in used been has design interview structured ber of domestic sources on Eurasianism, which were which Eurasianism, on sources domestic of ber was the most important contribution for my thesis, my for contribution important most the was .Nikitina, Yulia. Interview AprilNikitina,with 26, Yulia MGIMO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin sian intelligentsia on the future prospects of the of prospects future the on intelligentsia sian

- oit region Soviet - oit pc ad uains. A Eurasianism. and space Soviet 22

ee lal aodn a avoiding clearly were were .

conducted conducted 23

and the .

CEU eTD Collection an as taken doctrine example ofa successful imperial ideology. Monroe US the with state, hegemon the a legitimate of to pretentions ideology imperial the of ability the as determined be would success thesis, Russia the of success the affect might which divergences, important the to attention his bring and doctrine Monroe of success alleged the for reasons the with reader a provide will ideologies two the of meth A hegemon. regional another of project imperial successful post the on ambition imperial Russian for ideology Eurasian of utility the concerning question the to 3 The political scholars theEurasian totheconcept abilitygeographical andits tounite space. ideology policy foreign and philosophic prominent Eurasianism of reemergence the for reasons underlying the disclose will chapter 1991. since policy foreign Russian of development rhetori question: research the of aspects following the discuss to order in structured and chapters three to order In IIrealized necessary for obtained answering information thequestion. rd c and the official documents of the Russian Federation to describe and trace the the trace and describe to Federation Russian the of documents official the and c

chapter is the centerpiece of the thesis, as it is intended t intended is it as thesis, the of centerpiece the is chapter

hpe 1 Chapter provide an answer to the research question, the thesis has been divided into divided been has thesis the question, research the to answer an provide - oit pc. mrcn ore otie s ae a a eape f a of example an as taken is doctrine Monroe American space. Soviet

uses

- oiae post dominated p rocess tracing and discourse analysis of the ruling party party ruling the of analysis discourse and tracing rocess

- 6 oit bg spac “big Soviet

Through a historical analysis the 2 the analysis historical a Through and discuss the attitude of various various of attitude the discuss and ” Fr h proe f the of purpose the For e”. o give a complex answer complex a give o odological comparison comparison odological

as a a as

CEU eTD Collection 27 Anti of 26 25 and direction policy not foreign did Russia and the happened miracle no reshape Unfortunately, West. to the with rapprochement lengths long to went and 1990s the ident new a of vanguard a in were liberals Russian lessons. necessary derive prompted century a to and policy foreign country's half their of foundations ideological the reevaluate to Russians than more for existing order world bipolar the of collapse which territories, vast lost delegitimized, fermentation” post the ex an throughout people the experiencedby abandonment and confusion disillusionment, feelingof a phrasedescribes u outrageous and inflation huge economy, plummeting the reflecting “These after 1991 1.1. Situation sh to order in Union prominence among circles. concept political ofthe Russian Soviet the of dissolution the after policy foreign Russian in argument Eurasist of development the illustrate and outline will chapter The B Ambition the after Power” “Great The Chapter 1.

IlyaPrizel, SkaidraTrilupaityte, orPower Politics? “Culture Post KarickiyI.N V.F. the National In and Petrenko. and “Eurasianism Identity.” - Americanism

a a at f usas ainl dniy t es sne the since least at identity national Russia’s of part a was were - National oit usa f h 19s aiu shlr characteri scholars various 1990s the of Russia Soviet the , edited by, andedited Richard Higgot IvonaMalbasic, 74 25 Identity and Policy Identity Foreign , or “ex or , 1990s” is a phrase in a wide usage in the post the in usage wide a in phrase a is 1990s”

Ch - superpower blues”. superpower

aracter and Manifestations of the Russian Russian the of andManifestations aracter - Soviet “empire”. The ideological vacuum and frustration of of frustration and vacuum ideological The “empire”. Soviet

, 240 and witnessed and

- Cold War Cold Anti 7 26

Indeed, Russian people saw their ideology their saw people Russian Indeed, –

91.New York: Routledge,2008, a disappearance of an imperial an of disappearance a - reak AmericanisminRussia.” In Eurasian Mentality - up of the USSR the up of

- Soviet region. Apart from from Apart region. Soviet

,Moscow,2012, 16 nemployment, this this nemployment, The PoliticalThe Consequences th e s “mental as ze

87 century.

ity search in search ity w high a ow

41 27 status, status,

The CEU eTD Collection 33 32 31 115 BreakYearstheUSSR: upAfter theof to Gather“The Time The Stones...”or Today Eurasian Intergration http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/Manifesto.html 30 29 Great of Politics Return Power 28 an identity national Russian in following development the The of description Russia. in spectrums political all of representatives the by supported identity. urge an new mind, in suggestions antipodal its found not has still however, state, Russian b the in belief initial the by together held was Union Soviet the and Rome Third a as Moscow of idea the by united was empire Russian The clear understanding ofwhatRussia a been never actually has there that state also them of Many USSR. the of dissolution the Idea National a for search persevering a of importance the stress identity, Russian and question identity national the po foreign on of direction needed consensus the consequently no was there 1990s the in Still, 1.1.1. thenational humiliation, sense of “wounded dignity”and anti of feeling the to led which followed, help economic expected greatly reciprocated, not were West the to overtures Russian indifference. and inaction Western the and transformation rapid a such of impossibility practical the t for reasons the states, democratic developed economically of level the to jump

Igor Chubais, Igor The Russian Idea. Russia Term,Discovered. 2012.Moscow:Akva Karicki McDaniel,Tim AlexandrDugin,“Eurasia All: Above Manifestof the EurasianJanuary Movement,” 2001. Trilupaityt JeffreyMankoff

y, Need New for a Idea

21 e,

The Agony of The RussianTheof Agony The Idea , “Bulldogs Fighting, UndertheThe “Bulldogs Rug: Making of RussianPolicy.” Foreign In ,Plymouth: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers. Inc, 2009,

.UniversityNew Jersey: PrincetonPress, 1996, n identity is. ;“The UniversalismViktor Pirogenko, of the Russian Le for the creation of a strong unifying ideology unifying strong a of creation the for 8

31 licy. Most of the scholars writing about about writing scholars the of Most licy.

right communist future. A future. communist right 61

- American sentiment. d foreign policy outlook outlook policy foreign d 32 28 29

, ZAO “Knigniy ,ZAO 2012, Mir”,

aig fe times often Having no influx of FDIs or FDIs of influx no

Russian Foreign Policy:Russian Foreign The wdl touted widely a adership.” In

hat being being hat newborn 30 29

after 33 20 is CEU eTD Collection actually served little more than a means for a “civilized divorce” “civilized a for means a than more little served actually st what save to way only “the of was Commonwealth (CIS) the States of Independent creation the that said have to known While region. Soviet exthe to government attentiondevoted littleYeltsin how note interestingisto it relations, goals. policy Bosnia in Serbs Bosniak against intervention America the support to continued re arms new America’s accepted government Russian Liberal stance. pro actively an take and premises made ideological their situation rethink leadership economic Russian dire the as well as experiment” “Communist the of failure “Atlantism” labeled be can values” human “universal post the and euphoria” “independence The 1991. after right power to Yeltsin minded liberally propelled Union Soviet the of leadership Soviet the of ideology the that surprise little is There New York:Palgrave43 Macmillan, 2007, 38 Kanet,New York: Palgrave 2007,Macmillan, 20 37 Trenin,Post Policy Foreign 36 http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/26/opinion/26iht 35 34 Russian foreign 1.2.1. policy after1991; ambition. self national Russian of evolution the show to strive will

NikitaLomagin, SecurityUnderVladimir Putin.”Russia Identity In a“Forming New Ingmar Tsygankov, 43; (1993): 2 no. 18, Security International Alternatives.” Policy Foreign “Russia’s Arbatov, Alexei Vladimir Baranovsky,a“For NATO Mankoff,242 Oldberg, “Russia’sPowerAmbitionGreat UnderPutin.”Russia In ,241 -

Imperium,32

While being strongly supportive of the improvemen the of supportive strongly being While

- Russian UN Intervention to End theRussian War in02Intervention to End Bosnia,” 1993.UN

- initiated economic embargo against Iraq, 1995 NATO’s NATO’s 1995 Iraq, against embargo economic initiated

- - edja_1.html obce “e Think” “New Gorbachev 9 35

and many other clearly American foreign foreign American clearly other many and the .

“liberal” period“liberal” 34

:Re

r pro or - - emerging Great Power, edited by edited Roger emergingGreat Power, perception and a great power power great a and perception

:Re - l cud e saved” be could ill that initiated the breakup breakup the initiated that We - 38 t of Russian of t - emergingGreat styled recognition of of recognition styled , not least due to the to due least not , tr lbrls. The liberalism. stern duction schemes and schemes duction

Power,31 - American - Western Western Russian Russian 37 – it , 54. 54. - CEU eTD Collection consensus prominent more becoming was status power great Russian restore to need the of consensus general influence of sphere traditional its of outside Russia push to position Russian naïve and benevolent economy, Russian stagnant mi was aid Western expected the that fact the only Not level. popular the to down trickled disenchantment the and West the of suspicion renewed the to led eventually and interest national Russia’s of concept clear a of absence to failure pro uncritical generally alleged a and brothers” “Serbian the support Balkans, the in minorities Russian the of abuses the of observance interests (1991 government Yeltsin a under PolicyMinister Foreign first Russian the was Kozyrev Andrei greatpotential as a power. mode from Russia prevented that burden a was CIS the sovereignty neglectandostentatious 41 40 39 Disillusionment the1.2.2. West with

NataliaNarochitskaya,in “Russia the New Geopolitical In Realities.” Prizel,247 Prizel,244 - 96. e ptmzd ht urn rgts pltcas al kow call politicians rightist current what epitomized He 1996).

and was responsible for a series of humiliating concessions to the US. The silent The US. the to concessions humiliating of series a for responsible was and 41 .

made Russians cardinally rethink its foreign policy stance. The rhetoric on the on rhetoric The stance. policy foreign its rethink cardinally Russians made and the transition from Kozyrev to Jevgeniy Primakov reflected such a a such reflected Primakov Jevgeniy to Kozyrev from transition the and

u as te eif ht h U to avnae f a of advantage took US the that belief the also but - obsession of the Russian government,believed which Russian the of obsession

niscule for the radical transformation of a of transformation radical the for niscule 20 years after20breaktheyears USSR uptheof nzn ad civn is full its achieving and rnizing - American policy reflected an an reflected policy American os o American to tows ,6

CEU eTD Collection 46 45 44 43 42 1999 in war Chechen became interests national and identity Russian the with compatibility their on stress the values”, European fundamental adopt should “Russia that statements some been still have there Russian the of policies the and discourse The vocabulary. political been Russian the from has evaporated solidly West” the “joining preached previously the but WMD, the of proliferation alliance an supported leaders Russian many Afghanistan, in war the in cooperation Russian with line In interests. common of choice the in thoughtful more much was and pragmatism” t between egoism”. national “healthy a as characterized been have could course new The abroad. interests national foreig balanced more much a took Putin President appointed newly a and He 1996. in Minister Foreign astonishing. hardly is policy its of rethinking towards more much shifted considerations centrism. political Russian 1990s of end the In Great of Emergence the and government Centrist pragmatism Power towards Shift A 1.3.

V.P.Lukin, Concerns.” Century, “New Greater Internarional48, no. Affairs 2 (2002). Tsygankov,Andrei “Russia’s International Assertiveness…”40 Zamoyski, Adam ShleiferAndrei andDaniel Treisman. “Why M Mankoff,63 uh oe rfud hn t sd o e uig h rl o Rsin Atlantists. Russian of rule the during be to used it than profound more much with the West against common threats like international terrorism and and terrorism international like threats common against West the with he states, but Russia has not moved away from its newly adopted “great power “great adopted newly its from away moved not has Russia but states, he 42

osdrn hw ite usa o fr t cnesos te Kremlin’s the concessions, its for got Russia little how Considering The Polish Way: A Thousand Year History PolishWay:ThousandThe A PolesYearthe of History and Culture Their government became more assertive in the international arena international the in assertive more became government n policy outlook and did what most Russians perceived as a protection of protection a as perceived Russians most what did and outlook policy n 44

The time following 9/11 was a period of a significant rapprochement significant a of period a was 9/11 following time The -

2000 coupled with the Beslan tragedy in 2004 helped the creation the helped 2004 in tragedy Beslan the with coupled 2000

oscow Says No.” Foreign Affairs oscowNo.”SaysForeign 90, 1222011):1 (February no. 11 43

Primakov succeeded Kozyrev as Russian as Kozyrev succeeded Primakov ,London: John Murrey, 1987.

and while and – 13,p. 7

CEU eTD Collection 53 52 51 50 49 48 Humanities,2012, 24 (2000 47 Dmitr post the on cultural and integration political economic, “close a that stated He influence. of sphere Russian strong poli a his directs puts and region Putin CIS the years,on emphasis Yeltsin’s the during lost been has what regain to Trying get beaten.“ tak policy foreign of viewgrounded currently is leadership civilization”. Russian human the of that future acknowledged the and planet the on situation the for responsibility global bears that power great a of status the recovered completely Se Defense of Minister Russian the of proclamation status. power post a for bid Russian a for foundation solid a are and were power energy intellectual and political Russian among agreed commonly West. the with relations productive preserving while influence and power Russians From assertiv more a of embrace an for foundation solid a made and Putin V. of image strongman a of

DavidPetrosyan, Crossroads.”20 YearsIn Break“The Armenian Afterthe of up theUSSR,206 Lomagin,40 Trenin, SergeyIvanov, Cennoste“Triada Natsionalnih Trenin, PowerandGreatness.” “Of Mankoff,76 Tsygankov,“Russia’s Assertiveness…”,International - 2012).For Security in Democratic

i Medvedev, despite a relatively more p more relatively a despite Medvedev, i hn n Ptns oenets prah o oeg plc fcsd n enhancing on focused policy foreign to approach government’s Putin’s on, then “Of Power and Greatness.” 414 PowerandGreatness.” “Of e internationalposition.

52 49

h asrne f usas etrn pwr s el eosrtd y the by demonstrated well is power restoring Russia’s of assurance The

- oit pc i a ie imperative”. time a is space Soviet 413;Trenin, Societies.Foreign ResearchPolicy Papers.Budapest: MTA for the Centre

47 51

, which can be best described by Putin’s words: “Weak words: described byPutin’s best becan which , y”,Izvestiya, July14, 2006 Post - Imperium 409; Sz.409; Biro Zoltan,PutinPolicy: toPutin Foreign Russia’s From 12 ro

,26, Interview Dugin,withMSU Alexandr - Western position, did not shift from this from shift not did position, Western cy at returning ex returning at cy

gi vnv “ usa a now has Russia “ Ivanov: rgei

elite that nuclear weapons and and weapons nuclear that elite 53 n a oe Realpolitik more a ing

i scesr n 2008, in successor His - Soviet states into the into states Soviet 50

t s commonly is It - imperial great imperial

It isIt - CEU eTD Collection 62 61 60 59 58 FP” Markov “Russianand partypolitical 57 Observatory(July2012). 56 Studies,June 18, 2009.http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD 55 54 vacuum ideological the Des EurasianismT 1.4. anti the in Moldovan government. president Moldovan new a joined Putin 2001 Russian Presidency first Putin’s During ch doctrinal a gained countries CIS the theinternationalisolated andwithin marginalized system. be will it CIS, the with relations intimate and close reestablishes Russia unless that belief coin term the abroad”, “near the in interest renewed A toUkraineexpansion Georgia, and be will illustratedfurther. which “privileged interests,” of theRussiansphere Western into interference st Russian the of 2008) interests regional the (July reflect Concept Policy Foreign and 2008) (August Principles Policy security interests”. privileged of “sphere a CIS announced and course

Tsygankov, Nygren, Nygren,222 Nygren,p. 226, Foreign Tsygankov,Policy, Russian Trenin,242, Pitzel,250 SergeyMarkov, “Russian Pol Trenin, Marsel DeHaa Medvedev, InterviewDmitri with 31,Channel August 2008. One, pite a clear strengthening of a of strengthening clear a pite Post

222

- The Post The Imperium, s andHenning RussiansSchroder. Digest.Analytical EuropeanBremen:German East Association for - Western World 27;Arbatova, “The EU http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/12/sec akes Hold

itical PartiesandForeign Civil and SocietyPolicy.” itical Culture Political inRussia(n.d.): 137; 61 62

,212

n Get oe pamts hs o hle mc i this in much helped not has pragmatism Power Great and

- national hold on world affairs, many Russians still feel still Russians many affairs, world on hold national Russia Partnership: a New Context.” a RussiaPartnership: rce vrsnete etit’rs o power. to rise centrists’ the since ever aracter - zr rltos mrvd significantly improved relations Azeri 13

ate and outline the increased concern with with concern increased the outline and ate Post

- Imperium, - - gov/PB5_EU_RUSSIA_PARTNERSHIP.pdf 62.pdf. 58 d y Centrists, by ed

Apparently,relations with the

European Strategic PartnershipEuropean Strategic - Romanian stance of the the of stance Romanian 54

usa Frin and Foreign Russian 56

especiallyNATO 57

elce the reflected 60

n in and .

