Рада національної безпеки і оборони України

Інститут утворено Указом Президента України від 16 березня 2001 року № 173 “Про Національний інститут проблем міжнародної безпеки”.

Інститут ліквідовано Указом Президента України від 2 квітня 2010 року № 471 “Про оптимізацію діяльності з розроблення наукових засад національної безпеки України”.



Roman Rukomeda

Still further, Eurasian concept has become now a popular theme among the political circles not of the Russian Federation alone, but also among the countries of the Central Asia.

In our opinion, the subject of Eurasianism became quite topical since the 90s, when political circles started addressing it. Being far from animated, as some researchers write, the Eurasian concept simply caught sight of politicians, primarily, Russian. It attracted attention during the search for a new ideology that would unite not only the peoples of the Russian Federation, but also of the countries on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

Eurasianism is viewed today as a real force that may become the reigning idea predominantly on the territory of the RF. The known Ukrainian scientist Vadym Skurativskyi thinks that using the Eurasinism, the ideology of "extraordinary clout" is being developed in Russia, which will be inevitably applied in case the Third Empire is to be erected there. Meanwhile, the discussion of Eurasianism exclusively as an instrument of empirical expansion is inappropriate, considering it being a worldview of the sort, in which light the essence of the Eurasian peoples is perceived best.

The Eurasian theme is not extraneous for Ukraine too, because the country makes also a part of the space named Eurasia. Even historically Ukrainian people were always interacting with European as well as Asian peoples. With the factors indicated in mind, the subject of Eurasianism is again relevant to Ukraine, for it is hardly possible to find one's bearing in the present-day political realities without comprehending it. Eurasianism has passed the test of time and accumulated gradually real potential that is to show itself without fail.

Methodological Basis of Eurasianism As a certain source and definite kind of Eurasian premise, one may consider the idea of the Russian philosopher Volodymyr Solovyov, who considered Russia as "the third world" called to synthesize everything peculiar to the western and eastern worlds and to overcome their historical narrowness with an aim of reaching "positive common unity". In accord to him Russia held a special position and had a singular destination. It played a peculiar messianic role, which had the goal of synthesizing the East and the West. Mykola Berdyayev, who was highly critical of the extremes of the Western and Slavophile conceptions of the Eurasianism, condemning "idolatry before Europe", developed this subject on culturological ground.

It was exactly the doctrine of Eurasianism that was formulated in the 20s by such figures as M. Trubetskoi, P. Savytskyi, L. Karsavin, P, Suvchynskyi, G. Frorovskyi and some others, introducing the term "Eurasia". By naming the founders of Eurasianism, one should also outline conditions, under which they resided.

Professional historians, geographers, ethnographers, culturologists and linguists created the doctrine of Eurasianism in exile. Preconditions for its emergence were analyzed above, but the impetus to its appearance happened to be the events in the Russian Empire of 1917 to 1920, namely, the February and, later, October revolutions, and, finally, the bloody civil war. Having been forced to leave their homeland, the "Eurasians" tried to comprehend the past history to foresee the future and influence it. The pioneering "Eurasians" were patriots by their nature: belonging to the emigration camp named "defenders", they did not disavow their motherland despite radical transformation of life in Russia, and continued to cast in their lot with it. It is under such circumstances that the idea of Eurasia appeared. It was for this reason that to some extent they cooperated with Bolsheviks later. The focal point of the Eurasian doctrine is, of course, "Eurasia". "Eurasia is characterized as a closed and typical entity if viewed from the point of climatic and other geographical conditions," Eurasians declared in their program book “Yevroaziystvo. Opyt Sistematicheskogo Izlozhenia” (Eurasianism. The Experience of Systematic Account) published in Paris in 1926. Petro Savytskyi defined Eurasia as the third middle continent located between Europe and Asia. In his view too, it was a closed and typical single wholeness from the point of view of climate and other geographical conditions. Hence, Eurasia appears as a specific ethnographic, political, cultural and spiritual world, an all-sufficient, single organism that unites within specific development and interaction all those who abide on its terrain. In this way Eurasia is, to a certain extent, a separate autarkic world. Its peculiarities and distinctions are shown even in geographic features, while, according to P.Savytslyi, the "Eurasians" are representatives of new start in thinking and life - the group of figures, who work to transform radically the prevailing outlook and life arrangement.

