Search results

PurposeAfter the collapse of the USSR, Eurasian integration projects, proposed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey, began to develop in the post-Soviet space. Hence, there is growing interest in Eurasianism as an ideology. In this context, the study of the use of the Eurasianism's ideas in practice becomes relevant. The argument of this article is that Russia, Turkey, and Kazakstan have their own interpretations of Eurasianism's ideas to develop the ideological basis of their own integration projects. The purpose of the article is to answer the question: How is the Eurasianism used in integration projects of Russia, Turkey and Kazakstan?Design/methodology/approachThe concept of Eurasianism has been viewed in terms of constructivism. On the basis of the principles of social constructivism, and in particular the works of constructivist ideologue Alexander Wendt, a comparative analysis was made. The ideas of Eurasianism in the integration processes of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey has been carried out based on the criteria such as the role of common ideas, identity, consciousness, memory and culture. The examples of mentioned countries were compared, to consider the development of the ideas of Eurasianism in practice.FindingsThe ideas of Eurasianism have a significant impact on the integration processes of the post-Soviet space. Eurasianism advocates for important factors such as respect for cultural and civilizational differences between different nations, their equality in the overall union and common development opportunities. Such factors are undoubtedly important for the success of integration projects. The reflection of many individual thoughts of classical Eurasians and Neo-Eurasians can be seen in the statements of various ministers and leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. The initiatives of these countries in creating integration projects also show the influence of the Eurasian concept.Originality/valueIn the 1990s, the study of Eurasianism gained new significance in academic circles. Articles and periodicals devoted to this concept were published. However, all parallels between variations in concepts of Eurasianism have been conducted on a theoretical level. The importance of this article lies in the fact that conceptual differences are compared in practice. Researchers had not previously considered the study of the relevance and productivity of Eurasianism in practice by comparing examples and experiences from different countries. The novelty of this article lies in its attempt to solve this problem.

Despite the fact that a lot of research has been devoted to the study of Eurasianism, both in Russia and abroad, the international scientific community seems to still lack a common understanding of both the term "Eurasianism" and its derivatives. And we can talk not only about the socio-political, cultural, philosophical and religious definition of these concepts, but even about the geographical. If the difference in the humanitarian aspects of this issue can be explained in terms of the difference between the social system, ideology, and political structure, then the divergence in the geographical understanding of the Eurasian space and its borders can cause surprise. At the same time, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western scientists began to resort more and more geographically to the regionalization of the world political map, dividing the regions into increasingly smaller fractions right up to the redrawing of national borders, justifying in their writings the emergence of new political entities as a natural course of history, bloc approach of the Cold War period, but also the basic constants of geopolitical science about the confrontation of two global forces: sea and land. In terms of the same geopolitics, the land forces are represented by the "world island", Heartland or Eurasia. However, according to the English dictionary Collins, the term "Eurasia" since 2006, the number of its uses in the English-language literature began to grow rapidly, breaking all records of use, since its inception, and occupying a place of honor among other 30,000 most common words. It seems that this interest is caused by the West's awareness of the fact that Russia was able to overcome the turbulence of the nineties and gradually began to restore its positions, primarily in the outward political arena. Thus, before our eyes there is a return to the topic of Eurasianism among international scholars, but already in new geopolitical realities. With the change in realities, the perception of the basic category of geopolitics-space also changed, which in turn led to a difference in the interpretation of the term "Eurasia" and its derivatives. ; Несмотря на то что вопросу изучения евразийства посвящено много исследовательских работ, как в России, так и за рубежом, в международном научном сообществе, как представляется, до сих пор отсутствует единое понимание как самого термина «евразийство», так и его производных. Причем речь может идти не только о социально-политическом, культурном, философском и религиозном определении этих понятий, но даже и о географическом. Если различие в гуманитарных аспектах этого вопроса можно объяснить с точки зрения разности общественного строя, идеологии, политического устройства, то расхождения в географическом понимании евразийского пространства и его границ могут вызвать удивление. При этом западные ученые после распада Советского Союза стали все активнее прибегать к географическому районированию мировой политической карты, деля регионы на все более незначительные фракции вплоть до перекраивания границ национальных государств, оправдывая в своих трудах возникновение новых политических образований естественным ходом истории, оставляя в прошлом не только блоковый подход периода «холодной войны», но и основные константы геополитической науки о противостоянии двух глобальных сил: морских и сухопутных. В терминах все той же геополитики сухопутные силы представлены «мировым островом», Хартлендом или Евразией. По данным английского словаря Коллинза, количество употреблений термина «Евразия» с 2006 г. в англоязычной литературе стало стремительно расти, побив все рекорды, начиная с момента своего появления и заняв почетное место среди других 30 000 наиболее употребительных слов. Как представляется, данный интерес вызван осознанием Западом того факта, что Россия смогла преодолеть турбулентность девяностых годов и постепенно начала восстанавливать свои позиции, прежде всего, на внешнеполитической арене. Таким образом, на наших глазах происходит возвращение к теме евразийства среди ученых-международников, но уже в новых геополитических реалиях. С изменением реалий произошло также и изменение восприятия основной категории геополитики - пространства, что, в свою очередь, привело к различию в толковании термина «Евразия» и его производных.

DergiPark: 326440 ; trakyasobed ; The Neo-Eurasianism which was one of the ideological projects concerning the quests of identity after the collapse of the Soviet Union, influences to some degrees the foreign policy of the Russian Federation ,especially during the Putin's rule period. "The Eurasian model" is a geopolitical project developed by Russia in the post-Soviet era against the Occident blaming her to pursue imperialistic politics in its nearest abroad and is often mentioned in the current Turkish foreign policy discourses as an alternative strategy to the European Union. The aim of this Project is the reparticipation of Russia to the international system as a powerful actor ( Ortodox empire).Analysis of diverse Neo-eurasian versions could provide us objective basis for the discussions on the conformity in geopolitical and reelpolitik terms of this alternative model to Turkey ; Sovyetler Birliği'nin dağılmasından sonra kimlik arayışları ile ilgili yoğunlaşan ideolojik tasarımlarından biri olan Yeni-Avrasyacılık akımı, Rusya Federasyonu'nun izlediği dış politikasına özellikle Putin'in iktidar döneminde belli ölçülerde yansımıştır. Rusya'nın yakın çevresine yönelik politikalarını emperyel olmakla eleştiren Batı'nın ve AB'e alternatif olarak Türk dış politika söyleminde sıkça yer almaya başlayan "Avrasya modeli" post-Sovyet dönemde Rusya'nın geliştirdiği jeopolitik bir projedir . Bu proje, Rusya'nın yeniden güçlü bir aktör olarak(bir Ortodoks imparatorluğu olarak) uluslararası sisteme katılmasını amaçlamaktadır. Süreç içinde gelişen Yeni-Avrasyacılığın çeşitli versiyonlarının analizi, Türkiye için bu modelin jeopolitik ve reelpolitik açısından alternatif model olarak uygunluğu tartışmalarına nesnel bir zemin oluşturmaktadır