59 55

CEU eTD Collection 70 69 68 67 66 65 Development,Moscow:2012,ROSSPEN, 102 64 63 Russia. disillusioned a for idea viable sur whose West the to contrary not if different civilization is that life of way a of preservation distinct a as Russia of premises Eurasian Pro best. at polarized is concept the to attitude The theproblem. to solutions sea a reflects Russia in situation political current the Thus, former. the of empire” “liberal identity national ideologu so the of emergence the to A growingguided ofa understanding foreign tobein need certain by mission a policy led the Nazis’ offenses other. the c federal the and day one billboards depicted Hitler demonstrating of practice German hypothetical the to leadership Russian of current comparison anecdotal an gives and rhetoric and policies their in inconsistent very strategy clear a regard.

Pitzel,256 Pitzel,256; Dugin, Karickiy,35 Dugin, Chubais,338 Zoltan Interviewwith Mehdiev; Arkady Moshes, andthe “Russia New ‘Transitional’ RussiaScenarios In Europe.” 2020: of Tsygankov,200 c o sc a iett ad uains ses o e n o te ot prominent most the of one be to seems Eurasianism and identity an such of rch ,32 63 The ForthThePolitical Theory,

e Alexandr Dugin. He agrees with agrees He Dugin. Alexandr e

A great number of Russian scholars are sure Putin’s pragmatism is pragmatism Putin’s sure are scholars Russian of number great A

The Forth Political Forth The Theory 64

67 and consensus. and tog pooe a ouin wih s bouey poie o the to opposite absolutely is which solution, a proposes though ,

St.Petersburg: Amfora, 2009,168 68

66 -

ald Ersa” ap edd y poiet Russian prominent a by headed camp “Eurasian” called

,267 65

Anatoliy

Most liberal and Western critiques maintain that maintain critiques Western and liberal Most 14 Chubais Chubais

anceller’s visit to Katyn in order to repent to order in Katyn to visit anceller’s

on the need for a more consolidated more a for need the on believes Russian elites of today are today of elites Russian believes - uain coas anan that maintain scholars Eurasian ia dpns on depends vival 69

reflect the most the reflect

still lacking still - CEU eTD Collection Nations.”Russia’s In a Neo Towards Road 76 2002,565 75 74 73 72 71 political liberal Russian a example for spectrum, political liberal the of representatives some by shared is role civilizational special Russian the of recognition the Curiously, whi concept, a identity, Russian uniquely a of preservation the on conditioned polar civilizational important an as Russia depicts and nations of division the in one major the as factor civilizational a of thesis Huntington’s Russian government. Russian by promoted and realized betohas that missioncivilizational unique havingaas Russia depiction of his in adamant is Dugin government, Russian current a towards support strong a demonstrating While ne a Eurasism calls Dugin pragmatism), power Great (Putin’s ideology policy foreign leading current the with ideas his and himself identify to Trying played a central Security the2000National role indrafting Concept. circle military Russian to connections his for neo known Russian of theoretic a Dugin, camp. Eurasist and Civilizationist tanks think p actively government Russian with ways, both going is ideas of exchange The though. circles government Russian the with case the not is It result ofastress” “prolongedmass of feeling increased an but more nothing is Eurasianim

EugeniyTroickiy, “The SlavicUnity: Power andInfluenceFactor Russia,Brotherly of BelarusandUkraine, Other Dugin,“The Major Principles EurasianPolitics.” of The In FoundationsMoscow: of Eurasianism, Arctogaia Mankoff,67 by theInternationalfunded Russian EurasianAdministration;Movement, President’s 67 Mankoff, I Benn,DavidWedgwood “Post nterviewwith Nikitina

n pltcl raiain a wl a gtig nee apoa fo the from approval needed a getting as well as organizations political and

- Communism andthe Russian International Communism AffairsPublic.” 89, 1781 (2013), no.

- Empire:Eurasianism, Moscow:Granica, 2013,74 71

and Eurasist donottake rhetoric seriously. 15 ch will be discussed further in the work. work. the in further discussed be will ch

s and the FSB, and is said to have to said is and FSB, the and s romoting and sponsoring Eurasian sponsoring and romoting aggression and nationalism as a as nationalism and aggression Eurasist Troickiy agrees with with agrees Troickiy Eurasist w “patriotic pragmatism”. “patriotic w

- uains is Eurasianism 72

Center,

76 75

CEU eTD Collection 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 http://www.yabloko.ru/Persons/Lukin/lukin 77 with up “catch to government liberal the of attempts previous invalidated proclamation political a Such 2011. to 1999 from Administration, Presidential Russian the of Chief dur Kremlin the of ideologist main the democracy” “sovereign of concept known development democratic of version Eurasian own, its proposed Russia Instead, acknowledged legitimacyan previously the and attitude brother” “big American to acquiescence Russian the to end meet”. interests our where business do let’s and equals: as us treat are: interests Russian endangering or violating are which actors, political other by actions unilateral with up put to going not is world”. today’s in impossible also but unacceptable Munich in speech Putin’s to connected times often is Eurasianism towards shift considerable influence. of sphere its maintain and world the in role pivotal a play should Russia Eura towardsmore “tilted foreignpolicy Russian already service in years Primakov’s during Tsygankov, Andrey to According who the as serving currently activist,

Zoltan,22 Nygren,247 Trenin,“Russia’sCoercive Vol. CarnegieDiplomacy.” Center,10. Moscow 2008. Tsygankov, Putin’sSpeech in Munich, 2007. Tsygankov,“Russia’s Assertiveness”,International strategy Primakov V.P.A.I.Lukin, Utkin. and Russi

warned isamistake it toignore unique Russia’s identitycivilization. as , 79

“ThePost

hr h hs aosy de famously has he where

–

integrationof ex - Western World” WesternWorld”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8if0ELE0ow a andthe West: a orAlienation?Community A Moscow,1995. - Sovietrepublics;Tsygankov d universality of the Western ofthed universality

210, Human Rights Commissioner of Russia, Vladimir Lukin Vladimir Russia, of Commissioner Rights Human 81 - outkin95 Tsygankov,“Russia’s Assertiveness”,International

and could have been summarized as “accept us as we as us “accept as summarized been have could and

40 the of Deputy First a as office in terms his ing - sianism”, which was manifested in the belief thatbelief the in manifestedwas which sianism”, 1.html lrd ht h “nplr oe i nt only not is model “unipolar the that clared 84 16

coined by Vladislav Surkov, widely seen as seen widely Surkov, Vladislav by coined ;

, Russian Foreign Policy,Russian Foreign 80

The Speech has shown that Russia Russia that shown has Speech The - style democracy.

243

38; Narochitskaya, 38; 7 82

This has put an put has This

83 , a well a , 78

A -

CEU eTD Collection 91 90 February2013. 18, 89 88 87 June18, 2009. 86 “inter promote 85 should Russia states review policy foreign 2007 self growing a by spiced unipolarity existing the of challenge Russian of context the in interest privileged back”. is “Eurasia Thus, situation. unipolar current RF, the of documents Policy Foreign recent the in visible is rhetoric Civilizational Clearly construction, wouldhave Russia tomove tothe building warned and period War Cold the during given guarantees, security the from derivation American NATO. and USA the i.e. West, the from come s National to According life. of way and state Russian the to antithesis an as America towards attitude pro a from shift radical the from Apart Idea. Russian the and Eurasianism of postulates main the to linked directly vision a conditions, patterns local to adapted credibility granted and West” the to placeNot army a outside GermanNATO territory;Tsygankov, Assertiveness”,International “Russia’s 43 MarselHaasand Henning de Schroder. Mankoff,78 Trenin, “Conceptof the Foreign the PolicyRussian of Fed Trenin, Tsygankov, 89

talking Post Outlook.” “Russia’sPolicy Foreign - Russian Foreign Policy,Russian Foreign Imperium http the US that in response to the construction of the American defense shield defense American the of construction the to response in that US the

ecurity strategy until 2020 (May 2009), the main military threats for Russia for threats military main the 2009), (May 2020 until strategy ecurity ://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD about http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/76389FEC168189ED44257B2E0039B16D ,16 oetc oiy at te etit oenet a as promd a performed also has government Centrist the part, policy domestic

the

“emergence - 85 -

S oeg plc t a otih ssiiu ad apprehensive and suspicious outright an to policy foreign US 209; perception of Russia as a Eurasian power. Eurasian a as Russia of perception

and called for the development at its own pace given its own its given pace own its at development the for called and Tsyga

Russian AnalyticalDigest nkov,“Russia’s International Assertiveness”,p. 67

o h ceto o a usa on eortc model democratic own Russian a of creation the to

of eration.” The Ministryeration.” ofForeign Russian AffairsFederation, of the

New World Order”, which clearly challenges a challenges clearly which Order”, World New 17

.Bremen:European German Association for East Studies, - 62.pdf 86

Russian elite is outraged by the stated the by outraged is elite Russian 90 .

The discussions about the sphere of sphere the about discussions The

of strategic weapons. nuclear

39 91

. -

Foreign Ministry’s Foreign utrl dialogue” cultural

88 are are

CEU eTD Collection aron/the 98 97 http://www.france24.com/en/20111125 96 95 (2006):117 94 93 http://www.ng.ru/world/2000 92 and cultural ofthe Soviet former bloc reintegration under Russian lead that proves Doctrine Putin called space. economic CIS the monopolize to desire its to loudly speaks states CIS system. pipeline gas Belarusian the of part remaining the as well as further, discussed be will which system, d Russia of System Energy presence. strong assets infrastructural important out Buying region. CIS the econ itself reestablish to extent considerable a to going is Russia all, of First governmentRussian asthebest great Russian way potential. toutilize power extent”. a to on capitalized been not Asia. has advantage in this admit, located to geographically have we is Although, country our of part greater the that forgot never We state. Eurasian a as itself felt always has Russia “ regard: this in remarkable is quote Puti Asia. and World Islamic the Europe, between position pivotal its of because

istribution, Russia has been making constant attempts at buying the Ukrainian pipeline Ukrainian the buying at attempts constant making been has Russia istribution, LeonAron, “Putin’s Doctrine.” gasBought pipeline 1 power Georgia station; and in 244 Nygren, “RussiaSecures Ownership of BelarusGas Pipelines.” NewsFrance agency. so A KathleenJ. Hancock, “The Semi Mankoff,71 Putin,Vladimir. “Russia: Perspectives.” New Eastern Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 14,November 2000. - called “assetscalled - putin 92 – 136.

According to Mankoff, a renewed focus on the CIS states is perceived by the by perceived is states CIS the on focus renewed a Mankoff, to According

- doctrine

- for 95 . -

debt solutions”;debt Ibid.

xmls r pet. usa eetiiy opn OO Unified OAO company electricity Russian plenty. are Examples 96

- Its increased economic presence even in explicitly confron explicitly in even presence economic increased Its 11 Foreign Affairs Foreign - - 14/1_east_prospects.html SovereignState:the Russian Belarusand Neo

o on 10 o Amna eetiiy rdcin and production electricity Armenian of % 100 owns now -

russias

Moscow is striving for the political, economic, military economic, political, the for striving is Moscow , August 3, ,2013. August - gas - deal - power 18 .

- putin http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic

- belarus

- 24, November 26, November 24, 2011. pipeline - Empire.” Foreign Policy AnalysisForeign Empire.” Policy 6 no. 94 -

ukraine is one way to ensure its its ensure to way one is - lukashenko ership. les/139049/leon 93 98 - omically in omically moscow

possible possible The so The tational .

- n’s n’s - CEU eTD Collection 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 Moscow. to available instrument t of evidence Putin by proposed Union Eurasian the of project the Clearly, Manifestations 1.5. aspectexpansionist ofthe foreign Russian policy. nationalists Trenin, to According rule. Communist the during disposal bui public stations, metro events. the of names the in seen clearly be glory past Union’s Soviet the of Russians reminding of practice “frequent government’s Russian the about talks Eurasia about book his in Petersen Alexandros “ catastrophe” geopolitical greatest the was USSR the of collapse “the said, Putin pro emerging Rossiy Edinaya of documents programme the in visible clearly be can geopolitics towards positions Centrist the from shift its documents, policyforeign official by emphasized constantly been has which attitude, capitalist pragmatic the from Apart eihd eas o te ilaig etad orientation westward misleading the of because perished

YedinayaProgramme Rossiya Declaration, 2011.

Zoltan,30 Narochitskaya “Expansionistforeignmore prominent.”Tsygankov, policy is becoming Trenin,409 PowerandGreatness.” “Of Leninmetropolitan,Lenin Public Petersen,91 Prizel,256 Trenin, F 103 Post rin oiy n h CIS the in policy oreign

lal, oit lr i bek ihu te at ertre Mso hd t its at had Moscow territories vast the without bleak is glory Soviet Clearly,

- Imperium

who call who ,12 - Soviet rhetoric and actions of the ruling party. In his In party. ruling the of actions and rhetoric Soviet e nertoit hrce o Rsin oeg plc, r a “coercive a or, policy, foreign Russian of character integrationist he

,27

Russia’s 1991 borders artificial. borders 1991 Russia’s

Library,vibrant1 of May andVictory Day celebrations etc.

107

However, the Eurasian Alliance is still on paper and paper on still is Alliance Eurasian the However, http://er.ru/party/program/

19 – h isacs of instances the

105

104 “Russia’s Assertiveness,International

Tsygan .

these were these f h Rsin elites”. Russian the of 106 kov also talks about the about talks also kov

s h ms outspoken most the is 2005 annual address, address, annual 2005 ldings and calendar calendar and ldings

h Eurasianist the a 99 not only Russian Russian only not

and well as the as well and 102 , which can which , 100

211

and it and

101

CEU eTD Collection 111 110 Empire;Chessboard.Grand Brzezinski,Zbigniew. The ed.New York: 1st Basic Books, 1997. American current 109 with http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_25612/ dealing not 108 While funding. external on heavily relying Pres the in Eurasia, in involved be Ukraine, like states to European” Eastern “New needsthe in particularly West “the that urge the and West the and Russia A Presidential term at least. next the for direction policy foreign Ukrainian decide to were allegedly, which, 2004, of elections presidential Ukrainian the to attention of lot a gave Russia surprising hardly and to trying is Russia USSR, former the in power Russian to contestant major a is Ukraine that fact the to Due Ukraine” losing afford cannot Empire Eurasian a as positioning Russian the for Ukraine of importance the of loudly speak documents official Russian and experts foreign Both international stance. assert more a towards shift the since policy foreign Russian the of formation the for outlook Eurasist the been has relevant how understand to try and years recent the of facts Poluev, days” of matter “a not is creation its

crig o ay cdmc, I ae hs eoe n ra f otsain among contestation of area an become has area CIS academics, many to ccording Peterson,114 Nygren,229 AsZbignev without Ukraine Brzezinskiin famouslyThe remarked Chessboard, Grand Poluev

contribute , Vladimir. “Eurasianism: from a,to an trend Vladimir. outlook.” “Eurasianism:from May 15, Odnako, 2013. puts it. What makes more sense for the sake of the paper is to observe the hard hard the observe to is paper the of sake the for sense more makes What it. puts

idential campaign of the major Presidential Candidates, both of whom were whom of both Candidates, Presidential major the of campaign idential

its build

participation

relations

110

if he is to keep Russian p Russian keep to is he if .

108 extended

with , as the observer of the Russian Eurasian blog, V. blog, Eurasian Russian the of observer the as ,

20 Ukraine

integration

priority

osition as a regional hegemon. regional a as osition processes. 109

and to the fact that “Putin that fact the to and 111

Russia becomes a purely Russiabecomes Asian partner

could have been seen been have could

In this context it is it context this In

within

the

CIS, ive

CEU eTD Collection 118 117 116 115 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63008/dimitri 114 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7024294.stm suppliesto Ukraine Gasbecauseof debt $1.3 toUkraine,” billion;May ofCut unpaid “Gazprom March2013. 10, 113 112 sovereignty Ukraine’s imperialism” “energy by would that pipelines ultimatums prices gas the of timing the However, them”. subsidize c Atlantist the accepts grudgingly “Russia it, puts Simes Dmitri As system. pipeline its of acquisition Russian the greatly resisted however, which, side, Belarusian “loyal” the to offered were ultimatums price same the that fact su evidence The pragmatism”. power “great of policies the and necessity economic the by are they as easily as Eurasianism by explained be can Ukraine conflicts gas The sph in its pro elections Ukrainian 2004 during candi favored its securing into put Russia effort much how mentioning worth is it ambitions, geopolitical

Mankoff,253 Peterson,88; Tsygankov, Nygren,239 Thealtern K Dmitri Simes, Foreign “Loosing Affairs Russia.” no. 86, 2007).6 (December 2005 In Gazprom onprice insisted a new of $160per1,000cubic andin 2008meters Gazprom Mankoff,250 - Russian candidate is empirical evidence of the intense Russian desire to keep candidateintenseRussian desire isempirical the Ukraine evidenceto of ere ofinfluence. ativebuying was the up national gascompany

114 113 aes itr. h itne usa pltcl R f lb Pavlovsky Gleb of PR political Russian intense The victory. date’s

which followed after the “Russophobe” President occupied office in office occupied President “Russophobe” the after followed which Russian Foreign Policy: From Gorbachev Policy:Foreign Putin,From Russianto 117

and to punish Ukraine for the Orange revolution. revolution. Orange the for Ukraine punish to and -

in Russian attempts to manipulate Ukrainian politics, undermine politics, Ukrainian manipulate to attempts Russian in pass Ukraine” pass

112

as well as the fact of premature congratulations of the of congratulations premature of fact the as well as .