This one is the definition of the "Eurasians" in the narrowest sense. In its wider meaning, it concerns everyone, who resides on the territory of Eurasia and is aware of belonging to Eurasianism.

The backbone of Eurasia is an important notion for the "Eurasians" is. They note that the axis of rotation for the historical life of the "Euroasian world" or, on other words, the geographic medium occupied by the Russian people and its country all along its history, was the border between steppe and woodland zones. It is that interaction of historical formations of the steppe zone on the one hand, and the woodland zone on the other hand was in many respects determinant in political, cultural and economic fate of Eurasia. Just from here, the waves of the steppe phenomena expanded towards the north and the woodland ones built up southward.

Hence, the notion of the Eurasian backbone occupies an important place in the Eurasian worldview. Vision of the historical process occurs also within the context of woodland and steppe zones. Specifically, the "Eurasians" distinguished the periods of the "attempts to unify wood and steppe" (prior to 972), "tussle between wood and steppe" (from 972 to 1233), "steppe's upper hand over wood" (from 1233 to 1452), "woodland's upper hand over steppe" (from 1452 to 1696), and, at last, new "unification" of wood and steppe (from 1696 to 1917). Interaction of these two zones determined the nature of the events in Eurasia.

One of the fundamentals of the Eurasianism is the assertion that the present-day democratic system is to be substituted by an ideocratic one. By ideocracy a social order is implied, in which the governing stratum is selected on the basis of loyalty to a single common reigning idea. That is, one of the "Eurasians'" conceptions of the world is exactly the principle of the ideocratic order: an ideocratic state has its own system of convictions and the reigning idea of its own, which carrier is the governing stratum united into one and only state ideological organization. For this reason, this state, necessarily by itself, must actively organize and guide all aspects of life. The reigning idea of a genuine ideocratic state can be only the common good of the aggregate of peoples that populate certain autarkic, special world. In view of the "Eurasians", under ideocratic system the remnants of individualism are to disappear with a human becoming aware not only of oneself, but of one's class and its people as a part of a single organic whole. In their opinion, no true ideocratic states existed before the 20th century.

The notion of "symphonic identity" developed by D. Karsavin is an important element of the "Eurasian" teaching. Primarily, symphonic identities are represented in certain peoples. The symphonic quality shows itself in the unity, organic character, and coordination within the aggregate of individuals of every nation. Symphonic personality reveals itself in individuals, states, and actions. Empirically, it makes itself known in the ruling layer. The "Eurasians" indicated that symphonic identity does not have individual existence, that is, it does not exist already (or yet) empirically if it lacks the ruling layer or government, or fails to mold into a form of distinct statehood. The fuller its identity existence, the stronger is its identity self-realization, the better clear-cut and more powerful is its state authority.

For that reason, during an early - healthy period in a people's history, as well as at the time of upsurge of its self-consciousness, the state authority externally evolves united. On the contrary, dispersal of the statehood is inevitably a symbol of transient oppression, or even withering of the people away.

Hence, empirically symphonic identity shows itself in the ruling stratum and its ability to form a state. The gist of the symphonic-identity lies in the organic bond of the people with the ruling class. The more close this bond, the more harmonious is the symphonic identity itself. Conversely, when a breakup occurs, disintegration of symphonic identity is bound to follow suit.

Thus, the notion mentioned is very important element of the Eurasian doctrine, since it enables to realize the whole Eurasian people as a single organism and symphonic identity. The ruling stratum within such an organism plays its special role and is closely tied with the people. The symphonic content is reflected in the unity.

