Eurasianism, Eurasian Economic Union and Multipolarity: Assessments of Foreign Experts

封面

如何引用文章

详细

Eurasianism, in its various interpretations, from ideology to the implementation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) programs, is regarded as one of the strategies of creating a multipolar world order. This article analyzes the views and assessments of foreign authors regarding the relationship between Eurasianism and the EAEU amid the changing international context. The authors present both critical and positive opinions on Eurasianism, Eurasian integration and its political and economic interlinkages with other countries and associations (China, Vietnam, the European Union (EU), Latin America). Thus, we identify three main lines of assessments on Eurasianism and Eurasian integration. The first includes negative assessments ranging from characterizing Eurasianism and the EAEU as a threat to the EU, the US, and the West in general to deliberate misinformation about the Eurasian ideology, for instance, denoting Eurasianism as “parafascism.” The second comprises more pragmatic and balanced views, with an emphasis on economic cooperation, which may imply cooperation with the EAEU and acceptance of the Eurasian integration if specific conditions are met, or cessation of such cooperation. The third group includes positive assessments and emphasizes the need for more intensive interaction between the EAEU and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. Such views are generally held by Russian and Chinese authors. Non-Russian conceptions of Eurasianism that gained popularity in Turkey or Kazakhstan are ideologically close to the classic Eurasianism and the EAEU, although these conceptions take a distinctive national shape. The article provides some examples of interregional cooperation promoted by the EAEU within the BRICS under the “outreach” model, i.e., adding new dimensions to existing cooperation formats. The authors arrive at a conclusion that most often the assessments of Eurasian integration and cooperation proposals by foreign experts are tied to Russian foreign policy (or experts’ opinion of it). They often find interconnections between EAEU, Eurasianism and Russian policy, which emphasize Russian identity as a marker of distinctive civilization. The article also notes comments of Russian authors on the EAEU - EU relations. The research is based on comparative analysis of analytical and research publications on the subject.

作者简介

Sergei Bazavluk

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: bazavluk-sv@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9739-2594

Senior Lecturer, Department of Theory and History of International Relations

Moscow, Russian Federation

Konstantin Kurylev

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: kurylev-kp@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3075-915X

PhD, Dr. of Sc. (History), Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations

Moscow, Russian Federation

Leonid Savin

Fund for Monitoring and Forecasting the Development of Cultural and Territorial Spaces

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: editor@monitorfund.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0109-4200

Director

Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. Bazavluk, S. V. (2018). Eurasianism: Terminological ambivalence. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 18(2), 273-283. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2018-18-2-273-283
  2. Bazavluk, S. V., Kurylev, K. P., Savin, L. V., & Stanis, D. V. (2021). Eurasian ideology and political processes. Information Wars, (1), 59-64. (In Russian).
  3. Fatykhova, V. M. (2019). Eurasian cooperation in science and higher education: Prospects of neofunctional “spillovers”. MGIMO Review of International Relations, (2), 159-175. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-2-65-159-175
  4. Ferguson, R. J. (2018) China’s Eurasian dilemmas: Roads and risks for a sustainable global power. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  5. Glazyev, S. Y., Chuschkin, V. I., & Tkachuk, S. P. (2013). European Union and Eurasian Economic community: Similarities and differences of the processes of integration building. Мoscow: Viktor Media publ. (In Russian).
  6. Gresh, G. (Ed.). (2018). Eurasia’s maritime rise and global security: From the Indian Ocean to Pacific Asia and the Arctic. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Isaev, I. (1994). Eurasianism: Ideolofy of the etatism. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, (5), 42-55. (In Russian).
  8. Izotov, V. S. (2020). Regional integration: From classic to post-Modern. New forms of linking and out-reach cooperation as tools of the multipolar architecture. In T. A. Meshkova (Ed.), In search of new architecture of multipolarity: International cooperation of the EAEU (pp. 21-29). Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki publ. (In Russian).
  9. Kefeli, I. F., & Shcevchenko, N. N. (2018). Big Eurasia: Civilizational space, uniting ideology, projecting future. Saint-Petersburg: ID “Petropolis”, ООО “Geopolitika i Bezopasnost” publ. (In Russian).
  10. Laruelle, M. (2020). Accusing Russia of fascism. Russia in Global Affairs, (4), 100-123. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2020-18-4-100-123
  11. Laruelle, М. (2008). Russian Eurasianism: An ideology of empire. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
  12. Libman, A., & Obydenkova, A. (2020). Global governance and Eurasian international organisations: Lessons learned and future agenda. Post-Communist Economies, 33(2-3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1793587
  13. Mostafa, G. (2013). The concept of ‘Eurasia’: Kazakhstan’s Eurasian policy and its implications. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 4(2), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.03.006
  14. Pirker, B., & Entin, K. (2020). The free movement of persons in the Eurasian Economic Union - between Civis Eurasiaticus and Homo Oeconomicus. In N. Cambien, E. Kochenov & E. Muir (Eds.), European citizenship under stress: Social justice, Brexit and other challenges (pp. 508-523). Leiden: Brill.
  15. Serbin, A. (2020). Eurasia y América Latina en un mundo multipolar. Barcelona, Buenos Aires: Icaria Editorial - CRIES.
  16. Suyunchev, М. М., Repetyuk, S. V., Fain, B. I., & Tregubova, E. A. (2020). Development of the approach for common market organization of electricity energy of the Eurasian Economic Union (ЕАEU). Мoscow: RANKhiGS publ. (In Russian).
  17. Tsvyk, A. V. (2018). ‘Greater Europe’ or ‘Greater Eurasia’? In search of new ideas for the Eurasian integration. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 18(2), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-2-262-270
  18. Ushkalova, D. I. (2017). Integration models of the Eurasian Economic Union and free trade zone of the CIS in the context of international experience. Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk (The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences), (6), 100-111. (In Russian).
  19. Vasilieva, N. А., & Lagutina, М. L. (2013). Eurasian Economic unit project by experts’ evaluations. International Organizations Research Journal, 8(4), 229-242. (In Russian).
  20. Yakovets, Y. V. (2018). Greater Eurasian partnership - civilizational megaproject. In Greater Eurasian Partnership: Past, present, future: selected works of the Х Eurasian scientific forum, Vol. 1 (pp. 397-408). Saint-Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii nauchnyi tsentr RAN publ. (In Russian).
  21. Yongquan, L. (2018). The greater Eurasian partnership and the Belt and Road Initiative: Can the two be linked? Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9(2), 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2018.07.004
  22. Zamaraeva, E. I. (2016). Nation and nationalism in the philosophy of Eurasianism. The Journal “Solovyov Studies”, (4), 150-162. (In Russian).

版权所有 © Bazavluk S.V., Kurylev K.P., Savin L.V., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##