116 - k -

simes/losing evidence the Russian “pipeline” diplomacy, or diplomacy, “pipeline” Russian the evidence

115 - hoices of its neighbors but refuses to refuses but neighbors its of hoices russia

231

and the threats to build “alternative build to threats the and

pporting the latter is the the is latter the pporting

threatened to cut offto cut gas threatened 118 American CEU eTD Collection 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 assess and Eurasianism of prominence increased the for reasons the show to important stre the and USSR the of dissolution the after policy foreign Russian of evolution an outlined Having start thepractical to of recreation theSoviet Union”,tothe“state imp most “the been has Abkhazia and Ossetia South of recognition official the magazine, Class" "Politichesky limit.” a beyond retreat to willing area CIS the in patron security a as credibility Washington’s undermining at aimed clearly leadership scholars. Eurasist various the by positioning power great conf armed the Interestingly, manifestation. power great a as characterized times often been has response military Georgian President, “ more been has it state spectrum political Russian in liberal most the even though Even Georgia. with war 2008 August the is exercise power great Russian of instance debatable less no and profound Another called politic oil Russian Vice and Lugar Richard McCain, John senators like politicians

IrinaPavlova “Down, Profil!” Grani.ru,23, September 2008 Zoltan,25 Interviewwith Alexandr Dugin;Trenin, Mankoff,243 79, Interviewwith N Trenin, Tsygankov, Post

- Russian Foreign Policy,Russian Foreign Imperium ghnn o te iiiains reoi o te usa gvrmn, t is it government, Russian the of rhetoric Civilizationist the of ngthening

n sho and adiaArbatova; Zoltan, 25 ,29; Peterson,120 120

e ee srne ta te uih peh ht Mso i not is “Moscow that speech Munich the than stronger even wed

they also converge on the perception overreacted. thatRussia they the also converge on ortant event at this time of Russian history, as it implies a “real a implies it as history, Russian of time this at event ortant s aninstance and“imperialism” “blackmail”. of

220

lict with Georgia is often cited as a turning point in Russian in point turning a as cited often is Georgia with lict

Post

- Imperium u t avnuos rcls ad rtl cin o a of actions brutal and reckless adventurous, to due 124

codn t Vtl Teykv Editor Tretyakov, Vitali to According ,312 22

123

ih t atos Russian actions its With - - civilization”. President Dick Cheney Dick President 119

- 125 in -

he of chief 121

122 Its

CEU eTD Collection Russia the by employed be can it how understand to order in ideology the of postulates basic the n politicians forn politicians thepursuance goals. oftheir political 23

CEU eTD Collection 127 126 to findainthe international needed domain. mission people Russian helps and function compensatory a performing is culture Russian for role US. the by humiliation and abandonment of feeling a and Russians among complex inferiority an created Russia Asia or Europe tow identification the and question identity cultural its in ahead much moved not has Russia moment this to identityUp crisis. Russian of issue the on agreeMany scholars amongcircles. political Russian instructiv is it leadership, Russian the of ambition greatpower the for employed be can Eurasianism how understand to order In soprominent is 2.1. WhyEurasianism becoming today crucial is assessing utilityEurasianism the for power”ambition. “great Russian which projects, Eurasian the implement actually to willingness elites’ main and roots its and opinion public as factors important such with reader the provide as well as resurrections, postulates Eurasian for reasons the outline will chapter The Answer an as Eurasianism Chapter 2.

F.S.Funzullini, andA.A. Sviridenko. Trilupaityte

,86

. n paet rup o cptls Wsen dooy vr Communist over ideology Western capitalist of triumph apparent An

126

Thus, Eurasianist premises of a distinct civilization and s and civilization distinct a of premises Eurasianist Thus, Eurasian

Temptation: Modern InsightProblemTemptation:in the Modern e to reveal the reasons for Eurasianism prominance Eurasianism for reasons the reveal to e 24

127

.Ufa, 29 2008,p.

pecial

ards ards for for CEU eTD Collection 136 135 134 133 European ofJournal 132 131 130 129 Center,2002, 270 128 hostile historically a of extension the welcome would state no surprising: hardly is this givenenlargement ascan justifiable another reason for apprehensiveness. be Russian And Russian in threshold a marked 9/11. after open was which opportunity, of window a Russia, towards strategy clear no currently has EU the only Arbatova, Nadia thinker, liberal post Russian and mistakes Western of mixture a is Eurasianism Russian to According West. the by mistakes and T level. constructive the at stop not do however, reasons, The home. at line hard a for rationale a create to enemyexternal an create to need the and security ontological an for quest a suggest to as far as go can arguments Constructivist an still is Russia that mean“underdeve would it because equal as state Russian Westernizing accept not will West the that belief widespread another up sums perfectly Trubeckoy of positions its strengthen to order in Westernizers Russian the on capitalizing is it that belief the and US the from emanating evangelism democratizing and liberalizing a towards suspicion seen be could which Westernism, Russian of bankruptcy the is Eurasists Russian by quoted reason Another

Zoltan,19 Manyagree that thetook US Russianingranted;help the Ibid. war for on terrorism Arbatova,European Elites and “Russian in aReflection.” Mirror Interviewwith Arbatova Jenniferin Mitzen,World Politics: Security “Ontological Stateandthe Identity Security Dilemma.” 12,SAGE no. 3. Ivanov,Narochnitskaya, 33, 9; Dugin, N.S. Trubec Ivanov,PopkovA.V., U.V.,Tyugashev, andE.A. 28 L.N.Gumilev andV.U. “Disillusionment FoundationsErmolaev, Grief.”The Eurasianism. In Moscow:Arctogaia of

in the post the in

loped West”. koy“The View on Russian History, 285

International Relations(2006). International

- Soviet space. Soviet

in the political liberal political the in 131

The Forth Political Forth The Theory - mrcn relations. American 129

“Imitator brings minimum sympathy”, minimum brings “Imitator

25 - to

,144 - centrist shift too. shift centrist

136

135 mrcn aens fr NATO for eagerness American here are many objective factors objective many are here

134 n rq nain a clearly has invasion Iraq An

but also the US has missedhas US the also but - Soviet complexes. Soviet 128

An existing Kremlin existing An 130

the quotethe 133

Not 132

CEU eTD Collection 140 139 138 137 reasonfor the of partbecame CIS the with economiclinks and corporate disintegrationof trend. Eurasist a of strengthening the in factor a definitely is rationale economic do economic the in realized mostly currently is integration Eurasian clearly anti neo Russian charged geopolitically globe. the around economically, and strategically dominated, and split themselves find will powers Western marginalized where one is powers hostile Isl in “World the world which a that writes he when ideas Brzezinski’s supports Russia, towards position either. mentality war cold a abandoned concer Russian justify to enough often is Russia towards Americans numerous of position the Actually international situation. current the in complication unnecessary an been have to seems shield defense missile foreign its “review to Russia for reason a be a that and balance statedgeopolitical the upset would NATO joining Georgian and Ukrainian possible 2004, since Minister Foreign Russian Lavrov, Sergey peaceable. were h matter no borders, its to up alliance military

E.Shiraev, andV. Zubok. Peterson,113 calls Dugin it Eurasia in his “Foundationsof Geopolitics” Tsygankov, Russian Foreign Pol Russian Foreign - Western and anti and Western

- osraie, hc ws ete Cmuit o csooia yt t was it yet cosmopolitan nor Communist neither was which conservatives, s Zinv reisis epltcl rtns ugs U hs not has US suggest writings geopolitical Brzezinski’s Zbignev ns. Anti and”

American outlook has been a reactionary identity suggested by by suggested identity reactionary a been has outlook American icy - Americanism in Russia: From Stalin to StalinAmericanismin Russia:to Putin. From ,234 138

American. potentially and mercantilist, authoritarian, by dominated is

140

Andre

policy”.

a wotnta linesi t intentions its said alliance that often ow s Peterson, advocating a more assertive more a advocating Peterson, s 137

New York:Palgrave 2000, Macmillan, 76

An intention to create a Europeana create to intention An 139

n nwr o such to answer An an Tu, the Thus, main.

The

CEU eTD Collection 143 populism agrarian 142 of fathers 141 main the of one and socialism" Russian of "father the as known thinker and writer Russian famous a by quote The culture. a than ideology has concept the idea, philosophical a as positioned being Despite to present of their own theworld. version and quo status existing now a challenge to set politicians, and Eurasists Russian current religion”. universalthe to allusion the Clearly, universal a of stardom “the and community Russian perfect a represent so the of author the is Solovyev, Vladimir creation an “Greater aspired Russia” of t links society. Russian the in applicability its and concept the thinker foreign and Russian both the of attention taking been has Idea Russian The on. then from discourse Eurasist the dominate to tends and up break Soviet the of wake the in up come has concept ephemeral This on the 2.2. Elaborations Idea Russian gettrajectoryand thelevel to ofdevelopedstate development stable the to it make positions, regional the secure to Russia for impossible almostbe will surroundingit economicregionaorganization of and economicintegration economic specialization. monoexport Russia’s

Laruelle,187 L.Z Zevin.“Post Areshev,Andrei Risks“Challengesof and the Integr te urn Erssim and Eurasisnism current the o

- Soviet Economic Space Economic Soviet Evolution.” Society andEconomy 3(2008).

ity of the Russian way of life ofway Russian the of ity

. One of the most prominentphilosophers, Russian most ofthe . One ation.” In 20 ation.”YearsIn Aftertheof up Break the USSR,16 estimate how utilitarian is the concept for the the for concept the is utilitarian how estimate

27 - called ideal model of society, which would which society, of model ideal called s, who tried to give their understanding of of understanding their give to tried who s,

141 s.

142 Thus, thereis Thus,

The section will will section The a conviction that“withoutconviction a

always been more of an an of more been always could be utilized bythe utilized be could rw certain draw

143 ,

CEU eTD Collection 148 147 146 145 144 the current government. for support and legitimization the for Eurasists Russian current the by instrumentalized Gumil the for basis a served government. Putin the in recreated partly community R the with The associated features Federation. Russian created newly the in people of number huge a being goal final some community, Idea, Russian the of postulates main The or Boris Yeltsin. pro unsuccessful previously self a the as with par serving a Idea on Russian society Russian in crises the to answer wand” “stick a as emerge US. the towards suspicion and disillusionment existing the to self negative a way”, “own elite. Russian current ofthe politicalfor purposes the being used which isnow ephemerality idea, the of Herzen, Alexander

Ibid. 52 Ibid. Ib McDaniel believe50 % the west seeks to weaken the country; 27 Ibid. id. 146

performed as an absolute moral imperative in the chaos of 1990s and appealedto and 1990s ofchaos the imperativein moral absolute an asperformed ,25 ,

147

n nerl at f h Rsin da en a epai o te Russian the of emphasis an being Idea Russian the of part integral An eae n bet f otli i te xsig oil iary n were and disarray social existing the in nostalgia of object an became

Rsi nvr a is niiul culture”, individual its had never “Russia

- definition of a society society a of definition - Western orientation, those being the times of Peter the Great the Peter of times the being those orientation, Western

s poe t te esnl nihet n stsid well satisfied and enrichment personal the to opposed as ussian idea idea ussian ev’s idea of the “Government of Truth” and was often often was and Truth” of “Government the of idea ev’s - sem os to boost esteem Wedgwood Benn Wedgwood Indeed, the idea of a of idea the Indeed, – 28

an Orthodox Church, tsarist regime, peasant peasant regime, tsarist Church, Orthodox an -

rjcin f niiuls, eie for desire individualism, of rejection a in h Rsin epe n h pro of period the in people Russian the ,176 relation to the West, the to relation

145 Good State Good

Eurasianism is known to known is Eurasianism 144

efcl rfet the reflects perfectly

is a great match greatmatch a is 148 three major major three

might have might - CEU eTD Collection 152 151 150 149 critica very complex, ethnic and economic geographical, party a of unification disciplined Bolsheviks’ and the organized approving an While of power coincidence. to a ascendance not was intellectuals Eurasist T of location. median emigration Russian the of determinism geographic of element of an adding date birth official an considered Eurasianism. is Bulgaria, in community émigré Russian publis was East”, the to “Exodus “manifest”, Eurasian first the when 1921, and preventing hurtfulof powers, a uniquelycivilization. Russian a naturaldevelopment Great, the pro Peter naming and elites, minded foreign by interrupted always unfortunately, was, “Organic just which a society”, create to ability people’s Russian believed Eurasists Classic 1920s. the of emigration Russian to attributed normally is thought political this of birth The 2.3.1. Classic Eurasian the conceptand ithistorically. tosituate itself gainan in great statusrestoration,to for isimperative it the power Eurasianism using is establishment Russian modern the how and why explain to order In 2.3. Development ofEurasianism

Ibid. 256Ibid. Dugin,“The Overcoming of theWest.” 511 Karickiy,23 Chaudet,Didier 40

l of the Bolsheviks’ ideology as the one which comes from the West and is is and West the from comes which one the as ideology Bolsheviks’ the of l 150

Classic Eurasists adopted the main postulates of the Russian Idea, while Idea, Russian the of postulates main the adopted Eurasists Classic

ists

149

post 29

- ee dnsis ad oseis s alien as Bolsheviks and dynasties, Peter 151 - depth understanding of depth of understanding

n acknowledging and hed among the the among hed

152

they - Wes

were tern tern he

CEU eTD Collection 160 Milestones.”International In EurasianProgrammeMoscow: Materials. Mission: “Eurasia”, ROF 2005,59 Eurasianists.” In 159 68;aSavickiy, Historical 292, Fate.” “The as Eurasianism Laruelle, 149 158 157 156 155 154 Center,2002, 166 153 idea the was concepts such of One mass. land Eurasian independenceof economic and unification to contributions theoretical crucial some brought Eurasists Classic Eurasianistthe necessity ideologyand ofRussiantheEast. rapprochement with Rus Kyiv the from descendance civilization special a and people. Russian of type psychological nation Russian a of creation the for Yoke Mongol the of reevaluation Eurasian the been has Common thought Earasian a of development the to contribution major their Probably, a of creation a propagated and region Eurasian of unification the in world Russian the of role special the on converged Eurasists Classic “powerand resistance” future,the in nations of Russian a of formation the for dangerous very is “Communists” and Revolutionaries”. the them brought Idea. Russian and essence Russian the to oppositional considered anti and atheism on premised

Trubeckoy,Ru “The View on Trubeckoy,“TheHistory;View on Russian N.N. Alekseeva, “Theof Concept Russia Lev Gymilev,The of Eurasia: Rhythms Funzullini,22; L.N.Gumilev, andV.U. 474 Ermolaev. Dugin,“The Eurasian The In FoundationsMoscow: Triumph.” Eurasianism. Center,Arctogaia of 2002,491 Dugin “Eurasianism(1927) ,“The Overcoming of theWest.” 512; 187 Laruelle, Eurasianism:TheoreticalThe Potentialand Practical Applications

- 155

aworkcollective ofthe Thefirst In FoundationsEurasists.” Moscow:Arctogaia of Eurasianism.

Lev Gumilev claimed that the interchanging of the terms “Russians” terms the of interchanging the that claimed Gumilev Lev

157 156 ssian History…” ssian il o “rhdx Bolsheviks” “Orthodox” of title

of nation. the Russian which he which

Epochs and Civilizations. Moscow: OOO andCivilizations. “Izdatelstvo200,EpochsAST”, OOO Moscow: 6, Funzullini, - wesi eooi ognzto, oh f hc they which of both organization, economic ownership

envisioned as an absolute advantage for the increasedthe advantageabsolutefor an as envisioned 159

Trubeckoy’s revolutionary den revolutionary Trubeckoy’s 30

160

ae ncsay eiiay o the to legitimacy necessary a gave ,Barnaul, 2010, Dugin,121;“Eurasian - Eurasiain the Philosoph 154 153 -

led Eurasian Union Union Eurasian led r “Conservative or

uh sac has stance a Such ial of the Russian the of ial

nationalism.

yof f the of 158

CEU eTD Collection 166 165 164 163 162 161 integrationist projects. aspired the for framework civilizational a advocate Eurasists Contemporary C EurAsEC). Economic Eurasian the of creators the among received well corporations transnational modern the of monopolization financial the to answer Eurasists modern governme Russian the in shifts political the on assertion Russia. for evil main the been has elites Russian of course Western official the that claiming when predecessors who scholars, consider a among support received Eurasianism dissolution, politics sec a received ideology Eurasian 1990s the In 2.3.2. Modern on view Eurasianism territories and and economicway highlighting their uniqueofsocial development. is “Continent writing theoretic important Another traditions. and location geographic on “topogenesis”, Gumilev’s

SergeyKara 25 Ibid. Collectivismonlyisto survive theway in the landscapesunfriendly of Ivanov,10 P.N.Savickiy, “The Continent Lev Gumilev, -

based. Performing as a response to a profound moral confusion of the Soviet Soviet the of confusion moral profound a to response a as Performing based.