An important aspect of the "Eurasians'" teachings was the immense role religion played in social life. Figures that developed this line noted that healthy social community could be founded only within indissoluble bounds with God. Religion was regarded as a definite spiritual basis of a healthy society with the Orthodox Church making up a substantial part in the religious aspect of life for "Eurasians". They took the Orthodoxy as a spiritual basis for the future Eurasian people. In this connection, a problem arose of combining religious attitude towards the world and life, and empirically grounded practicality. P. Savytskyi made the following comment in this regard: "One should not with impunity defame ancient wisdom infinitely, because the truth it holds; the supreme measure of common good on earth may be achieved not on the basis of principle of originally egoistic human instincts, which are assumed as the highest and fixed in the philosophy of the "militant economism", but on the ground of mastering and quelling these instincts enlightened by religious feeling. The society, which yields to worries about exclusively creature's comforts, sooner or later will be deprived of them too; such is the horrible experience exemplified by the Russian revolution...."

In this way, priorities were set for cultural wealth in the Eurasian conception. The "Eurasians" themselves mercilessly criticized Western powers for giving priorities to material values. The crux of the Western system lied in "militant economism", which preferred material values to spiritual. In views of "Eurasians", the Western societies had achieved high technological level, but degraded enormously in spiritual sphere. From this, it follows that the problem of religion and spiritual life played a great part in Eurasian outlook.

Culture was an important methodological concept, which "Eurasians" operated with. They claimed that any differentiated culture was made of two compulsory parts that figuratively could be named the "top" and "bottom" in the construction of a certain culture. By the bottom "Eurasians" meant the stock of cultural values to serve the needs of a wide sections of the national whole - the so-called "popular masses". Considering these values are created in the midst of the popular masses, they are comparatively elementary and lack the mark of individual creative work. The values of the "top fund" are created either by or for the ruling upper strata of the national entirety, and always meet more exquisite requirements and needs, being, as a result, always more complicated and less elementary that the values of the "bottom stock".

Within normal culture, between the "top" and "bottom" there always exists some kind of exchange and interaction. In view of "Eurasians", Slavonic was the principal element making up the Russian culture, but they also gave great attention to the Asian component there, thus attempting to attain somewhat higher cultural level globally.

A relevant aspect worth of concentrating one's attention on is the idea of passionarity created and elaborated by Lev Humilyov, a known "Eurasian" historian. He defined as passionaries the individuals that perceived how the land lay acutely and were leaders within certain ethnoses or peoples.

Passionaries were typical by devoting themselves to this or other goal, which was attainable sometimes only during a full lifespan, being actually the carriers of the above-mentioned reigning idea that found its embodiment through them. To build a Eurasian ideocratic state passionaries were required to be available, who would value the idea much higher than their life. They were to be able to personify the ruling stratum, which would provide for well-deserved incarnation of the reigning idea.

The very nature of the Eurasianism is based on the Turan element in the Russian ethnos and culture. The historian N. Trubetskoy wrote about this as follows: "The Eastern Slavonic tribes first filled only insignificant portion of that immense territory, which is occupied by the present-day Russia. Slavs settled at first its a small western part and river basins linking the Baltic and Black seas. The rest of the present territory of Russia was populated predominantly by the tribes that used to be called collectively as "Turanian" or "Ural-Altaic".

In the history of this entire indicated geographical region, at the start Turanian tribes played more important part that the Eastern Slavonic Russian tribes. Even during pre-Mongolian period, the Turanian states within the confines of the European Russia alone were more sizable and weighty than the Varangian Russian state.

The matter is that the unification of the whole territory of modern Russia under a single rule was first accomplished not by Russian Slavs, but by Turanians, i.e., Mongols. With Russian and Turainian existence side by side, marking with red the whole Russian history, the expansion of the Russian tribes to the East produced russification of a number of Turanian tribes.

Considering combination of Eastern Slavdom with Turanism is the dominant factor of the Russian history, in view of being hard to find a Great Russian whose veins one way or another do not carry Turanian blood, and taking into account that similar blood is also running in Little Russians' vessels, it is absolutely clear then that for the Russians to attain correct self-knowledge, with the Turanian element within them born in mind, it is our Turanian brothers that must be researched into." It is thus that the significance of the Turanian element is being defined in Russian culture.

