Tweet
ONE CORNER DOCTRINE
Strangely, Russia's strategic doctrine began forming not in the period
of activity of neo-Eurasianists but in the period between taking Kazan
and the Northern War, under Ivan IV, in the 16th century. In 100 years,
under Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich, or rather after the incorporation
of Left-bank Ukraine and Kiev, ideas and thoughts were born which
were later laid at the basis of Russia's foreign political doctrine.
Through the existence of the Russian Empire the Russian and not so
Russian elite ruling in Russia tried to define the foreign political
priorities. In addition, the belief that the foreign policy and
security of Russia cannot be based on one doctrine was becoming
stronger, and necessity occurred to provide rotation of priorities,
including three components: Nordic, Byzantine, Eurasian doctrines.
Russia successfully incorporated the lands of the West and East,
observing exactly these three components in its foreign policy.
Modern Eurasianists or rather neo-Eurasianists who composed the
attractive and majestic symphony of the Eurasian doctrine refused
to hear anything about the Nordic and Byzantine vectors. Russia was
lucky because the ignorant Moscow-based political-administrative
government did not rush to let the apologists of neo-Eurasianism come
(too) close but eventually turned to be greedy, in the sense that
"all's fish that comes to its net".
Contemporary wise people of Russia, renowned scientists and writers,
are delighted about the Eurasian project. Let's have a look at the
position and opinion of Russian nationalists on the Eurasian project.
That would be an illustration of automatic rejection and alienation.
The peoples of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Bashkortostan, Buriatia and
some other peoples of the Volga territory, Central Asia and Siberia
are meaningful and organic partners and allies to the Russians in
the formation of the Eurasian union. As to Tatarstan, it is already a
problem. For Uzbekistan and Tajikistan the Eurasian idea is an object
for an approving remark at best. The peoples of the North Caucasus will
treat the Eurasian project, as any other project, quite cautiously.
No doubt, Belorussia, "country of eastern western Europe" is related
to this project because there is hope for lucrative supply of energy
resources. Ukraine, where the pro-Westerns are not limited to Galicia,
Volhunia, Bukovina and have already gone closer to Dnieper, while Kiev
is hardly a city of Eastern Ukraine, Kiev is already west, while the
next is Transdnieper, views Eurasianism as a trick. To a Ukrainian,
Eurasians are Pincenates, Cumans, Mongols etc. It is possible that
Ukrainians (both western and eastern), as well as a lot of other
peoples of the Caucasus and Balkans, accepted with pleasure Russia's
call to erect a cross on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
There would not be so many problems with the Baltic states and Finland
if Russia did not soft-pedal to impose its understanding of controlled
territory on these states. And it is necessary to fence oneself from
the Central Asian civilization, otherwise Russia will be in trouble,
as it has been earlier.
Does the Eurasian doctrine strengthen Russia or disturb close
and remote neighbors? In the current international relations and
geopolitical conditions the Eurasianism will inevitably lead to an
Asian, not a Eurasian empire. It's not a bad option either if one
nestles in one corner, forgetting about other directions, imposing on
everyone else around a doctrine that is suspicious, highly vulnerable
and obscure even to the Russians.
The foreign policy of a great power, especially one that is undergoing
a period of regional localization, must include diverse civilization
and strategic doctrines.
Igor Muradyan 15:37 06/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30634
Strangely, Russia's strategic doctrine began forming not in the period
of activity of neo-Eurasianists but in the period between taking Kazan
and the Northern War, under Ivan IV, in the 16th century. In 100 years,
under Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich, or rather after the incorporation
of Left-bank Ukraine and Kiev, ideas and thoughts were born which
were later laid at the basis of Russia's foreign political doctrine.
Through the existence of the Russian Empire the Russian and not so
Russian elite ruling in Russia tried to define the foreign political
priorities. In addition, the belief that the foreign policy and
security of Russia cannot be based on one doctrine was becoming
stronger, and necessity occurred to provide rotation of priorities,
including three components: Nordic, Byzantine, Eurasian doctrines.
Russia successfully incorporated the lands of the West and East,
observing exactly these three components in its foreign policy.
Modern Eurasianists or rather neo-Eurasianists who composed the
attractive and majestic symphony of the Eurasian doctrine refused
to hear anything about the Nordic and Byzantine vectors. Russia was
lucky because the ignorant Moscow-based political-administrative
government did not rush to let the apologists of neo-Eurasianism come
(too) close but eventually turned to be greedy, in the sense that
"all's fish that comes to its net".
Contemporary wise people of Russia, renowned scientists and writers,
are delighted about the Eurasian project. Let's have a look at the
position and opinion of Russian nationalists on the Eurasian project.
That would be an illustration of automatic rejection and alienation.
The peoples of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Bashkortostan, Buriatia and
some other peoples of the Volga territory, Central Asia and Siberia
are meaningful and organic partners and allies to the Russians in
the formation of the Eurasian union. As to Tatarstan, it is already a
problem. For Uzbekistan and Tajikistan the Eurasian idea is an object
for an approving remark at best. The peoples of the North Caucasus will
treat the Eurasian project, as any other project, quite cautiously.
No doubt, Belorussia, "country of eastern western Europe" is related
to this project because there is hope for lucrative supply of energy
resources. Ukraine, where the pro-Westerns are not limited to Galicia,
Volhunia, Bukovina and have already gone closer to Dnieper, while Kiev
is hardly a city of Eastern Ukraine, Kiev is already west, while the
next is Transdnieper, views Eurasianism as a trick. To a Ukrainian,
Eurasians are Pincenates, Cumans, Mongols etc. It is possible that
Ukrainians (both western and eastern), as well as a lot of other
peoples of the Caucasus and Balkans, accepted with pleasure Russia's
call to erect a cross on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
There would not be so many problems with the Baltic states and Finland
if Russia did not soft-pedal to impose its understanding of controlled
territory on these states. And it is necessary to fence oneself from
the Central Asian civilization, otherwise Russia will be in trouble,
as it has been earlier.
Does the Eurasian doctrine strengthen Russia or disturb close
and remote neighbors? In the current international relations and
geopolitical conditions the Eurasianism will inevitably lead to an
Asian, not a Eurasian empire. It's not a bad option either if one
nestles in one corner, forgetting about other directions, imposing on
everyone else around a doctrine that is suspicious, highly vulnerable
and obscure even to the Russians.
The foreign policy of a great power, especially one that is undergoing
a period of regional localization, must include diverse civilization
and strategic doctrines.
Igor Muradyan 15:37 06/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30634