- - Murza, “Trebuyetsya gegemon”,Murza,Izvestiya,“Trebuyetsya 2009 May 6, Ocean”, a remarkable legitimization of the economic autarchy of Eurasian Eurasian of autarchy economic the of legitimization remarkable a Ocean”, The Rhythms of Eurasiaof Rhythms The anan n motn lnae o the to linkage important an maintain 164

s el s h jsiiain f cnmc uak i Ersa s an as Eurasia in autarky economic of justification the as well as

166 - Ocean.” 322; Alekseeva,322;Ocean.” 115; 122 Laruelle,

161 163 ,8; Triumph.”Dugin,“The 491Eurasian

which suggested a need to develop a national identity based identity national a develop to need a suggested which

t s ad o vrsiae h ipc o sc scholarly such of impact the overestimate to hard is It

ond birth and became more assertive and and assertive more became and birth ond

Eurasia;31 Ibid.

atr oinain f their of orientation Eastern nt. The Collectivist call of of call Collectivist The nt.

able range of Russian Russian of range able ommunity (EAEC or or (EAEC ommunity 162

called

165

is CEU eTD Collection 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 anti and racism biological style scholars, some to According Empire believes Karickiy I.N. system. political authoritarian and frontiers of terms in both USSR, the like much very looking state a is reconstruction power great Russian for recipe a Dugin, to According defense of expansion outlays outpacingfor far atrates other those domes Kremlin’s the with coincide book the of character revisionist post in policy foreign most the is Geopolitics” of “Foundations of “Marxes the as characterized be Eurasianism”, can Eurasists Classic that maintains himself i his acknowledge scholars Many line. television a even and sites web numerous has and Eurasianism, philosophy, and on geopolitics books numerous issues University, State Moscow in lectures gives Dugin. Alexander well most The 2.3.3. Neo

Dugin, Dugin, Mankoff,65 Aron,“Putin’sDoctrine.” Mankoff Dugin,“The Eurasian 501 Triumph.” DavidPetrosyan, Crossroads.”219 “The Armenian http://www.evrazia.tv/

, “EurasianMilestones.” GeopoliticsFoundationsof

,66 s ohn u ajsiidatoiainsae rae yPtns government. Putin’s by created state, authoritarian justified a but nothing is -

Eurasianism 169 - nw ad ouaie ve o Ersai i crety h oe of one the currently is Eurasianim on view popularized and known

his desire to become a Eurasian Lenin can hardly go unnoticed. Dugin’s unnoticed. go hardly can Lenin Eurasian a become to desire his The au The

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139049/leon

ui’ demotia, Dugin’s - 61 omns Russia. Communist thority of thority

ui’ etee uains cmie apcs f Nazi of aspects combines Eurasianism extreme Dugin’s - fune n usa frin policy. foreign Russian on nfluence eiim ih kn o gorpi and geographic of kind a with Semitism

Dugin is well known in Russia and far beyond. He He beyond. far and Russia in known well is Dugin

widely read theoretical work on strategy and and strategy on work theoretical read widely 173 32

hc i spoe t ru to supposed is which 170

tic programs. h otaeul epnins and expansionist outrageously The - aron/the 171

- putin - doctrine 168 e h Eurasian the le

hl Dugin While .

cultural 167 174 172 -

CEU eTD Collection 183 182 181 sufficientspace”; “big 180 recovery;Dugin, successful developmentof post 179 178 177 271 176 175 the of content intellectual low a with agree to Atlantist of the life. ofway American to hostility advocates explicitly movement Eurasian the of Manifest official The into separated has West transatlantic “the that fact the to due US the towards Europe continental from focus of shift a is regard this in Eurasists Classic with evil. absolute an as destroyed and overcome be t saying when agony, of extent the overstretching definitely while West, the Schmitt List Friedrich of nationalism economic autarkic heartland of concept Mackinder’s a been have views Dugin’s of underpinnings theoretical the Eurasists’, Classic the from Apart the “window of opportunity” post nearest current the in changed be must Dugin, to according the which, power, of balance to challenge imperialist obvious an deny to hard is it views, determinism. 66 Ibid. Dugin, Dugin,“Eurasia Above of theAll: Eurasian Manifest Movement” Dug Refersspaces”a lot “big toSchmitt’s andgives the example doctrine of as Monroe aofself instances the one best of PraisesFriedrich economicList fornationalismthe writingsthat economic andsays autarky theway only is for a Dugin, Laruelle,119 JeffCheckel, “Ideas, Institutions, andthe Gorbachev Policy Revolution.” Foreign Politics World 1993): 45 (January – 300. in,

The ForthThePolitical 268 Theory, ForthThePolitical Theory “TheEurasian Triumph.” 180 . Dugin adopted the Russian Idea of the Russian civilization as the antithesis ofantithesis the as civilization Russian the Ideaof Russian the adopted Dugin .

way of life, which does not deserve more than hatred and disgust. and hatred than more deserve not does which life, ofway The F The 175

hl poal oeetmtn te aiaim f ui’ philosophical Dugin’s of radicalism the overestimating probably While Carl Schmitt, Carl Schmitt, orth Political orth Theory

182 - Soviet economicspace” Soviet the“big creation ofand away Customsis Union forthe economic .

Interesting is Dugin’s debate on MTV as a classic representationclassic a as MTV on debate Dugin’sInteresting is 162, Dugin,“The162, Threat 763 forRussia”, The Concept of the PoliticaltheofConcept The

497

176 ,196

for Russia is still open.for isstill Russia

.of ChicagoUniversity Press, 1996. 33 177

s gorpia ai o history, of axis geographical a as channel; 179

181

n te bg pcs ter o Carl of theory spaces” “big the and rbby Dgns an divergence main Dugin’s Probably,

nevertheless, such a formulation formulation a such nevertheless,

the US and the EU”. the and US the

hat it should it hat 183 time, while time,

Iteasyis - 178 Soviet

- the

CEU eTD Collection 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 Dugin’s of character revisionist the however, is, perspective, this from issue, dangerous regime, Communist past the towards attitude positive overall an is views Dugin’s of characteristic important Another not include Galicia, wi diverge Eurasia of contours Dugin’s Interestingly, integration. Eurasian the for basis the as serve to ideology policy foreign expansionist character. national and Russia of part inseparable an is expansionism Russian that states Geopolitics” of Foundations “The book outspoken His might. Russian of restoration Russia Greater a into Kazakhstan sovereignty. virtual a than more possess not do and states” “failed are states CIS of majority the believes Dugin space. Post in dominance Russian of case a in only out carried be could which empire, overlook angeopolitical underlying message for need ofthe Rus structuralism. and geopolitics, traditionalism, of elements the adding neo his that states himself Dugin C Orthodoxy of ideals basic the reflect not does clearly lassic Eurasists.

Dugin, Trubeckoyit was ofanstated the Eurasianpart inseparable space; Ivanov discussionmovementon Eurasian emblem Dugin, Mankoff,Interview 67; with Dugin Dugin,“Eurasian Leviafan, In Critique.” 1:177 99 Ibid.

The ForthThePolitical Theory GeopoliticsFoundationsof

189

thus clearly igniting secessionism inthethus clearlyCIS. igniting secessionism 187

,211

Ivanov appears to be highly critical on the ability of such an such of ability the on critical highly be to appears Ivanov

190

which is very appealing to the to appealing very is which 185 - uains lrey dpe Ersait da, while ideas, Eurasianist adopted largely Eurasianism – 186

188.Moscow:Euras hs te reabsorptio the Thus, -

s iwd s ncsay rcniin o the for precondition necessary a as viewed is symbol of imperial expansion;Ivanov, 62 symbol of imperial 34

“The View on Russian History....”“The 245 ian Movement, ian 2011,64 th those of Classic Eurasists and do do and Eurasists Classic of those th and respect, propagated by the the by propagated respect, and o sae lk Urie and Ukraine like states of n incumbent government. A government. incumbent sia to reemerge as a great as a sia toreemerge n historical development historical n

184

t s ad to hard is It

- Soviet 188

CEU eTD Collection 194 193 192 empirein ‘bigthe space”;Soviet Dugin, 191 Russian restrain helps current liberal more a of impact the population, Russian the among co a Despite 2.4.2. Domestic Liberals the current Eurasian writings. neo Dugin’s of reminiscent pre the restore assu Zhirinovsky eccentric the by headed parties, political outspoken mentality, Russia” “fortress a pursuing are current political this of number considerable a While 2.4.1. Domes arguments given is below. non of number a space” Russia a of creation the for Eurasianism of utility the understand to order In From 2.4. Eurasianism the Other Side unnecessary theRussiantotalitarian p credibility to Eurasists, Classic of critiques

Prizel,Trenin,259; DPNI Mankoff,63 Saysjustlikethat USSR classicSchmittEurasistsassessed assessed the ReichThird andsaw of anthe legitimacy eternal –

MovementAgainst Illegal Immigration;Rodina Party 192

nsiderable influence of Eurasist ideology in the Russian political circles and and circles political Russian the in ideology Eurasist of influence nsiderable

tic Nationalists tic n ae doaig h rmvl f tnc minorities, ethnic of removal the advocating are and - “Of Power and Greatness.” Powerand “Of 1917

rnir o te usa state Russian the of frontiers - Eurasists’ sources have been analyzed. A summary of the main the of summary A analyzed. been have sources Eurasists’

uains,tu idctn ahg ee o ntoaim in nationalism of level high a indicating thus Eurasianism, The ForthThe Po

191

hc os o acrtl elc teraiy n gives and reality the reflect accurately not does which

409 liticalTheory

35 ,211; Dugin,

–

removingethnic 64 Mankoff,minorities; ast. .

194 “TheEurasian Triumph.”

h epnins tnec is tendency expansionist The 193

n o te most the of one e te ed to need the res

492

- e “big led CEU eTD Collection 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 MoscowIMEMO. Center, Fund Gorbachev and integration. economy, geopolitics, of era the replaced has fact the of indication an as viewed is Eurasianism politics. Arbatova re the and power nomenklatura’s th in restoration Russia’s that claimliberals Eurasists, post uniqueness”, inherent its in belief cum “messianism Europe. to return a is oneself to return the that and East, the with symbiosis cultural a in result not on view did domination Tatar different that state they Eurasists, Classic a to Counter Eurasists. to compared have liberals that noted be should it all, of First basedexplained sourceswell onthewritten as asin further be will which view, of point alternative an give to imperative is it work, the of sak the For underestimated. be not should and frameworks Centrist the in policy foreign

Bearsmainly negative connotations Prizel,245 72;Ibid. Interview with Arbatova Mankoff,72 SergeyMarkov, PartiesandForeign“Russian Civil and SocietyPolicy.” Culture Political inRussia, 137. Prizel,241 Chubais,Prizel, 24163; -

meil miin ta wud ep usa o oe o rges Opst to Opposite progress. to move to Russia help would that ambitions imperial 195

199

eivs ht uains i a ee usiuin f omns i Russian in Communism of substitution mere a is Eurasianism that believes

200 usa lbrl cam ht usas rgd lie tragedy Russia’s that claim liberals Russian

the modernization of which is, according to liberals, incompatible with CIS with incompatible liberals, to according is, which of modernization the

The major centers of liberalism, or Atlantism, or liberalism, of centers major The

198 - salsmn o a omn economy. command a of establishment

and thus as an obstacle to the priority focus on the on focus priority the to obstacle an as thus and 36

- person withparticipants. interviews 196 e CIS is a way for the reassertion of of reassertion the for waya is CISe

and state that it is the rejection of rejection the is it that state and that the era of geo of era the that 201 i is eetd ot of bouts repeated its in s

in Russia are the Carnegiearethe Russia in history when when history - economics economics 197

Nadia

e CEU eTD Collection 210 Armeniaancannotwhileterritorial join unsolved is Interviewthere dispute; wi 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 chapter. an Union, Eurasian aspiring an ofmembers prospective the all of leastbenefit would Russia that notion the convergedon entity. Eurasian aspired an create to unable powe share to unwillingness elites’ the and candidates potential the of interests diverging concept, the of a understanding different to due that claim and projects integration current the of politicization of level high first economy on focusing example of power petrostate. a as Russia of image degrading problem, identity and counterproductive is approach civilizationist status current way”, “special a as development the debunk thinkers liberal many Indeed, Eurasianism isbeing inorder tocreate utilized a elite, quite is but intelligentsia, Russian among viewed seriously not is Eurasianism that been has interviews conducted the from impression The

Interviewwith Mehdiev Accordingto Mehdiev, isAzerbaijan not interested currentin stage,asintegration at the well Moldova, as Georgia and Interviewwith Arbatova LiliaShevtsova in Tsygankov, Interviewwith Nikitina, Trenin, Interviewwith Arbatova “Russiais not aora into distinctworld itself”;civilization “The Post Tsygankov, Interviewwith 202

Post hc, lal, s motn fr nwrn te usin f h etn t which to extent the of question the answering for important is clearly, which,

- Imperium Nikitina;with Arbatova Interview - ai ad xtn a “post a exiting and mania ,13 206

t il ny nrae itnig rm h Ws ad teghn a strengthen and West the from distancing increase only will it

Russian Foreign Policy, Foreign Russian

204 assertion, which will be further discussed in the next next the in discussed further be will which assertion,

and state that Russia will be better off abandoning a abandoning off better be will Russia that state and

213

37 no 207 Surprisingly, all of the interviewed scholars scholars interviewed the of all Surprisingly, wt “h center” “the with r - meim period. imperium” in f Ersa destiny Eurasian a of tion

208 Instead Russia

prominent among the Russian political Russian the among prominent Libe nta o slig Rsin national Russian a solving of instead a shlr srs a unnecessary an stress scholars ral - usa s die t la b the by lead to advised is Russia led post th Mehdiev - Western World,206; - Soviet “bigSoviet space”. 210

205

uh oiiiain is politicization such

ieas believe Liberals 203

n Eurasian and

209

CEU eTD Collection 214 sheddingits semi 213 212 Jonson,Asia:Lena. RussiaandCentral New Web A Royalof Relations.The of Institute Affairs,International 1998,197 211 only divert post globalization, of processes objective the and progress m and xenophobic Russian development. for harmful and is progress and policy, conservative present a of legitimation a as used that through the a as adopt to Russia for dangerous or impossible ideology,” former its of stripped union, Soviet in “pride the o manifestation messianic radicalized novel of a is variety Eurasianism stunning that is a assumption shared and commonly A perspective arguments. external unbiased an us provide to able are andEurasianist of relevance state the of indication important an is scholars Russian the of opinion the While 2.4.3. Foreign Eurasianism on Scholars

Ivanov,34 Germanp Funzullini,30 Jack, A InsidePutin’sRussia oliticalbelieves scientistIgnatovthatcoming withRussiashouldup political abandon utopiasandstart

- Asian character; Ivanov,Asiancharacter; 35 - alleged links to the authoritarian Asian states, theauthoritarian to alleged links Soviet states fromSoviet Russia. ystic ideas system, which goes against the universal ideals of freedom, freedom, of ideals universal the against goes which system, ideas ystic . Oxford: Oxford UniversityOxford .Press,Oxford: 2004.

ideology in the post the in ideology f Great Russian nationalism, which dwells on the restoration of restoration the on dwells which nationalism, Russian Great f 213

reisi hrceie Ersaim s retrograde, a as Eurasianism characterizes Brzeginski

38 - Soviet region, the views of foreign experts experts foreign of views the region, Soviet

foreign policy foreign 214

and whose imperial nature will nature imperial whose and

212 211

. Foreign scholars agree agree scholars Foreign . Eurasianism iscurrently

n a sc is such as and either

CEU eTD Collection 219 218 217 http://www.mgimo.ru/news/ public,entrepreneurs; intelligentsia and “The Difficulties of the24,EurasianIntegration,” Economic 2013. April Center Director,statesintegration that Eurasian still anis only elites’ p War,the Cold by edited Celeste Wallander.Boulder: Westview1996; Post Press, Chernyavski,Stanislav MGIMO 216 215 considerable the of aware financial ofembarking and well politicalprojects”. costs onimperial is and projects civilizational extensive for support Russ poverty the inflame to unlikely very is expansion geopolitical abroad. intervene should Russia believe % 30.4 only understandi elite. political Russian the than confrontational less and isolationist ex with connections the Despite cause. common a for nation the unify to Eurasianism of potential the evaluating for importance invaluable an of is ambition power great Russian and integration further the on people is ideology government any of support public a for need the work, given the of question research the answering for helpful undoubtedly is scholars political various the of opinions informed the While IntegrationEurasian Restoration the on Opinion Public’s Russian 2.5.