The "Eurasians" note that the Turanian element was historically undervalued. This hampered correct self-knowledge, being not only an obligation of every personality, but also an indispensable condition for its sensible existence, as well as of the nation that to some extent is an identity with face and features specific to it.

Under the name "Turanian" or "Ural-Altaic" 5 groups of peoples are implied:

• Finno-Ugric peoples that because of language cognation are subdivided into Western Finns; Lapps in Sweden, Norway, Northern Finland and Russia; Mordvins, Cheremis, Finno- and Ugro-Permian. This group also included tribes that had long died out, but mentioned in Russian chronicles: merya, ves, muroma and meschera;

• Samoyeds divided into several tribes and now almost extinct, with negligible number of them remained in Arkhangelsk region and North-Western Siberia;

• Turkis, to which Turk-Osmani, Tatars, Mescheriaks, Teptiaris, Balkars, Kumyks, Bashkirs, Kyrgyz-Kaisaks, Kara-Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Sarts, Uzbeks, Altais, Yakuts, Chuvashi and a whole series of peoples no longer existing, among which Khazars, Bolgars, Polovtsy, Uigurs;

• Mongols in the Mongolia proper, to which group within the boundaries of Russia also Kalmyks and Buryats belong;

• Manchurs, which besides essentially Manchus also Holds and Tungus belong to.

Hence, strictly speaking, Turanians are comprised of those five groups of peoples mentioned. Turkis, however, had played the most active role, which the "Eurasians" assessed as useful. In their view, the good of Turanian mentality, which main feature was unconditional obedience to some highest principle even affected through a person of a ruler, performed favorably in formation of Russian statehood. In ancient Russia, such guiding principle was the Orthodoxy seen as organic combination of religious dogmas and rites with Orthodox culture, which separate manifestation was its state political system with its hierarchical pyramid. It was just this principle, which was identical both for every subject and czar himself, that bound Russia into one piece and guided it.

Orthodoxy in the Old Russian sense of the term was exactly the frame of mind that embraced everything: private life, state sys-tem, and existence of the universe. Even if it was Byzantine Empire and not Turanians that the Russians borrowed Orthodoxy from, even despite it being directly opposite to the Tatardom within Russian consciousness, it was the attitude of a Russian to the Orthodoxy and the role the faith played in his life that were definitely founded on Turanian turn of mind. It was because of Turanian nature of mentality that an Old Russian could not distinguish faith from private life and in religious display failed to discern nonexistent elements; for exactly the same reasons he turned out to be a week theologian when confronted with the Greeks. But psychological difference between the Russian and Greek approaches to-wards their faith and rite shown so vividly during the epoch of schism originating was the result of the same factor that Turanian ethno-psychological elements, which were absolutely extrinsic for Byzantium, implanted deep into the Old Russian national character. In opinion of the "Urasians", the Muscovy emerged thanks to the Tartar yoke. Far from having finished "gathering Russian lands", the czars of Muscovy started to pick up the lands of the Western ulus of the Great Mongolian Monarchy. Only after conquering Kazan', Astrakhan' and Siberia, Muscovy had become a powerful state with the Russian czar following the track of Mongolian khan. The "overthrow of the Tartar yoke" came to a Tartar Khan being substituted by an Orthodox Czar with the HQ of the former being moved to Moscow. Even appreciable on personal basis and ponderable percent of boyars and other subservient people of the Moscow czar were made of Tartar nobility. According to the "Eurasians", the Russian statehood at one of its sources had grown from the Tartaric one. Hence, the Turanian element besides cultural affected political life too, as well as the fate of Russia as a power and nations being part of it. Military achievements of the Turanian peoples the Russians turned for best use of themselves thus succeeding in preserving their own state organization. In general, the Moscovy should be grateful for its origin to both Slavs and Turkis. The Turanian element of the Russian erhnos and culture playing such an important role in the Eurasian doctrine, it cannot be undervalued. Quite enthralling and critical is the idea of the Russian and Eurasian culture coming into existence. The "Eurasians", in particular P. Savytskyi, noted that Eurasia has specific cultural and historical characteristic. Its cul-tural entity, which in the view of "Eurasians" was primarily represented by cultural life of Russia, involved elements of different cul-tures. One by another, the South, the East, and the West predominated within the ex-panse of Russian culture. In such a way, cul-tures both of Eurasia and Russia were being formed under pressure from three centers -Europe, Asia, and Byzantium in the South, and as cultural factor substantially affected later the political component of each Russia and Eurasia. Significant emphasis was made on the peculiarities of the Eurasian cultural world formation.

