Goloseyeva, A.A., Khokhlov, A.A. The political concept of eurasianism: from history to the present. PolitBookю 2026. No. 2. Pp. 45-59.

Текст статьи на сайте журнала URL: https://politbook.online/images/pdf/2026_2/PolitBook2026_Issue_2_4.pdf (дата обращенич 29.05.2026)

Abstract

This article analyzes the specific features of Eurasianism throughout its evolution. An attempt is made to demonstrate the invariant characteristics of Eurasian concepts, on the one hand, and the differences in the scholarly approaches of the founders of the doctrine, on the other. For clarity, the Eurasianist doctrine is conventionally divided into two periods: classical Eurasianism and neo-Eurasian concepts. Fundamental differences in the understanding of Russia's Eurasian prospects in the works of the founders of the doctrine and those of contemporary authors are noted. The authors emphasize the fundamentally different approaches to the Eurasian idea among politicians in the Russian Federation and in the CIS countries. Current interstate projects within Greater Eurasia have virtually nothing in common with the political views of Russian Eurasianists of all periods. The article places particular emphasis on analyzing the similarities between some of the fundamental ideas of the early Eurasianists and the ideological concepts of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, it also identifies the reasons for the political failure of the leaders of classical Eurasianism, who saw the USSR as the embodiment of their own ideas. The concepts of authors who are not successors of this teaching, but who influenced the development of neo-Eurasian concepts, are analyzed: L.N. Gumilev and V.L. Tsymbursky. As an eclectic and ambivalent socio-philosophical and political doctrine, neo-Eurasianism is presented in the context of current political conflicts. The article analyzes the concepts of neo-Eurasianism as a radical, anti-liberal utopia. It concludes that the Russian political elite has a pragmatic approach to Eurasian ideas: they borrow individual concepts (multipolarity, Anglo-Saxons, the turn to the East), but not the original tenets of the doctrine.