Tsygankov,“The Post Karickiy, Global Reid Angus MonitorPoll,“Russians Army’s Reject Intervention220, Abroad”. JRL 1 Dec, 2008 Zimmermann,andJack and Snyder.People “Russian Tsygankov, ian people. ian

Russian Foreign PolicyRussian Foreign ng the legitimacy of Russian imperial ambition, it is worth mentioning that mentioning worth is it ambition, imperial Russian of legitimacy the ng fact that the polls have always demonstrated that Russians support of strong of support Russians that demonstrated always have polls the that fact 218 -

Western World” 208 WesternWorld” Moreover, according to recent sociological polls, the public offers no offers public the polls, sociological recent to according Moreover, -

experts/document237677.phtml oit republics, Soviet ,198 ady usinbe Ta i wy h oiin f h Russian the of opinion the why is That questionable. hardly

215 Foreign Policy.” In The ForeignIn Sources Policy.” of Policy Russian Foreign After 39

Rsin ulc urnl i mc more much is currently public Russian a .

rojectanddoes from thenot enjoysupport vast of the Great Power Status and the and Status Power Great the of 217

Karickiy 219 - idn n disillusioned and ridden

states

216

that the idea of a of idea the that

o te ae of sake the For

- Soviet CEU eTD Collection 225 224 223 222 221 220 with State Union the of proponent staunch a Even Lukashenko, center. Alexandr leader “imperial” Belarusian Russian the to power regional relinquish to elites Eurasian regional new a org initiated Nazarbaev EEC, the into Organization Cooperation Asian Astana. in 2000 in signed was (EEC) Community Economic Eurasian a of creation the for agreement 1994. in Nazarbaev Nursultan by stated first actually was the idea of The integration. supporter ardent most the as known is leadership Belarusian and Kazakhstan who areactually topromot supposed elitesthepolitical of issue on the opinionthe necessaryout find is “bigspace”to it Soviet Russia a of creation the for is Eurasianism helpful how understand to order In Willingness2.6. Integration follow the Europeanoflifeway instead one. ofthe Chinese population Russian mor means Eurasianism post for the various development. economic successful the in lies status with accordance In

LarysaHoperskaya,“Theof Arguments Central In Asia.” 34 Ibid. Orlik,23 Zoltan,31 BennWedgwood Tsygankov,“The Post anization anization

e of e –

,176 called Central Asian Union, Asian Central called Asianism 224

Western World” 216 WesternWorld” Nevertheless, , who feel who , domestic liberals, Russian people believe that the way to great power great to way the that believe people Russian liberals, domestic

actually, which is hardly acceptable for the vast majority of the of majority vast the for acceptable hardly is which actually,

of the Political Elitesof Political the ofthe CIS

a greater attachment towards the West the towards attachment greater a - Soviet republics,Soviet isworthmentioning it thatfor it Russia after there was a decision for the integration of Central of integration the for decision a was there after

e a Eurasianist respective integration. 40 225 20 Years After the Breakthe 20YearsUSSR upAfter theof

which clearly reflects the unwillingness of unwillingness the reflects clearly which 220

eadn dfeet enn of meaning different Regarding 222

221 ,145

and the and

- led post led desire 223

to - CEU eTD Collection 232 states’tradewith theparties; third 231 230 229 146 228 blue.” the of 227 out integrate not will “Lukashenko Hodasevich, Antonia Nezavisimaya2013.January 16, Gazeta, projects”; cardinal of kind this for yet ready not 226 prospects foreign Russian in beinthe policyn will provided support regional and domestic of level low a to due hindered be might implementation practical its circles, political Russian substantia a has Eurasianism though even that conclude can We and theUS. EU China, with relations its for approval Russian without independently develop to able th autarky. on premised heavily ideology, an as Eurasianism of support full the from leaders regional the precludes which factor, important an also is actors world other slipping than rather Russia, from themselves distance to try would consumers energy that mean states Asian Central conten and flavor “political a get andinterests economic offramework the transcendcan unities” President Uzbekistani Russ Mambetalin; e regionallike tostay world elitesintheir woulddealings free andbe relatively the with Customs Union among others calls not only to increase the volumes of interregional trade but to decrease the member the decrease to but trade interregional of volumes the increase to only not calls others among Union Customs Nygren,245 Moshes,96 Sometimesan competitionoutright for a regional leadership Hoperskaya a people “our that fact the to due integration of level desired a achieve never will Union Eurasian prospective a Said

a see abgos oad te EU the towards ambiguous seemed ia, t”.

into a more explicit energy dependency. energy explicit more a into 227

,148

Hoperskaya 232

pr fo a optn vso o rgoa laesi b te usa and Russian the by leadership regional of vision competing a from Apart

,156 , 228

sa Krmvs concern Karimov’s Islam

different interest of the energy producers and consumers and producers energy the of interest different Areshev, http://www.ng.ru/cis/2013

. A more detailed elaboration of the Eurasianism the of elaboration detailed more A . 41 –

like in caselikeKazakhstanin withandUzbekistan; Hoperskaya, - ie nerto project. integration like - 01 230 ht l tee id o “supranational of kinds these all that - 1 An increased interconnectivity with interconnectivity increased An 6/7_lukashenko.html ext chapter.ext spot ae among base support l .

226

uiu is Curious 231

Clearly, 229

also re re -

CEU eTD Collection 234 World.” In 233 development. political and economic situation. geopolitical independence strategic Russian the for way only the is power great a being scholars, numerous to According ambition. power” “great spectrum. political Russian the inside currents ideological different of representatives the among often coincide Russia of prominence international of necessity the on views the Surprisingly, 3.1. The NeedGreat for Eurasianistfuture. project the in the hinder can which divergences, empirical important of number a underlining ideologies, while the of goals and objectives the between exist which similarities, of range provided be will Doctrine Monroe and Eurasianism of underpinnings empirical and theoretical of analysis comprehensive a that After 1991. after lost allegedly has it that status power to needs Russia actually why understand to important is it restoration status power” “great Russian the for Eurasianism is helpful how understand to order In Post for the MonroeDoctrine aNew Become CanEurasianism Chapter 3.

Tsyagankov,“The Post Russiaitselffound by states andregions encircled moredynamic far itself; than Russia2020: developmentof scenarios . A high degree of interconnectivity between the concepts the interconnectivitybetween of degree highA - Soviet Space? Soviet - A practical necessity is often given as a as given often is necessity practical A Western World.”178 Western 233

Most liberals believe that believe liberals Most Power Status Power Status

,Moscow: 2012,ROSSPEN,

234

A universal excuse for the alleged neo alleged the for excuse universal A 42

n svriny o uti gvn current a given sustain to sovereignty and

such status is a necessity for domestic for necessity a is status such 26

Graham, Thomas. “RussiaGraham, Thomas. andthe universal explanation for the the for explanation universal enables us to discern adiscern to us enables

regain a great great a regain - imperial CEU eTD Collection CIS 240 EurasianismFoundationsof Manifest”; 239 238 237 236 235 it. with meddling against World Old “ American an Hemisphere Western the proclaimed uni who States, United the opponent, ideological and political its of experience Russian a of creation the at targeted The Monroe: Them? and About 3.2. Eurasianism What of the from obvious is adopt and rhetoric Civilizationist to credit gives government Russian current the that shows bleak. very is state a as Russia of fate the further a without integ Eurasian that maintain Eurasists current Many respect. this in instrumental alternative civilizational a become Russian The stable and unions allies policy foreign Eurasist of whiff

42. country our people andour “If are to remain millennium”;onof thethe new map Dugin, Orlik,39 Funzullini,25 Zolt Mankoff,242 the

Member

imperial ambitions of the Russian political and intellectual establishment is directly directly is establishment intellectual and political Russian the of ambitions imperial Priority an,32 s Eurasianism as alegitimizing ideologyinthe fordomination Russian CIS, which

Russian Dugin claims Dugin “RussiaRussiaeither greatorwillCanthat will Either be be Not. not; Be Great orBe

States;

areas

restoration as a great power, however, is inextricably linked to its ability to ability its to linked inextricably is however, power, great a as restoration

post whole the ration of http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/76389FEC168189ED44257B2E0039B16D Federation.

Russian ,786 Regional

foreign . 236 240

policy

Priorities 235

include

is the notion that a Russia feels uncomfortable without uncomfortable feels Russia a that notion the is - Soviet space is doomed for degradation for doomed is space Soviet - led “big space” and derive a lot from the previous the from lot a derive and space” “big led

237 the

of the most recent most the of

development 239

ht s h Ersaim s eoig so becoming is Eurasianism why is that h uae f Ersa isl is itself “Eurasia” of usage The 43

The adoption of a so a of adoption The

of spheres of influence of spheres

bilateral Concept

and

multilateral - called “Putin doctrine” “Putin called “EurasiaAll: Above of

the cooperation

” and warned the warned and ”

Foreign 238

equally as equally somewhat ” In In ”

with laterally laterally

The Policy

the

CEU eTD Collection 246 245 244 243 Politic Forth Dugin, region; the of states all of alliancewillful a suggests and strategy anticolonial an of idea the from postulatesmain 242 223 241 Monroe doctrine. the of proclamation and creation the in role main the played Jefferson Quinc John State of Secretary adjunct or neighborly nations, of status strategic the through state one of independence and security ensure to necessity post the Monroe in of doctrine version Russian a of idea the for enthusiasm visible a expressing Dugin, It, is What Monroe3.3. So Doctrine? sovereignty”CIS amongand the countries Russia. “Mon a of version own its establishing nowadays. pursued being is actively which Empire, Eurasian prospective a and Hemisphere Western of concept rea legitimate some us influence of sphere the into interfere to ban the for right nation’s spaces” “big of theory Schmitt’s Carl the on elaborations Eurasists’ Russian the to co referring when Hemisphere” “Western term the of usage US the to analogous

Dugin, Interviewwith Dugin Nygren,209 http://csis.org/expert/janusz Dugin MariusVacarelu, aEurasia: Real Build “To Few Juridicial Leviafan, Ideas.” In Moscow: 3. 2012, Movement, Eurasian ncepts dealingwith the andorganizations Americas.

refers to Monroe doctrine multiple times and characterizes it as a greatly a as it characterizes and times multiple doctrine Monroe to refers The ForthThePolitical Theory alTheory

,199

oit region Soviet sons to compare the theoretical underpinnings of the American American the of underpinnings theoretical the compare to sons - . bugajski

200

246

codn t Jnz Bugajski, Januz to According

Aas n uofca peieta avsr Thomas advisor presidential unofficial and Adams y in this casein this being protectionUS interests. of the the , 245

roe doctrine”, which is based on an “asymmetric an on based is which doctrine”, roe

nepes h sne f ore otie s a as doctrine Monroe of sense the interprets 44

244

241

- needed ‘big space” which derives its its derives which space” ‘big needed 243

of a hegemon state give state hegemon a of Rsi i i fact in is Russia , 242

and the and

The The CEU eTD Collection 251 250 249 248 247 balance power of security American to threat a posed inaction) (or actions their if states, Hemisphere Western other intervent direct perform to empowered was power” “police self a as acting US, the that stated explicitly 1904, in adopted Corollary Roosevelt The interest. of sphereAmerican the to states neighbor the subjugate Nicaragua in intervention t Panama, of creation The the right,granted tospread the byentire values God, its across American continent. endowment” moral “special a embodied Destiny Manifest world. the of part this into meddling European further against warning spher a and states independent free of region a as Hemisphere Western the of proclamation a as summarized be can postulates main nation. new a of ambition E of realm autocratic the and World New nonintervention and noncolonization doctrine the of concepts disentangle as such ideals diplomatic American of foundation a upon drew Adams Quincy John State of Secretary his and Williams,79 http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1801_timeline/monroe_doctrine.html Williams,81 Williams,102 Molineu,44 250 . Spanish .

. 251 -

American War is often considered a a milestone event that tipped thetipped that event milestone a a considered often is War American

247 -

249 separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe, Europe, and Americas the for influence of spheres separate

e meil oiac oe Cuba over dominance imperial he The Monroe Doctrine was officially proclaimed in 1823. Its 1823. in proclaimed officially was Doctrine Monroe The

ee l atmt t dcae h US the dictate to attempts all were -- were designed to signify a clear break between the the between break clear a signify to designed were et rm uoen far. h tre main three The affairs. European from ment 45 urope as well as to show the strength and and strength the show to as well as urope

o piiee Aeia itrss and interests American privileged of e

248 ion into the internal affairs of of affairs internal the into ion

and meant that the US had US the that meant and - proclaimed international proclaimed

s el s military a as well as

oiia wl and will political

The concept of of concept The

CEU eTD Collection

254 253 252 more of thanan a ethnichegemonic domination power. classi Rossica”. “Pax overarching the of leadership the Russia of world intercontinental unique a create to and US, the by pursued are and Interestingly, Hemisphere. Western century XIXth the of government American of seat the takingare elites Russian currently the in values human universal and democracy promote to tool a as government American by used widely been has Doctrine Monroe identity and proclaimin unique its on capitalizing world, the to relation in empowerment country’s a of ideas nation the for utilized is doctrine, Monroe a like “prof a to led has superpower confused and polarized people American left War post Russian and born newly American the for force unhind and strong a Similarly, ideologies. the of objectives theoretical the between similarities of number a outline will I Doctrine, Monroe the of overview theoretical and historical short a with reader a provided Having Mon and 3.4. Eurasianism

Gumilev andErmolaev, Laruelle, Narochitskay,5 Ersss sad that stand Eurasists’ c

trying to prevent the so the prevent to trying 126

469

ga sphere influence. of roe Doctrine: MirrorReflection h “ the ound moral crisis” among the Russian people. Eurasianism, Eurasianism, people. Russian the among crisis” moral ound

rd pel o meils hs en sd s unifying a as used been has imperialism to appeal ered - called “Novus Ordo Seclorum” (New World Order) World (New Seclorum” Ordo “Novus called nvra vle” rpgtd y h Ws i nothing is West the by propagated values” universal 46

- 253 ulig upss n t uae f the of usage its in purposes building , - Soviet nations. The American Civil Civil American The nations. Soviet

hl te islto o te Soviet the of dissolution the while hs s agl cnitn wt the with consistent largely is This 254

- Eurasia under under Eurasia 252 , CEU eTD Collection 256 255 at attempts Russian Thus, Doctrine. Monroe the of reinforcement and proclamation the during America Latin in stationing European with case the was which Power, Great a as pres American 19 the much too all remind territory anti of stationing the or NATO joining the abovement of role strategic and proximity geographical a to due forces European of outpost nation. American formed recently th that cases. both in part important really a play concerns Security agreeswith these when premises “the he says nation creatio mere The grounded. and credible more universality of claims their makes which states, nation typical not are Federation Russian and States United the Both Germany. Hitler’s expans the with clearline drawato us allows which crucialcases,distinguishing thesea of feature is This nation of negligence their by characterized be can ideologies policy foreign Both cos its stressing are thinkers American and Eurasists both ideology their of universality certain a establish to Trying

Brewer,37 Dugin, uoenpeec n h egbrn aes oe ao euiytra t a to threat security major a posed areas neighboring the in presence European e o te S s n nihss o nation a to antithesis an is US the of n “TheTheory State.” of aEurasian

oe territories. ioned ence in the in ence ionist foreign policies of the fascist states, such as Mussolini’s Italy or or Italy Mussolini’s as such states, fascist the of policies foreign ionist

CIS represents a fundamental challenge to Russian self Russian to challenge fundamental a represents CIS 256

mopolitan character and utilizing the “melting pot” idea. idea. pot” “melting the utilizing and character mopolitan

urn Ptns ocr wt Esen uoen states European Eastern with concern Putin’s Current

T e S ol nt lo Foia r ua o e the be to Cuba or Florida allow not could US he - ballistic missiles in the proximity to the Russian the to proximity the in missiles ballistic th

47 etr Aeia cnen. n increasing An concerns. American century

- tt. n doou o neo of ideologue An state. - state agony”. nowisin Numerous scholars maintain scholars Numerous 255 - Eurasianism

- image image - state. state. - CEU eTD Collection 258 257 post the as well as America 19 the in back projects industrial shared and trade growing A sphere. economic U the in officials government by employed been have and focus practical a and share Eurasianism doctrine Monroe the functions, building identity and ideological the from Apart alliance. pos the on alliance Russian major a is (CSTO) Organization Treaty Security the Collective example, For area. the in prominence geopolitical Russian the for paramount are Caucasus. North and Asia Central Crimea, in presence military its ensure to trying is critique. Russia Nowadays geopolitical Mahan’s to adherence important an as the and of doctrine support Monroe logical a as Rico Puerco and Panama Guantanamo, in bases military est US The the might. economic for and step influence important political American an of as expansion bases military of creation the advocated and on early domination American future for basis a as preeminence naval a for need the understood of case the in both presence hegemon’s a ensuring of way one is bases military the of stationing The enforced state. by theAmerican “Finlandizat

Mahan,T.Alfred restricted CubainIt the conduct of foreign policy, ad n F oa de o n betv ne fr eeomn i te oil and social the in development for need objective an to due today RF in and S

o” f h post the of ion” 19 The Influence Sea ofThe h century America America century h The t - Soviet area. It can be seen as a created counterbalance to the NATO NATO the to counterbalance created a as seen be can It area. Soviet

Russian military Russian Power Upon History, 1660Power - - Soviet economic connections and infrastructure remaining remaining infrastructure and connections economic Soviet

oit pc ae eiicn o te lt amendment Platt the of reminiscent are space Soviet

21 - maintained a final saymaintained their over foreign policy industrial complexes that operate in the CIS area CIS the in operate that complexes industrial t etr Rsi. h America The Russia. century st 48 - 1783