Regarding this idea, P. Savytskyi indicated in his work "Eurasianism": "In categories, it is not always enough to make a fine separation of the Old World cultures into "European" and "Asia-Asian", since Russian culture belongs to neither. It is such a culture that combines elements of both, reducing them to some kind of unity." Being "Eurasian" in geographically spatial facts of its existence, the Russian cultural environment acquired foundation and something like a framework of historical culture from another "Eurasian" culture. This was followed by the deposition on the Russian underlying base of cultural Asia-Asian (influence of the East) and European (influence of the West) streaks, by which the "Eurasian" character of the Russian culture had been enhanced and consolidated. In our view, the drawback of the Eurasian doctrine in this respect resided in absolute identification of Eurasian culture with the Russian one, this resulted by the influence of Russian Slavophiles of 19th century.

"Eurasians" focused their close attention on criticizing the West, especially Europe. The gist of this criticism was set out in the work Europe and Humankind by M. Trubetskoy. European chauvinism and European cosmo-politanism were the major subject matters at the focus of the author's censure since they had allegedly been founded on psychology of egocentrism. M. Trubetskoy appropriately emphasized that European civilization, having achieved high technological level, concluded that had the right to assess nations in accord to the criterion of "high" and "low" value.

The European self-assurance in their own high value and perception by them of other cultures, for instance, Slavic, as low, was called European chauvinism by the author. Meanwhile, European cosmopolitanism dwelled in an attempt to create a global culture by dissolving boundaries of the national cultures, once again, however,, on the basis of European, or rather Romano-Germanic culture. Thus, European cosmopolitanism came out as an extreme manifestation of European chauvinism.

M. Trubetskoy saw the advance of the latter in the process of Europeanization, in reference to which he noted: “One of the gravest consequences of Europeanization is the destruction of national unity and dismembering nations of the Europeanized people. By comparing itself with the natural Romano-Germans, the Europeanized people becomes aware of them being superior, which together with the constant whine about its own backwardness leads to the fact that this people ceases to hold itself in respect.

Patriotism and national pride are always highly underdeveloped in the Europeanized nation. Within such a people patriotism is a possession of only a handful, while national self-assertion is reduced very largely to the ambitions of rulers and leading political circles."

In our view, M. Trubetskoy had quite accurately analysed and defined the category of Europeanized peoples. In particular, currently Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and, to a certain measure, Ukrainians may be ascribed to the category, since the characteristics indicated suit well to each of these nations. On the other hand, in our opinion, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles were never accepted in Europe completely as "one's own", and were, are and will always be regarded somewhat slightingly.

