This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ The meaning of geopolitical space the importance of Eurasia for Russia and Turkey Svarin, David Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 02. Oct. 2021 The Meaning of Geopolitical Space: The Importance of Eurasia for Russia and Turkey David Svarin Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Department of War Studies, King’s College London 1 Abstract The aim of this PhD project is to conduct a critical geopolitical analysis of the meaning of Eurasia for Russia and Turkey. More generally, it focuses on the importance of ‘space’ and the geographical situation of a country in the formulation of its foreign policy. This project has two aims. First, it aims to depict the place of Eurasia in Russia’s and Turkey’s foreign policy outlook in terms of their regional and geographical orientation. More generally, it is interested in Russian and Turkish self-perception of their place in the international system. On a second level, this project is interested in the concept of ‘geopolitical space’ and the way in which geographical and geopolitical imaginations influence Russian and Turkish foreign policy. This thesis treats geography not only as a fixed entity but also as a discursive practice. Hence, governing elites, policy makers and other actors attach meaning to geographical space through discourse. With regard to foreign policy practice, the geopolitical imagination and personal interpretations of geographical realities by governing elites play a crucial role. Given these considerations, this thesis is grounded in a critical geopolitical understanding of international relations. This thesis studies the meaning of Eurasia for Russia and Turkey and its place in their respective foreign policy. It does so via an analysis of the two countries’ government discourse, that is all public speech acts such as interviews and political speeches. Notions of national identity, geopolitical imagination and how they influence foreign policy are thus at the core of this research project. This thesis postulates that Eurasia emerged as a new object of study following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because this major historical event and the disappearance of the most important Eurasian empire freed up the interpretative space for new discussions about the meaning of Eurasia. This applies to the case of Russia and Turkey, where Eurasia occupies an important position, while there obviously are diverging interpretations and historical conceptions of Eurasia in the Russian and Turkish contexts. The main argument is that the concept of Eurasia is a central feature in Russian and Turkish government discourse. It is also an instrumental concept in that it allows the attribution of different characteristics to Russian and Turkish foreign policy. As such, Eurasia functions as an important zone for Russia’s and Turkey’s economic development, their political power or role as powerful and influential players in the international system. 2 Table of contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 2 Table of contents ............................................................................................................. 3 Table of tables and figures ............................................................................................. 7 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Scope and purpose of research .............................................................................. 11 1.1.1 Case studies: Russia and Turkey .................................................................... 12 1.1.2 Discourse analysis .......................................................................................... 13 1.2 Research questions ................................................................................................ 14 1.3 Main findings ........................................................................................................ 15 1.4 Structure of the thesis ............................................................................................ 19 Chapter 2: Theory and methodological framework .................................................. 21 2.1 Geopolitics, foreign policy and discourse ............................................................. 22 2.1.1 Critical geopolitics ......................................................................................... 25 2.1.1.1 The foundations of critical geopolitics .................................................... 28 2.1.2 Foreign policy analysis and critical geopolitics ............................................. 32 2.1.3 The notion of discourse in critical geopolitics ............................................... 34 2.1.4 Discourse analysis .......................................................................................... 37 2.2 Methodological framework ................................................................................... 40 2.2.1 Sample and selection criteria ......................................................................... 40 2.2.2 Qualitative analysis ........................................................................................ 46 2.2.2.1 Limitations of my approach .................................................................... 51 2.2.3 Fieldwork/Interviews ..................................................................................... 52 2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 54 Chapter 3: Russian and Turkish foreign policy since the 1990s ............................... 56 3.1 Russian foreign policy in the post-Cold War era .................................................. 57 3.1.1 Russian foreign policy, 1991-2000 ................................................................ 57 3.1.2 Russian foreign policy under Putin, 2000-2008 ............................................. 60 3 3.1.3 Russian foreign policy under Medvedev, 2008-2012 .................................... 63 3.1.4 Russian foreign policy under Putin 2.0 .......................................................... 65 3.1.5 Principles of Russian foreign policy .............................................................. 69 3.2 Turkish foreign policy in the post-Cold War era .................................................. 73 3.2.1 The structural determinants of Turkish foreign policy .................................. 73 3.2.2 Turkish foreign policy, 1991-2002 ................................................................ 77 3.2.3 2002: the AKP and Erdoğan come to power .................................................. 79 3.2.4 Reformulation of Turkish foreign policy (and the impact of Davutoğlu) ...... 83 3.3 Russia-Turkey relations since the end of the Cold War ........................................ 87 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 91 Chapter 4: The concept of Eurasia .............................................................................. 93 4.1 Eurasia as a geopolitical concept after the Cold War ........................................... 94 4.1.1 Eurasia in academia and policy circles .......................................................... 97 4.2 The concept of Eurasia in Russia ........................................................................ 100 4.2.1 Classical Eurasianism .................................................................................. 100 4.2.2 Neo-Eurasianism .......................................................................................... 106 4.2.3 Eurasian ideas in Russia today ..................................................................... 113 4.2.4 Eurasian integration ..................................................................................... 117 4.3 The concept of Eurasia in Turkey ....................................................................... 122 4.3.1