.andCo, Boston:1890. Brown Little, - dominated security security dominated ; Williams,96 geopolitics n

th ablished

century

258 257

CEU eTD Collection 260 259 Washington. non establish to and independently Russia. or US the being that hegemon, which confederation, regional any to power dominant aspiring the by suspicion and resistance a is premises policy foreign two the of feature unifying Another of great theRussian ambition. power entrepr “norm Russian modern (1989 period expansionist its during doctrine Monroe Hearstthe propagating Randolph Williams and Pulitzer Joseph states. respective two enjo as well sociological as thought and geopolitical national of foundations solid the on capitalizing are ideologies Both for imperialist foreign policy. rationale a as navigation of convenience the and connections improved the for concern sh ideology, Eurasian the of part constituent major a as seas warm to exit thirds. two Caribbeanby the to Californiafrom journey the shortened which channel, Panama the of construction the in visible clearly Hemispher Western the in interference increased the for reasons practical American domination. of spheres respective their in powers regional the of influence and relations afte

Molineu,21 Williams,101 r the dissolution of the Soviet Union are solid arguments for the strengthening of of strengthening the for arguments solid are Union Soviet the of dissolution the r

260

Equally

usa ed t prev eeyhn “ihu Ru “without everything perceive to tends Russia

eneurs” are trying to adjust Eurasist ideas to the exercise exercise the to ideas Eurasist adjust to trying are eneurs” - ying a wide support of the national intellectual elite of intellectualof national elite ofying the wide support a American ties have usually brought opposition from opposition brought usually have ties American

E 49 frs y ai Aeia sae t operate to states American Latin by fforts

259

Dugin’s essay on the need to obtain theobtain to need the Dugin’son essay -

1933) just as some as just 1933) does not include a include not does

were actively actively were sa s being as ssia ow a similar similar a ow e are are e CEU eTD Collection 262 261 of creation the for helpful be can Eurasianism which to extent the of question the answer to aims ec thesis The concerned. objective nations the by of concept the of range perceptions constructivist whole a to due guaranteed reestablishment. power great the of goal their for Eurasianism utilizing are circles political Russian that seems It Two Ideologies Empirical the of Comparison Methodological Us?” For It In “What’s 3.5. has toenforce some time still foreign its policy imperialism. the in later organizations regional American of creation situati political current the and created ever be will it guarantee no is There outlook. policy foreign Russian the in prominence Eurasianism of clear sign a is EurasianUnion proposed A Kazakhstan.and Belarus among Russia, Union Organization, Cooperation Shanghai are of part a is Russia alliances regional important most the Among institutions. economic and military political, regional the in participation and creation the in activity its for known is Russia the of pursuing and agenda their of creation the for them utilizing institutions, American created jointly the in actively participate to known is America of States United The institutions. global and regional namely extent, considerable a to foreign liberal utilizing a for known are states hegemonic both underpinning, Russia to relation in stance apprehensive Russia”. against

Yedinaya Rossiya Programme Declaration YedinayaProgramme Rossiya Interviewwith Arbatova

261

usa attd twrs UUA i cer vdne f its of evidence clear is GU(U)AM towards attitude Russian

262

The success of such instrumentalization, however, is far from far is however, instrumentalization, such of success The ,2011.

http://er.ru/party/program/ - 50 xldn srcue. ept a la realist clear a Despite structures. excluding

CIS .Foreign Poli on in the CIS. Nevertheless, the the Nevertheless, CIS. the in on nmc pltcl atr and factors political onomic, 20 ,

C th century show that Russia that show century th STO STO cyConcept as well as a Customs Customs a as well as US goals. Modern Modern goals. US

Potential of Potential policy tools tools policy CEU eTD Collection 265 264 263 resources, natural neighbors mainly its to offer to lot a has and infrastructure, energy and supply gas and oil post the in population speaking leverage considerable a has currently Russia the Monroe doctrine. non to oblige was to supposed Europe as just influence, of sphere its acknowledge to community international the wants establishment political Russian the Nowadays area. given the in domination powe great another against directed outlook policy foreign consequent a and quo status existing an with states two the of dissatisfaction a is outlooks policy foreign two the of similarity unifying major A the3.5.1. Against StatusQuo of determining theeventual succes purpose the for given are state a of potential integrative and potential, economic location, geographic as factors such while ideology, imperial the of success the is comparison Russia the by promoted integration, Eurasian the of prospects current the on light shed to and doctrine Monroe of success the reasonsfor main the understand to us allow will projectsgeopolitical theoreticallysimilar Russia a Peterson, Dugin,“The Major Principles EurasianPolitics.” of 567 Molineu,16

- 121 led post led

- Soviet “big space”. A comparis A space”. “big Soviet 263

- 265 inte r, thus utterly paving the way for its exclusive regional regional exclusive its for way the paving utterly thus r,

u as rpeetn iprat ao mre, ore of source market, labor important representing also but

rference into American sphere of influence, according to according influence, of sphere American into rference - Soviet states Soviet s of the ideology. s ofthe elites. n

51 , 264 in CIS CIS in

, Russian troops in some states, control states, some in troops Russian ,

Thus, the observed outcome in the the in outcome observed the Thus, on of the empirical implementation of implementation empirical the of on

–

a considerable percent of Russian of percent considerable a

of – -

CEU eTD Collection 269 268 International Relations,March2013. 15, 267 266 EurasianismRussian toagreat extent. opponent main the of leverage political a thus and proximity The ago. century a be to used Europe than closer way be to said be can today America Thus, times. hundred in distances shortened has enforcement Monroe of time observed technicalwhic progressthe that obvious alltoo is it periods, historical different represent cases the since Nevertheless, US. the from Europe as far equallyis but close, not is opponent Russian main the Importantly, side. any virtually from countries othe by surrounded is it as “heartland”, term Mackinder’s by characterized perfectly be can Russia period. observed the the in explain especially doctrine, to Monroe of helps success Europe, eventual force, oppositional main its to distance long a as well factor: th discourse, comparative favorable a such Despite competition colonies for powerand among European states. the res a as and unification Germany’s role”. to due policemanahead go a “global had clearly doctrine a of execution the of capable less currently is debt the that fact the illustrating Bremmer, Yan scientist political American crisis. economic of dealing with engaged more now are Eurasianism, to opposed traditionally the that fact the is realizations projects imperial Russian societies. CIS impoverished often for remittances

Williams,80 JanBremmer. Stregneva,Marina. “Eurasian Integrtion 20 Oldberg, 267 location. Obviously, an isolated island position of the United States of America as America of States United the of position island isolated an Obviously, location.

“First in 70 years we live in the world without a global leadership” global a without world the in live we years 70 in “First

Every Nation forNation Every

Itself.andWinners Losers http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=1546#top

inthe Context of Russian .Portfolio, 2012

266 - EU Relations.”Analytic.EU ofRussian Council

Another factor talking in favo in talking factor Another r i a ey motn geopolitical important very a is ere US and EU, which has been been has which EU, and US can 269 .

danger the success of of success the danger h occurred from the the occurredfrom h ult increased increased ult - ridden USA ridden

268 –

states an states

Monroe r of the of r r

CEU eTD Collection perfectibility,combine with centurythe XX scientific (the democratic andfoundations socialist peace peace theories) to 271 270 exceptionalism American influence. of sphere surrounding the in perform to destined is nation their which mission, civilizing the to attention great paying messiani largely are instances policy foreign Both destiny. and belief idea, the of role the on focus major a is cases two the of element important very A 3.5.2. Messianism fundamentalism. attit preferred the of facing is DueCaucasus Eurasianism a tothis major Asia. obstacle andCentral ideological Eurasia of parts some in influence its spread to trying are Turkey and Iran pretend can that powers Eurasian other of presence the is location the of importance the to interconnected factor, Another Latinfor during American states 1889 ag influence aforementioned post modern the that saying Not su were thus and coherent politically nor economically neither were they assume to logical quite is DuecreationLatin of tothe recent many statesof it inthe observedtime American period

Is premisedIs on theEnlightenment philosophyandXVIII of Ivanov,Hoperskaya, 80; 148 ainst the ainst RF bject to great international influence, first and foremost the American one. one. American the foremost and first influence, international great to bject

and exercise a more independent foreign policy than it has been possible possible been has it than policy foreign independent more a exercise and

ude to the Turkish pan Turkish the to ude

of other international actors international other of

- Soviet states represent well represent states Soviet for the role of a Eurasian “civilization” polar. China, China, polar. “civilization” Eurasian a of role the for - 1933. 53 - Turkic movement as well as to the Islamic the to as well as movement Turkic -

XIXcentury progressive views andhuman of history does help these states to balance balance to states these help does - off developed nations, the nations, developed off 271 c in their nature, thus thus nature, their in c

and Manifest DestinyManifest and 270 , namely in namely , CEU eTD Collection 275 274 273 272 InternationalExceptional?”2010): Europeanof Relations Journal 38117 (November producemoral imperatives becomesLatin it with Monroe while the clear doctrinethat herit basics, Eurasianism comparing When however. idea, an such with problems several are There easilyrefuted for claims beingthe a by their leader in the all of value equal the propagated Eurasists planet”. classic though the on these like few are There one. thoughtful and powerful group, ethnic young a are “Russians assertion: Dugin’s in observed be can justification keeper”. brothers’ his be to commissioned “divinely was and Anglo American Protestant the Eurasist supremacy the of underpinning currently and American the by used civilizational been has which justification, the in similarity striking a is There between Asiancivilizations. and theEuropean Russian the of uniqueness the out point to intellectuals exceptionalism. Russian allows Eurasianism and of idea Russian the of sense utilization the and identity national Russian the shaping deeply 19 the in expansion imperialist “c desired the region”. the lead to and Am forwas explanation a the usedasjustification

Dugin, Williams,86 Laruelle,145 Molineu,21 Foundations of GeopFoundationsof - minded intellectuals. According to the proponents of American exceptionalism, exceptionalism, American of proponents the to According intellectuals. minded

ivilizational role in Eurasia”, in role ivilizational 272

for liberation and paternalism;liberation K.J.for and “Exceptionalism Policy: Holsti, It Is inAmericanForeign olitics,120

The Russian elaborations on the shared destiny are used to supportto used are destiny shared the elaborationson Russian The

- people and stress its special mission to be a linking force linking a be to mission special its stress and people th Saxon had “unequaled energy”, a “genius for colonizing” for “genius a energy”, “unequaled had Saxon

century that has conquered most of the Eurasian area, area, Eurasian the of most conquered has that century 54 273

building on the experience of the Russian the of experience the on building Eurasian world erican “special of obligation theUS – 403. Eurasian nations, it can be be can it nations, Eurasian 274

is used by the Russian Russian the by used is

iia expansionism Similar .

age ofChristianity age 275

hs even Thus,

The

CEU eTD Collection 278 277 276 post other the with describe relations to Russian used undoubtedly be can history common the of assertion the while re interference. American for premises unfounded wise other an to legitimacy of amount considerable a enjoy to seemed colonization European the military US by outraged often were interv states American Latin that fact the Despite Realpolitik framework.similar a adopt to seems elite political Russian The area. geographical given the in superiority clear a as serve can Hemisphere Western the from exclusion European the mainly doctrine, Monroe of urge foreignpolicy equally an occupy to seems concept This Darwinism3.5.3. Social Christianity,actually morewith EuropeAsia. tothe integration says ratherthan nation Russian the even, of heterogeneity nations, Eurasian numerous of religions Islamic the with compatible hardly is Eurasianism of heart very the in lies which Orthodoxy, Russian the claims, supremacy American of legitimacy the to speaks clearly culture Western of and

in fiily cnweg te eiiay f usa dominance Russian of legitimacy the acknowledge officially gion Nazarbaev N.A. Molineu,15 Williams,86 entions, the propagated idea of a linked destinies and shared goals of freedom from from freedom of goals shared and destinies linked a of idea propagated the entions,

276 Evraziyskiy Soyuz. Idei.Evraziyskiy Soyuz. Perspektivi Parktika.

as well as in the Russian one in the observed historical period. The mainThe period. observedhistorical the in one Russian the in as well as - cut manifestation cut

- Soviet states, the struggle would have been mainly mainly been have would struggle the states, Soviet .

of American political ambition and claim for the for claim and ambition political American of oevr te an otlt o Eurasianism, of postulate main the Moreover, 55 motn pae n h eecs o American of exercise the in place important .1994

- 1997. M, 1997M, 1997. 277

Some politicians in the CIS the in politicians Some

ie te peculiar the given . 278

Nevertheless,

CEU eTD Collection 281 280 279 i which interference, American of reinforcement prominent the most duringthe Nevertheless,Louisiana. and California, Texas, of acquisitions territorial in embodied well was imperialism American expansion. territorial the for partly 1889 in doctrine Monroe the that true is It area. neighboring the to relation in pretentions territorial their possible makes powers hegemonic the of positioning geographical a Such hegemon. presumed the to adjunct Monroe the both England, or France Portugal, Spain, of empires historical other the unlike and Similarly, doctrine Eurasianism and Monroe3.5.4. Are the territorial Assessing level Weof integration One? The of amongan lackunderstanding obvious and ofmutual friendship therepublics. sovereignty”. their “S 1889 in had have might states American Latin which expectations, e for speaks states American Latin inexperienced and formed newly the with relations Soviet post disillusioned the of many by humiliation a as directed xtensive encounter with Russia Russia with encounter xtensive

Areshev,27 Moshes,101 Arbatova oviet Syndrom” oviet itself. The so The itself. against Russia, while the assertion of the common heritage would be perceived be would heritage common the of assertion the while Russia, against “Russian and European Elites”and“RussianEuropean

- - called “brotherly nations” Eurasianism is counting for have a long and long a have for counting is Eurasianism nations” “brotherly called 279 rcamd etr hmshr ad h Eurasi the and hemisphere Western proclaimed 280

of the CIS states explains their perception of Russia as “a threat to threat “a as Russia of perception their explains states CIS the of Thus, a Thus,

further integration integration further

and do not share the naïve beliefs and optimistic optimistic and beliefs naïve the share not do and - 56 93 a uig Man a using was 1933

has small chances for success, as there isthere as success, for chances small has - Soviet nations. The contrast of post of contrast The nations. Soviet cniee t b n 1889 in be to considered s fs Dsiy concept Destiny ifest - an land massive are are massive land an 1933. The so The 1933. 281

- called called - - CEU eTD Collection 284 283 soit becamea protectorate 282 hardly be can it example, of power the by inspire and lead to able was state American splinter a as Russia current 1889 during empire American nascent the about talking when characteristic nations regional the of locomotive a become to nation hegemon a of potential actual an reflects it much how is ideologies two the of nature messianic a of light the in observed be to needs which criteria, important Another 3.5.5. Integrating Potential integration. Eurasian of way the on block stumbling a become might and clear not still are system Empire, future the of center the like issues the under territory Union Soviet the restore policy domestic a imperative, into transformed be to is ideology this of goal main the that clear Eur the of underpinning scholarly the and rhetoric the analyzing When state. common the into states American Latin include States to intended never United the continent, American whole the of lands vast the of domination the target its in expansion territorial outright an than rather concerns security and influence of sphere its of spreading the with preoccupied mainly areas. adjunct the in made been have acquisitions territorial no 1933, Prizel,52 Markov,258; Ivanov,83 Treaty In ofParis ’ passionarity ’

283

ht s h fre o rae n miti a ertra ett, hc would which entity, territorial a maintain and create to force the is that of of 1898

, it is all too obvious to observe the various degree of this ephemeral this of degree various the observe to obvious too all is it ,

Spainrelinquishedall claim

of a one time huge empire it used to be. While a growing a While be. to used it empire huge time one a of of the US1889 of

integration. of sovereignty over Cuba, but did notover cede the itto Cuba, did but of sovereignty United States, 57 - 284 1933 and Current1933 and Russia

ifrn auspices. different

h lyly f t ctzn ad economic and citizens its of loyalty the unn t Gmlvs li o the on claim Gumilev’s to Turning asianist foreign policy, it becomes becomes it policy, foreign asianist ed region. ed oe ao technical major Some Thus, while aimed at aimed while Thus,

282 -

h U was US The 1933 and the and 1933 CEU eTD Collection 289 288 287 286 285 “metropolis”. the to advantageous highly was but area, dominated the to benefit much bring not did mentioning,worth which, capitalism, outraged an on premised was doctrine di is however, policies, foreign imperial observed the the of isolationism American to the of reminiscent American proclamation. to eager were and doctrine Monroe the of nationalism that states Laruelle ideologies. stated the of underpinnings economic different very noting worth is it integration, of wi concerned greatly are doctrines policy foreign both While 3.5.6. Economic of the Two Ideologies Underpinnings pretensionsindications clearlysupportRussian for regional donot leadership. extinc to close is which the for case convincing Russians’ a do Russia in crisis demographic infection, HIV poverty, The ideas. follow. to example unanchored”, and “unhappy patriot Russian day modern calls to adequate more is evenmaimed, energy thougha to attributed

Laruelle,126 NicholasEberstadt, “T Funzullini,28 Tsygankov Trenin, “Of Power and Greatness.” PowerandGreatness.” “Of “ThePost continuing weakness. continuing

21st

etr i century - Western World” 196 WesternWorld”

heDyingBear.” Another comment would be the ability to claim a universality of one’s one’s universalityaof claimability the to be Anotherwould comment Germany, Weimar with Federation Russian current compare tion 289 deas must be kept be a stronger population. The indicators of indicators The population. stronger a be kept be must deas