M. Trubetskoy also noted: "Subject to imitating the people by Europeans they would have to reject independent cultural creation completely and live in the light reverberated by Europe, turning into a monkey that permanently mimics Romano-Germans. In the upshot, certain people is sure to lag behind, that is, adopting and recreating various stages of Romano-Germanic cultural development with a definite delay, to find itself in subordinate position and sidetracked in relation to the natural "Europeans", as well as economically and spiritually dependent." In our view, such a characteristic meets quite a few present-day East-European nations. It may serve a warning to the accelerated process of Europeanization in Ukraine since, if in excess, such process is capable of distorting the face of the nation and character of the people, and also reduce its creative potential. For this reason, westernization of the Ukrainian culture is a serious threat to our people overall, and a matter that concerns national security: without it being taken into account and adequate response provided the Ukrainian nation as such may disappear from the political map of the world altogether. Reigning idea is one of the basic notions of "Eurasians". It was defined and analyzed above, but some aspects of it must be added. As indicated, ideocratic nation has it own system of persuasions and a reigning idea, which carrier is a united into a single state-ideological organization ruling stratum. Owing to the fact, it must on its own actively organize and direct every sphere of life. It cannot allow interference of any factor not subject to its authority, primarily, private capital, into its political, economic and cultural life, and thus remains always definitely socialist.

A selective sign of the ideocratic choice should be not only the world outlook, but also readiness to sacrifice oneself to the reigning idea. This sacrificial element as well as factor of permanent readiness for action and heavy load connected with belonging to the ruling selection should have a moral prestige. Moral prestige of some sort accompanies the ruling choice under any other type of social order, but it is especially strong under the ideocratic system since the ability to sacrifice for the reigning idea serves as one of the major selective signs of the ruling stratum. From this it follows that the reigning idea must be of such a scope that, firstly, it would be worthwhile to sacrifice oneself for, and, secondly, the sacrifice made would be seen by all citizens as an act morally justified. Thus, the Eurasians presented the reigning idea as an idol, which it would be an honor to give one's life for. On the other hand, only with the help of the reigning idea and ideocratic regime was it possible to unite all the peoples of Eurasia. The reigning idea was intended to piece together the Eurasian peoples into one organism or a single whole. Thus, this concept occupies an honorable place in the Eurasian doctrine.

Highly crucial in the "Eurasian" interpretation was the issue of nationalism, with the sphere of culture showing specifics of their approach. They explained that attitude of a person towards culture of his own people can be different. With Romano-Germans, this attitude was defined by their special mental and spiritual make-up that could be called self-centered. A person with self-centered mentality subconsciously deems himself the center of the universe, perfect and the best creature of all. Of all the other, those that look similar are deemed closer to him, and vice versa. For this reason, any natural group of beings that this individual belongs to he recognizes as the most matured. Romano-Germans are permeated by this mentality all the way through and base all their assessment of the world cultures on it. The "Eurasians" indicate that obligation of every non-Romano-Germanic people consists in, firstly, overcoming any sort of egocentrism of one's own, and, secondly, separating oneself from the so-called "panhuman" civilization and the urge to become "genuine European" at any price. This duty may be worded by two aphorisms: "actualize yourself and "be yourself.

To combat self-egocentrism is only possible through self-knowledge. Genuine self-knowledge should help individual see his real place in the world unobstructed and realize that he is not the center of the universe. This same self-knowledge is to lead individual to understanding general human nature and peoples overall, to elucidating the fact that no human being is the center or the top of the world. By way of extending and intensifying self-knowledge, an individual or people from understanding one's own nature arrive to the realization of equivalence of all humans and peoples.

All these reflections inferred should result in assertion of one's own originality and desire to be oneself. And not the desire alone, but the ability to do this, since the one who failed at self-knowledge is not capable of controlling oneself.

Therefore, in opinion of the "Eurasians" genuine nationalism primarily consists of self-knowledge. As M. Trubetskoy indicated in his work “Ob Istinnom i Lozhnom Natsionalizme” (On True and False Nationalism), the

principles of "actualize yourself and "be yourself are two aspects of the same situation. True self-knowledge manifests itself in harmonious uniqueness of life and activities of a certain personality. It is a unique national culture for a people, which can be seen as the one that had cognized itself if its spiritual singular character is expressed in it, and this culture is bright and harmonious.

Creation of such a culture is a true goal of every nation. In view of the "Eurasians'", genuine nationalism cannot be based on egocentrism, but exclusively through self-knowledge one's own originality may be secured. It is hard not to agree to such their statements. Therefore, in our view, genuine nationalism shall not impose its values on other peoples and cultures.

Heretofore, we have examined the principal political ideas of the "Eurasians" that, in our judgement, are the essence of classical Eurasianism.

Modern Eurasianism

To examine modern Urasianism, let us recall that it evolved into Eurasian doctrine during 20s to 30s of the 20th century. Bolsheviks failed to grasp and adopt it, though they cooperated with Eurasians for a while just to keep the development of Eurasian ideology under control. They appreciated adequately the true potential of the doctrine, and for the reason alone did their utmost to prevent its spread on the territories of the Former Soviet Union.

Eurasianism almost faded away for a time, but during the 70s, it drew attention of the Soviet authorities anew. Sagacious functionaries from within the Communist bureaucracy anticipated the threat that the approaching political and economic crisis had in store, and late in the 70s and early in 80s it started to search for a new ideological doctrine. In separate fields, ideological control from the CPSU and KGB had been eased. In particular, Alexander Prokhanov, a writer, employed the opportunity successfully; Lev Humilyov, a former Gulag prisoner, defended doctoral thesis, which stroke the official ethnology, represented by Yu. Bromley, known propagandist of the Soviet type internationalism, against the grain. There is also other evidence in abundance of latent political and ideological reorientation within the highest echelons of the state power of the FSLJ during the indicated period.

Symptomatic was also the fact that the first signs of the regime liberalization during perestroika already on hand by then became publications of works by thinkers from the pleiad of Russian religious philosophers, whose quite a few ideas formed in some measure the basis of Eurasian doctrine and philosophy. The search for a new ideological cure—all that would provide for stable existence of the nomenclature-continued. During the 90s, after the failed military political coup, the tendency got hold and turned gradually into dominating line of modern Russia's political life.

Some Ukrainian scientists believe that Russian Communists succeeded in fully reanimating the Eurasian nationalism. Such books as Modern Russian Idea and Power with Gennadiy Ziuganov as executive editor. Russia on the Verge of the 21st Century, and others amply prove this.

In his work “Ukrayinska Natsyonalna Svidomist i Suchasni Politychni Protsesy” (The Ukrainian National Conscience and Modern Political Processes) the Ukrainian researchist I. Kresina writes: "By acknowledging the revival of healthy national sovereign conscience and the demand for "national idea" as matters of paramount importance for Russia," G. Ziuganov claims, "that from historical point of view Russia is the principal bearer of Slavic "cultural and historical" pattern, an heir apparent to bimillenial civilization of the initial Christian apostolic communities, Kievan Rus, Muscovy, Russian Empire and the Soviet Union; from the geopolitical point of view, Russia is a backbone and primary support for the Eurasian block to counterbalance the USA and Atlantic Great Space hegemonic ambitions; from the world outlook and ideology viewpoint, Russia is the keeper of the ancient spiritual tradition, which fundamental values are collegiality (collectivism), statehood (state self-sufficiency) and yearning for incarnation of the loftiest ideals of justice and brotherhood on earth; and from the national point of view, Russia is a complex ethnic commonalty with a powerful national core of Great Russians, Little Russians and White Russians providing its viability and interacting on voluntary and equal basis with other peoples willing to live in a common with this Slavic core power."

In this way, the present-day Russian Communists trade on the Eurasian doctrine, though in somewhat disguised manner.

Confirmation to the fact that the Russian authorities turn presently to Eurasianism one may find in the Russian external policy. Particularly, it is discernable well in the Conception of the National Security and the Conception of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation that were adopted in 2000.

The policy of the RF in Asia has undergone lately considerable change. Relations with China became pivotal in this direction for Russia. Russia-China summits were seen as evidence of the RF's independent external policy. In some degree it also served as challenge to the United States of America. Just during the meetings with Chinese leaders, Russia proclaimed its adherence to the idea of multipolar world. Natural for the policy of the RF became formation of the "Asian Five" that involved Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kirghisia, and Tadzhikistan. In August 1999, the Summit talks of the "5" were held in Bishkek, where the sides confirmed their intentions for geopolitical alliance. Russian activity grows within such political and economic formation as EurAsEU.