Having an autarkic element in the very heart of Eurasianism is ofEurasianism intheheart autarkicvery Having element an 287 412

Foreign AffairsForeign

and is the lowest on the whole post whole the on lowest the is and even early Eurasists were attracted by a strong economic strong a by attracted were Eurasists early even 286

The coefficient of viability in Russia is 1.4 out of 5, of out 1.4 is Russia in viability of coefficient The

90,6.no. Essays2011),(December 210 - 58 reinforced Russian state. Trenin claims that it claims Treninstate. Russian reinforced

19 th century. The economic design of of design economic The century. th

ametrically opposite. Monroe Monroe opposite. ametrically adopt some ideas from such such from ideas some adopt th an economic imperative economic an th 285 - Soviet space. Soviet

ady n attractive an hardly

288

Such and

CEU eTD Collection 296 295 DemocraticSocieties.Papers. Foreign Policy Budapest:ManfredFoundation,Worner January 2012 294 293 292 423 291 practical the 290 to obstacles more exist there similarity, of degree high a despite conc can we ideologies, two the of frameworks theoretical the analyzed Having are touse. eager states CIS the for opportunities and alternatives more creates economy modern of as rath acabbala seeing from them preclude not do economy Soviet integrated an of dissolution the of consequences devastating times often an Thus, st CIS many Moreover, the EU West the with relations good maintain to elite Russian a up give should Russia and expensive too were states CIS the reintegrate to attempts previous “all stated, GDP. world the of % 2 only comprises Russia, overburden financially will scholars, economic and political numerous to according which, costs, leadership regional one’s declaring Clearly, integration. e command and Collectivist a advocating were Eurasists Hoperskaya,160 Tsygankov,

Orlik,36; Moshes, 106 Trenin, Nygren,241; Maksimov, 34; Accordingto A.Areshev usas an rdn prnr n ivso; oe, io Rfetos n EU on Reflections Vito. Bobek, investor; and partner trading main Russia’s

294 Post

do notsupport the ideaautarkiceconomic organization either. of Russian Foreign Policy: From Gorbachev Putin, Policy:to Russian Foreign From - Imperium

er than a viable economicalternative.a thaner ,37 y id f nertoit projects. integrationist of kind ny

291 it willhaveGermanyto be even in thethan more importantEU; 24 Areshev,

According to Trenin According

hc, ept is at ertre ad ih aua resources, natural rich and territories vast its despite which, ts r crety rig o ul a ibe om f capitalism. of form viable a build to trying currently are ates

,isolation; Russia afford cannot Trenin, 292

In February 2001 then Security Council Ivanov Council Security then 2001 FebruaryIn 231 59 Russia

- created economic integration projects integration economic created 293 295

vse itrs o te newborn the of interest vested A and an unrivalled trade level with with level trade unrivalled an and

An increased interconnectedness 290 - usa Trade Russia conomy style of an aspired aspired an of style conomy

er sgiiat economic significant bears “Of Power and Greatness.” Powerand “Of Relations. For Security in in Security For Relations.

lude that that lude , 296

they CEU eTD Collection p answer. negative a to suggest polls potent aforementioned is The patriotism. it Russian the whether of and resuscitation people Russian the by desirable post the actually with reunification a whether arises question the However, effect. unifying flag the around rally of cause a as served and nation American ambitious Itlargelywas enforcement. sup doctrine Monroe the timeof at US the strongin very was element nationalist The body. imperial any of success eventual the for support population of importance the shows empires world the of creation the of experience The 3.5.6. Public Opinion a and location time, historical geopolitical ofa neighboring configuration region. different a to due Eurasianism of implementation

- oit tts is states Soviet ported by by ported rom a erform CEU eTD Collection experience. So the of short fell would which union, a such of nature authoritarian and ideology binding necessary a as well as presuppose would union such frameworks trade created tren post the among than EU with trade more much is there that show indications Economic others. than equal more pos of level EU equal modeled stated times often an Moreover, questionable. and problematic very integration often of as interests well as itself concept the of perceptions Different elites. political fl in nature compensatory w that showed thesis This successfully Monroe implemented doctrine. a to concept the of comparison a with coupled integrate, to willingness leaders’ regional public concept, the of evaluations critics’ Eurasianism scholars, Eurasianist purpose. this for Eurasianism is helpful how was answer to strived I question The integration. abovementioned the for ideology an as employed currently influence the has Russia Conclusion a s n icmaiiiis ih h aprtos f epe n abtos f regional of ambitions and people of aspirations the with incompatibilities and ws d the attractiveness of such an alternative is very questionable due to the artificially artificially the to due questionable very is alternative an such of attractiveness the d

t the - Soviet states is observed. Clearly, while declaring equality Russia will be will Russia equality declaring while Clearly, observed. is states Soviet - based nature of a future alliance comes into doubt when a vastly different different vastly a when doubt into comes alliance future a of nature based

oiia representatives political

relation to the West, Eurasianism is full of numerous ideological ideological numerous of full is Eurasianism West, the to relation - and resources and Soviet states and even if Eurasian integration could reverse the the reverse could integration Eurasian if even and states Soviet hile having a wide appeal due to its inclusive character and and character inclusive its to due appeal wide a having hile needed for being a regional leader. Eurasianism leader. regional a being for needed of the prospective participants make Eurasian Eurasian make participants prospective the of 61

I used the writings of of writings the used I

support and and support - divergent viet

is - CEU eTD Collection rejectthe “Eurasianist project”;Dugin, 297 Idea Russian the of employment Eurasists’ dictate. ideological c “political so a Eurasianism, by propagated design, political the about Talking overlooked. alarmin is superiority and expansionism their of legitimation the for philosophers German classic the of utilization Nazis’ the of reminiscent is dominance regional Russian the of legitimation the and aims nationalist narrowly of pursuance the Gumilev’s as such postulates Eurasist Classic of adoption interstate An relations. and Ukraine on opinion official overarching the of representative is which state”, a even not is “Ukraine once remarked have to known is Putin Russia”. “Greater long ambitious that contend d Indeed, to “nearabroad” thana nationalism. Russian pure acceptable more much not is Eurasianism underpinning theoretical its to Due integration. for desire participants’ in role considerable a play integration of nature economic an with inter existing already an ideologies, the of character inclusive appealing similarly nor a despite feasible Thus, participants. possible economically the for neither acceptable politically is which project, Eurasian a of implementation p probably, most will, obstacles empirical of number a objectives, and framing ideological convergence aof inthe degree high Doctrine thatdespite showed Monroe American the of project imperial successful a with comparison conducted The

This,to Dugin,accordingshould automatically fromthe exclude public, andpoliti social espite Putin’s assertions that Russia has no territorial ambitions, many scholars scholars many ambitions, territorial no has Russia that assertions Putin’s espite orrectness” of a Eurasian type Eurasian a of orrectness”

“in the worst of scenarios for the future, Russia may indeed have more more have indeed may Russia future, the for scenarios of worst the “in - em betvs n tahn prin o nihoig territorie neighboring of portions attaching in objectives term

“RussiaCan Either orBe Not.” Be Great

297 62

is nothing more than an outright call for an for call outright an than more nothing is

578

state experience coupled coupled experience state wih mhszd the emphasized which , calthe life elements, which eld a successful a reclude g and must not be be not must and g pass ionarity t a to s - called

for CEU eTD Collection support, public low a to Due foreignpolicy. integrationist an pursue and regions CIS the in positions prominent maintain to continue will Russia the post of interest cultural political geostrategic and political actual narrow the to relevance their low its and interests of fulfillment the for elites current the of instrumentalization integration the of These elites political countries. the advocating of shifting the after form stable a be not will socio and economic strong of lack the elites’ to due that the for idea civilization a expansio territorial and of advancement monopolization the be would opposite The principles. and values democratic to adhere to has it identity,civilizational viable a create scientific citizens, its of level welfare achievements rights andhuman as well situation the by image its creates country a Usually Russian the among population. priority a not is power political show polls The people. Russian challenge to is seem acceptable how not is does question The autarky assumption. Tsygankov’s for urges the with coupled past Soviet the of reevaluation A only. power political Russian of restoration the with but standards living people. been actually Russian never have Eurasists of Tsygankov, to According prosperity economic the of collapse the and exploitation elites’ of situation a to led and backfired times multiple has enthusiasm, and belief on reliance - Soviet s Soviet

tates.

prhnin ae go ilsrto o te Eurasianism the of illustration good a are apprehensions . ay f h pro the of Many n. 63

as its capacity to innovate. If capacity its as Russia isto toinnovate. - political interest, the Eurasian Union Eurasian the interest, political - the nerto atos understand authors integration

apprehensive attitude of the of attitude apprehensive

concerned with concerned uh n miin o the for ambition an such s ustaining - CEU eTD Collection forthe observed a successfulof future region. acreation Russian of territori or political without cooperation humanitarian the on impact economic and influence cultural valuable and considerable a spread to continue which France, or level imperial the on stay to states neighbor reintegrate to need Russia does Neither standards. living and economy Russian the to boost necessary with integration territorial and further economic closer a to lead will resources stagnation consequential and economics regional the natural of degradation Asian Central and Russian of depletion the from Apart growth. price oil and economies Western the of a such of success The Union. Eurasian a of creation the of chance low a is there integration su a conduct to inability objective Russia’s and regions, neighboring Eurasian project will be conditional upon the continuation of the economic stagnation economic the of continuation the upon conditional be will project Eurasian

non - nesv caatr f popcie uain cnm ad n unavoidable an and economy Eurasian prospective a of character intensive - led “big space” is not only a preferable a only “bigisnot space” led ir

ex - oois A utdmninl cnmc sinii and scientific economic, multidimensional A colonies. 64

the post al integration of CIS states and the the and states CIS of integration al -

Soviet region will not bring a a bring not will region Soviet taking the examples of Britain Britain of examples the taking ,

but the only possible option possible only but the the aforementioned factors, aforementioned the and social unrest. A A unrest. social and ccessful regional regional ccessful

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

Publishing Limited,Publishing 2009. Meets Power Nationalism: Po Chaudet,Parmentier, Didier,Benoit Florent and Pelopidas.Em When Politics. World in Order New York:University Press, Colombia 1977. of Study A Society: Anarchical The Y Hedley. Bull, New Security ed. 1st Praeger Chessboard. Books, 1997. Grand London: The Zbigniew. Brzezinski, International. Security International, 2006. US of Praeger History A Relations. Bridges: and Borders Stewart. Brewer, 5 (1992): 36 Pol Russian in Interest “National Aleksei. Bogaturov, Worner Manfred Budapest: Papers. Foundation, January 2012. Policy Foreign Societies. EU Democratic on Reflections Vito. Modern The Bobek, Eurasianism: and In History Idea.” Eurasian Theoretical and Pra Potential “The the Shirokova. Around Discussions Marina Theoretical and Valentin, Barkalov, 2013. 3, edja_1.html. August http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/26/opinion/26iht 1993. 02 Bosnia,” in War Affairs, NATO a “For Foreign Vladimir. Baranovsky, Doctrine.” “Putin’s http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139049/leon Leon. Aron, Eurasian The or I Stones...” Gather to Time “The USSR: the of up Break the After Years 20 InIntegration.” the of Risks and “Challenges Andrei. Areshev, gov/PB5_EU_RUSSIA_PARTNERSHIP.pdf. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/12/sec Partnership ——— http://ru.ruseu.com/blog/politic/details_35.html. Russia ——— 2011. http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2003/4/arbat.h ——— 01006/20100622cv_arbatova_en.pdf. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/2 International Nadia Alternatives.” with Interview Nadia. Arbatova, Policy Foreign Practical Security 43. (1993): 18,no.2 “Russia’s and Alexei. Potential Arbatov, Theoretical The Applications, 115 Eurasianism: Russia In of Concept Eurasianists.” “The N. N. Alekseeva, ntegration Today,ntegration 15 -

“h EU “The . Politics. Reflection.” Mirror a in Elites European and “Russian . Hall, Journal The Europe.” Bigger and Russia on Time More “One . –

42. Europe: Partnership and Success, 2010. 2010. Success, and Partnership Europe:

– - 123. Barnaul, 2010. usa atesi: Nw otx. Erpa Strategic European Context.” New a Partnership: Russia

– 38. ZAO “Knigniy38. Mir”, 2012. bevtr (uy 2012). (July Observatory

cticalBarnaul, Applications. 2009.

litics intheUS litics 65 -

usa rd Rltos Fr euiy in Security For Relations. Trade Russia

- usa U Itreto t End to Intervention UN Russian

raoa IEO Arl 6 2013. 26, April IMEMO, Arbatova, - and Cornwall: Russia. Ashgate

- uai i te Philos the in Eurasia

tml. -

aron/the

itics.” Svobodnaya Misl Svobodnaya itics.” - - putin ai American Latin

- doctrine. r: Basic ork: pire ophy of of ophy the

- CEU eTD Collection

38. 37. 36. 35. 34. 33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17.

brtd, ihls “h Dig er” oeg Afis 0 n. . Essays 6. no. 90, Affairs (December 2011): 95 Foreign Bear.” Dying “The Nicholas. Eberstadt, Foundations 759 ofEurasianism, ——— Eurasianism, 521 ——— 5 ——— Eurasianism, 564 ——— ——— ——— 503. Moscow:Center, Arktogey 2002. ——— THE+VIEWS+OF+ALEXANDER+DUGIN. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RUSSIAN+ ——— Eurasianism, 781 ——— Arktogey Center, 2002. ——— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin. ——— Foundations 534 ofEurasianism, ——— http://www.alleng.ru/d/polit/pol043.htm. ——— Programme Materials. Moscow: ROF 2005. “Eurasia”, ——— 2009. Movement, 2011. 18, June ——— Studies, January 2001.http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/Manifesto.html. European Movement,” Eurasian the of Manifest All: Above “Eurasia Alexandr. East Dugin, for http://www.css.eth Association German Bremen: Digest. Analytical Russian Schroder. the Henning and Marsel, Haas, De of http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/76389FEC168189ED44257B2E0039B16D. Affairs of Foreign Ministry The Federation.” Russian the of Policy Foreign the of “Concept 2012. Economic Eurasian Chubais the of http://www.mgimo.ru/news/experts/document237677.phtml. Difficulties Policy “The Integr Foreign Gorbachev Stanislav. the Chernyavsky, and Institutions, WorldPoliticsRevolution.” 45(January 271 1993): “Ideas, Jeff. Checkel, 03 – 521. Arktogey 2002. Center,

to, Arl 4 2013. 24, April ation,” “h Tra fr usa n te erh o Idniy” n The In Indentity.” of for Search Foundations the The and Russia In for State.” Threat “The Eurasian . a of Theory “The . Eurasianism, of Foundations The In West.” the of Overcoming “The . of Foundations The In Politics.” Eurasian of Principles Major “The . . The ofGeopolitics. Foundations Arktogey 2000. Center, . The Forth Theory. Political Petersburg: St. 2009. Amfora, 485 Eurasianism, of Foundations The In Triumph.” Eurasian “The . 2001. Dugin, Alexandr of Views The Today: Nationalism Russian of . Foundations The In Not.” 2013. Be or Great Be 24, Either Can “Russia April. MSU, Dugin, 574 Eurasianism, of Foundations The In “Isolation?” Alexandr . with Interview o years . thousand two us 2000. returned Center, “He Mission: . Arktogey Moscow: Eurasian Geopolitics. of International Foundations In . Milestones.” “Eurasian . 1:177 Leviafan, In Critique.” “Eurasian . , Igor. The Russian Idea. Russia Discovered. Moscow: Akva Term, Term, Akva Moscow: Discovered. Russia Idea. Russian The Igor. , – – –

786. Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, 534. Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, 574. Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, z.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD – 108.

usa Fdrto, eray 8 2013. 18, February Federation, Russian 66 – –

766. Moscow: 541. Moscow: Arktogey Center, 2002.

NATIONALISM+TODAY%3A+ - a077712793. a077712793. -

62.pdf. Arktogey Center, 2002. – – 300. or itr. I The In history.” our f 8. ocw Eurasian Moscow: 188.

– 579.

Moscow:

– CEU eTD Collection

58. 57. 56. 55. 54. 53. 52. 51. 50. 49. 48. 47. 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. 41. 40. 39.