Hence, the Asian foreign-policy line gradually becomes the most promising and dynamic. Concerning these actions of Russia, one may speak only of the "natural geographic" Eurasianism that springs out of the recognition of Russia's geographic location in the center of Eurasia, being the determinant factor of its foreign policy.

Also important is the fact that the issue of Eurasianism was addressed not by Russian political circles alone. As far back as 1994, N. Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, came out with a suggestion of Eurasian Union. In 2002, A. Akayev, President of the Kirghisia Republic, anticipated the idea of the Eurasian civilization revival with Russia at the head to carry out the unifying role. Therefore, the idea of the Eurasian Union is quite hot nowadays among many political figures.

In our opinion, the Eurasian issue is of urgent interest for Ukraine too, since the view is expressed often lately concerning this country being part of the European civilization.

It is worth noting that such features of political and social reality of the Ukrainian society as superficiality of the State in all the forms of public relation, profound effect of collectivist ideology, lack of real full rights guarantees, population's dependence on bureaucratic structures, low level of citizens' initiative and political activity, accepting the existing situation in the country despite its changing to the worse are peculiar to the Asian form of social life in its classical form. Nevertheless, the presence of Asian socio-cultural elements in the political structure and mentality of the Ukrainian society is not a disadvantage in accord with the principle of interdependence and mutual complementarity of the civilized development.

What is more, the Asian element is advisable to be employed for the country's participation in the Eurasian processes to help end the crisis as fast as possible.

Largely, the Eurasian doctrine has passed the test of time, which evidence is its present great popularity among the political establishment of some countries. Considering quite appreciable Asian element within Ukrainian culture and its people, the issue of Eurasianism is highly topical for Ukraine. The appreciation of it by the Ukrainian politicians is needed, and there is hope for it being formed soon.

As regards to Russia, it should be noted that at its present stage of development it is in search of its new identity. In particular, new military insignia symbolizing three periods of this country's history combined and adoption of national anthem, which is nothing other than a composition of the new words and old Soviet hymn music, is evidence to the fact. In foreign and domestic policy, more and more actions are discernable than confirm adherence of the RF's leadership to the Eurasian doctrine.

Quite pertinent is the view that Russia is to follow the road of creating a strong world power by authoritarian means instead of democratic way of development.

There are both numerous advantages and drawbacks on this road. For example, the authoritative political leader, which features are increasingly shown in the figure of Vladimir Putin, is capable of taking the country on a special course that would not be a mere copying of the Western experience. In this case, in our view, Eurasianism is doomed to become a new state ideology. In case the aforementioned changes in the RF occur, Eurasianism has the fattest chance in choosing a new identity with the potential for the Eurasian doctrine to show itself at the state level gradually rising.

читайте також:
16.04.2008 "Так нам и НАТО. Украине в альянсе не место! Его уже почти заняла Россия"
12.02.2008 "Тегеранские зарисовки"
22.11.2007 "Тбіліська криза"
11.10.2007 "Тбилисский кризис"
Стратегічна панорама
Стратегічна Панорама   Національний інститут проблем міжнародної безпеки видає щоквартальний науково-аналітичний збірник "Стратегічна Панорама".


Спеціалізована Вчена Рада
Постановою президії ВАК від 12 березня 2008 р. № 14-08/3 в інституті створено спеціалізовану вчену раду Д26.723.01 із правом приймати до розгляду та проводити захист дисертацій на здобуття наукового ступеня доктора (кандидата) наук зі спеціальностей:

21.01.01 – Основи національної безпеки держави
(паспорт перелiк питань);

21.03.01 – гуманітарна і політична безпека держави;

21.03.02 – регіональна безпека держави;

21.03.03 – геополітика

21.04.01 – Eкономічна безпека держави
(паспорт перелiк питань);

Головою спецради призначено д.філос.н, професора М. А. Ожевана, ученим секретарем спецради - к.політ.н. Т. С. Стародуб.