InstituteInternational Affairs, iof 1998. Royal The Relations. of Web New A Asia: Central and Russia Lena. Jonson, a as Inside A. Jack, University Oxford Oxford: Russia. Putin’s Press, 2004. “Eurasianism po Tyugashev. values, ideas, E.A. Barnaul: 2007. Barnaul, AGAU key and Eurasiansim: In U.V., Viewpoint.” Popkov A.V., Ivanov, Western of Coordination Global BusinessPolitics. Network, 2005. for Prospects Russia? with Eurasian Deal The We Should or How Stones...” Gather to Time “The Integration Today, 137 USSR: the of up Break the After Years 20 In Asia.” Central of Arguments “The Larysa. Hoperskaya, EuropeanInternational of Journal 17(November Relations 2010): 381 Is http://www.ng.ru/cis/2013 Policy: Foreign American in “Exceptionalism K.J. Holsti, blue.” 2013. the 16, of 16/7_lukashenko.html. out January integrate Gazeta, not Nezavisimaya will “Lukashenko Antonia. Hodasevich, Press, 1982. Un Berkeley:Thoughts. and Past My Alexander. Herzen, Neo Semi “The J. Kathleen Hancock, OOO “Izdatelstvo 2004. AST”, E The of Rhythms or The Lev. Stones...” Gymilev, Gather to Time “The USSR: EurasianIntegration Today, 166 the of up The Break the In After Years 20 Grief.” In Globalization.” of Context the “Disillusionment in “Ukraine Tamara. Guzenkova, Ermolaev. V.U. Foundations 263 ofEurasianism, and L.N., Gumilev, 2013. 479 Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, Eurasianism, of Foundations The In Empire.” 10, Eurasian an as only Russi if secret: a you tell March will “I L.N. Gumilev, Ukraine,” 1:198 Eurasian Leviafan, Movement, 2011. In Limits.” “Eurasian to Vladislav. Gulevich, Gas development, 19 Cut Gr 2012. 19, May http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7024294.stm. July Relations, “Gazprom International of http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=625#top. Council Russian Analytic. “Socio Rustam. Ganiev, Interest 76. AcademicLibrary 57 Research (2004): National The Moment.” Neoconservative “The Francis. Fukuyama, in the Problem. Ufa, 2008. Insight Modern Temptation: Eurasian Sviridenko. A.A. and F.S., Funzullini, Foundations 166 ofEurasianism, (1927) “Eurasianism hm Toa. Rsi ad h Wrd” n usa 00 seais of scenarios 2020: Russia In World.” the and “Russia Thomas. aham, - Empire.” Foreign Policy Analysis117 no.6(2006):

– 37. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012. 37. Moscow: ROSSPEN,

– -

165. ZAO “Knigniy2012. 165. Mir”, - a collective work of the first Eurasists.” In The The In Eurasists.” first the of work collective a utrl B Cultural

– 67 – –

187. Moscow: ZAO “Knigniy Mir”, 2012. 187. Moscow: 180. Moscow: Arktogey Center, 2 475. Moscow: Arktogey Ce - urasia: Epochs and Civilizations. Moscow: Civilizations. and Epochs urasia:

Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian Russian the and Belarus State: Sovereign cgon o te uain Integration.” Eurasian the of ackground

– 68.

a will be saved, that will be be will that saved, be will a iia pirte, 6 priorities, litical

– iversity of California California of iversity 136. nter, 2002. It Exceptional?” Exceptional?” It

– 203. Moscow: Moscow: 203. 002. –

403.

– 485. – - 01 85.

- CEU eTD Collection

77. 76. 75. 74. 73. 72. 71. 70. 69. 68. 67. 66. 65. 64. 63. 62. 61. 60. 59.

Moshes, Arkady. “Russia and the New ‘Transitional’ Europe.” In Russia Russia In Europe.” ‘Transitional’ New 2020: Scenarios 95 of Development, the and “Russia Arkady. Moshes, WestviewGlobalism. Oxford: Press, 1990. to Regionalism From America: Latin Towards Policy U.S. Harold. Molineu, Relations (2006). Dilem Security the and Identity State Politics: World in Security “Ontological Jennifer. Mitzen, 2013. 25, April MGIMO, http://www.mgimo.ru/users/document234078.phtml. Elnur, Mehdiev with Interview Elnur. Mehdiev, Princeton One, August 2008. 31, Jersey: New In Dmitri. Idea. Medvedev, Nikitina Russian 1996. Press, The University of Agony The Tim. McDaniel, Political Policy.” Foreign and SocietyCulture and Civil (n.d.): inRussia 137. Parties Political “Russian Sergey. Markov, 97. Plymouth: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers. 53 Politics, Power Great of Return The Policy: Foreign Russian In Policy.” Pol Power ——— Great of Return Plymouth:Inc, Rowman&Littlefield Publishers. 2011. The In Policy: Union.” Soviet Foreign Former 2013. The Russian Offensive? the on “Back Jeffrey. Mankoff, NewPress, York:1994. Martin’s St. Prospects. Future and Importance Strategic Its Asia: Central ed. Hafiz, Malik, USA, EU.” 27 RF, Actors: World Major the of Interests Geopolitical Unintended “The I.V. Maksimov, 1660 History, Upon of Power Sea Little,Boston:Brown 1890. Co, and of World Influence The T. the Alfred Mahan, in of scenarios 2020: Russia devel Place In Order.” and Law “Russia’s Murphy’s or Consequences, Fyodor. http://www.yabloko.ru/Persons/Lukin/lukinLukyanov, 1995. outkin95 Ru Moscow, Utkin. A.I. Alienation? and V.P., Lukin, (2002). 2 no. 48, Affairs International Concerns.” Greater Century, “New V.P. Lukin, Macmillan, 2007. Russia In Niki Lomagin, List,“The Friedrich. System National ofPoliticalEconomy,” 1841. 104 Empire, of 190. Moscow: Natalis,2004. Greatness the on Thoughts The or Eurasianism Russian of “Eurasianism Marlene. Laruelle, http://www.memoid.ru/node/Karimov_opredelilsya_s_Evrazijskim_soyuzo May Accessed 20, Memoid. Soyuzom.” Evraziyskim s Opredelilsya “Karimov Eurasian Mentality, 21 Karickiy opment, 77

. “Bulldogs Fighting Under the Rug: The Making of Russian Foreign Russian of Making The Rug: the Under Fighting “Bulldogs . , I.N., and V.F. Petrenko. “Eurasianism and the National Identity.” In Identity.” National the and “Eurasianism Petrenko. V.F. and I.N., , - 1.html.

Re : – ta. “Forming a New Security Identity Under Vladimir Putin.” Putin.” Vladimir Under Identity Security New a “Forming ta. 43. Moscow: Moscow State U 43. Moscow: –

mrig ra Pwr 31 Power, Great emerging 95. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012. 95. Moscow: ROSSPEN, a” AE 2 n. . uoen ora o International of Journal European 3. no. 12, SAGE ma.”

– 45. Moscow, 2012. 45.

68 -

egahcIelg. nTe Ideology The In Ideology.” Geographic a

– ssia and the West: A Community or or Community A West: the and ssia 110. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012. 110. Moscow: ROSSPEN,

niversity, 2010.

Inc, 2009. –

4 Nw ok Palgrave York: New 54.

terview with Channel Channel with terview

tc, 241 itics,

- 1783. 1783. – 293. m. – – -

CEU eTD Collection

94. 93. 92. 91. 90. 89. 88. 87. 86. 85. 84. 83. 82. 81. 80. 79. 78.

ui’ Sec i Mnc, 2007. Munich, in http://www.ng.ru/world/2000 Gather to 240 Speech 2012.Mir, Today, Time Integration “The Eurasian 2000. In The or Integration.” Stones...” for “Ideology Gulbaat. Rchiladze, h 14, Putin’s 14/1_east_prospects.html. November Gazeta. Nezavisimaya Perspectives.” Eastern New “Russia: Vladimir. Putin, Over.”Foreign 76 (1993): Policy R Eurasia: from “Letter A. Pushkov, Post and 103.Cambridge:Studies CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998. Soviet Russian, Cambridge Ukraine. and Russia Poland, in Leadershipand Nationalism Policy: Foreign Identityand Ilya. National Prizel, May 15, 2013.http://www.odnako.org/blogs/shOdnako, outlook.” an to trend a from “Eurasianism: Vladimir. Poluev, EurasianIntergration Today, 105 In Leadership.” Russian The the or Stones...” Gather to Time“The USSR: the of up Break the After Years of Universalism “The Viktor. Pirogenko, Today, 203 Intergration Eurasian The or Stones...” Gather to Time “The USSR: the of up 81 Petrosyan West, the of Fate PraegerInternational, 2011. Security the and Geopolitics Eurasian ——— 112 West, Santa Barbara:International, Praeger Security 2011. the of Fate the and Geopolitics Eurasian Island: World The In Eurasia.” for Strategy Geopolitical Century XXI “A Alexandros. Petersen, Em the Amfora, 2006. and Putin Jeanne. Parvoulesky, RAN, 2009. “Neo I.I. Orlik, Palgrave 2007. Macmillan, London: Re Series. 218 Europe P Great “Russia’s Ingmar. Oldberg, Countries, Eastern CIS and the Routledge, 2008. Russia Towards Contemporary Policy Routledge Foreign Putin’s Russia: 2013. Ny 26, April MGIMO, Nikitina, http://www.mgimo.ru/nikitina/. Yulia with Interview Yulia. Nikitina, December 5, 2009. http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html. Council, Security National Russian 2020.” Until Strategy Security “National EurasianIntegration Today, 3 20 The or Stones...” Gather In to Time “The Realities.” USSR: the of Geopoliticalup break the after New years the in “Russia Natalia. Narochitskaya, ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8if0ELE0ow. - gren, Bertil, “Russia as a Regional Power.” In The Rebuilding of Greater of Rebuilding The In Power.” Regional a as “Russia Bertil, gren, mrig ra Pwr eie b Rgr ae, 13 Kanet, Roger by edited Power, Great emerging “ . , David. “The Armenian Crossroads.” In 20 Years After the Break the After Years 20 In Crossroads.” Armenian “The David. , h Wrd sad n h XI etr. I Te ol Island: World The In Century.” XXI the in Island World The

–

220. Moscow: ZAO “Knigniy2012. 220. Moscow: Mir”,

- Eurasianism.” In Eurasianism: History and Modernity, 22 Modernity, and History Eurasianism:In Eurasianism.”

– 14. ZAO “Knig 14.

69 – – 135. ZAO “Knigniy135. Mir”, 2012. 90.

ower Ambition Under Putin.” In Russia In Putin.” Under Ambition ower

ussia and America: The Honeymoon Is Honeymoon The America: and ussia ow_25612/. ie f h Ed S. Petersburg: St. End. the of pire niy Mir”, 2012. niy

–

5. ocw Knigniy Moscow: 252.

– 1. at Barbara: Santa 112.

– 1 Nw York: New 31.

- Soviet Soviet – – – 249. 146. -

11 44. 20

- : CEU eTD Collection

112. 111. 110. 109. 108. 107. 106. 105. 104. 103. 102. 101. 100. 99. 98. 97. 96. 95.

mrcns i Russia.” Post Politics? in Power or Americanism “Culture Skaidra. Trilupaityte, EndowmentInternational for Press, 2011. ——— T Dmitrii and UniversityNew 2011. York: Yourk Press, New Dutkiewicz of Challenges Piotr The by Russia: edited In Transformation, Greatness.” and Power “Of Dmitrii. Trenin, development, 59 ——— Center, 2008. Mosco Carnegie 10. Vol. Diplomacy.” Coercive “Russia’s Dmitri. Trenin, resistible http://www.project 2013. 15, May Syndicate, Fal Resistible “The ResearchHumanities, 2012. the for Centre MTA Budapest: Papers. Policy Foreign Societies. Democratic in Security For (2000 Putin to Putin From Policy: Foreign Russia’s Zoltan. Biro, Sz. Russian of Context 15,2013. htt March the Relations, International of in Council Russian Analytic. Integrtion Relations.” “Eurasian Marina. Armonk: 272. Stregneva, Shectsova, Lilia and Motyl Sharpe, 2005. Alexander by Integ edited and Century, Transformation West; the with Engagement Russia’s In Partnership.” of Paradoxes Russia: and “America Angela. Stent, University 3rded.Oxford World. New2008. Press, York: Sm russia. (December http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63008/dimitri 6 no. 86, Affairs 2007). Foreign Russia.” “Loosing K. Dmitri Simes, Affairs(February 122 90,no.1 2011): And Shleifer, New York: 2000. Palgrave Macmillan, Anti Zubok. Press, V. and E., Shiraev, Chicago of University Political. the 1996. of Concept The Carl. Schmitt, Relat Eur Foreign ——— on 305 Continent “The P.N. Council Savickiy, Report. http://www.cfr.org/iran/russias Force Independent the USCanand WrongDo. Russia’ What Should Task Direction: deal http://www.france24.com/en/20111125 2011. 26, November 24, ag News Pipelines.” Gas Belarus of Ownership Secures “Russia ith, Peter. Talons of the Eagle: Latin America, the United States, and the and States, United the America, Latin Eagle: the of Talons Peter. ith, asianism, 281 – - power 324. Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center,

Post . of scenarios 2020: Russia In Outlook.” Policy Foreign “Russia’s . of Foundations The In Fate.” Historical a as Eurasianism “The . p://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=1546#top. - fall - putin -

e, n Dne Tesa. Wy ocw as o” Foreign No.” Says Moscow “Why Treisman. Daniel and rei, of - meim A uain tr. ahntn C Carnegie DC: Washington Story. Eurasian A Imperium: - – europe - – 75. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012. 75. Moscow: ROSSPEN, belarus 295. Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, l of Europe: An Interview with George Soros.” Project Project Soros.” George with Interview An Europe: of l -- - an pipeline -

interview - n h Pltcl osqecs f Anti of Consequences Political The In - wrong - 70 ca. I Te onain o Eurasianism, of Foundations The In Ocean.” Americanism in Russia: From Stalin to Putin. to Stalin From Russia: in Americanism - ukraine

- - – direction/p9997. with

138.

lukashenko -

george -

syndicate.org/commentary/the

- soros.

ions, March 2006. 2006. March ions, -

moscow.

ain n h XXI the in ration

- od a Anti War Cold ei, 407 renin, - k

- simes/losing ency. France France ency. - russias - 2012). – - 433. - gas EU EU w - - - - - CEU eTD Collection

130. 129. 128. 127. 126. 125. 124. 123. 122. 121. 120. 119. 118. 117. 116. 115. 114. 113.

Sources of Russian Foreign Policy After the Cold War, edited by Celeste Celeste by edited War, Cold the Wallander. Boulder After Policy Foreign Russian of Sources The In Policy.” Foreign and People “Russian Snyder. Jack and Zimmermann, (2008). L.Z.“PostZevin, London:Their Culture. Mur John and Poles the YearHistoryThousandof A Way: Polish TheZamoyski,Adam. New York: Rouledge, 2004. 79 Policy, Security and Foreign Union European In “Poli Andrei. Zagorski, Yedinaya Declaration, 2011.http://er.ru/party/program/. Programme Rossiya andRouledge, History.New York: 2012. U.S. Understanding Eric. Mark Williams, “Post Int David. Benn, Wedgwood development, 113 of scenarios 2020: Russia In 2020.” Caucasus South “The Thomas. Waal, De In Foundations Moscow:Center, ofEurasianism. Arktogey 2002. Y Ideas.” Mongolian Juridicial “The G.V. Few Vernadsky, Eurasia: Real a Leviafan, 3:221 Build “To Marius. Vacarelu, 221. Second. Plymouth: Rowman&LittlefieldInc, Publishers. 2010. Id National in Continuity and Change Policy: Foreign Russia’s In ——— Nauchnaya Kniga, 2008. ——— It 38 Does Post What of Problems West?” Assertiveness: the for Mean International “Russia’s Andrei. Tsygankov, Moscow: Arktogey 2002. Center, ——— 2002. Eurasianism of Foundations The In ——— of Eurasianism, 200 Foundations The In Nationalism.” Eurasian Common “The N.S. Trubeckoy, Neo a Towards Road Russia’s In Nations.” Brotherly Other and Belarus Ukraine, Russia, of Factor Influence and Power Unity: Slavic “The Eugeniy. Troickiy, Europ Durham:Studies. University Duke 1986. Press, Eastern in Union Soviet the and America in LatinStates United The States: Subordinate and Powers Dominant Jan. Triska, 74 Malbasic, Ivona York: Routledge, 2008. and Higgot Richard by edited Americanism, – ernational Affairs 89, no. 1(2013):ernational 175 Affairs 89, 55. - Empire: Eurasianism, 71 Empire: Eurasianism,

Rsin oeg Plc: rm obce t Ptn Moscow: Putin. to Post “The Gorbachev . From Policy: Foreign Russian . 180 Eurasianism, of Foundations The In Others.” the and “We . East.” the from but West, from the History not onRussian . “TheView – 232. Moscow: Eurasian Movement, 2012. Eurasian232. Moscow: Movement, - – Soviet Economic Space Evolution.” Society and Economy 3 3 and Economic EconomySoviet Society SpaceEvolution.” - 125. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012.Moscow: ROSSPEN, 125. Western World and Russia’s Search for a New Direction.” New a for Search Russia’s and World Western : Westview Press,: Westview 1996. – 208. Moscow: Arktogey208. 2002. Center,

cies Towards Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.” and Moldova Ukraine, Russia, Towards cies

– 127. Moscow 71 rey, 1987.

omns ad h Rsin Public.” Russian the and Communism 208 , k i te usa Hist Russian the in oke - Commu

– - – 179. Theory Relations: American Latin

266. Moscow: Arktogey Center, Center, Arktogey Moscow: 266. : Granica, 2013.

nism 55, no. 2 (April 2008): 2008): (April 2 no. 55, nism

– 98. Roland Dannreuther. Roland 98. e. Duke Press Policy Policy Press Duke e.

r. In ory.” entity, 201 entity,

– 1 New 91. – 194. The

–