Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / The future of Russia and the world: estimates and projections / Articles
The Eurasian space as a medium of dialogue between civilizations: the experience and prospects of studying
Material posted: Publication date: 16-11-2019

The term "civilization" has many interpretations and exists as an abstract concept, as it is not strictly defined. In General, a civilization is "a cultural community of people with a certain social genotype, co-exist in the development of their large space relatively independently"[1]. Accordingly, despite the variety of meanings, the concept of "dialogue among civilizations" is to understand clearly, as a phenomenon, consisting in the productive interaction of different groups of people in the designated area.

A. N. The poles highlights the main stages of development of society: primitive, local civilization, world civilization[1]. At the last stage of development of the society, he focuses, as modern society for the most part already exists in the form of communicative interdependent structure of the General economy and the world trading space. According to Polyakov, civilization is a social system, the core of which is an elite class of people exempt from labour[2], this author sees the idea of civilization. Based on this, at all stages of development of the society is to provide the only desire is the liberation from work, associated psychologically the representatives of all segments of the population with freedom in General.

It is also worth noting that in the course of various interactions among the peoples historically occurs cultural exchange and enrichment. For example, A. A. Andreev believes that without distinction and identity of border cultures, a dialogue would not make sense, and when the absolute difference would become impossible because of their radical[3]. Anyway, changing relationships with people-partners leads to mutual or unilateral change concerning cultural development at the beginning of their interaction that regularly occurred in the history of Russia.

Considering Eurasia from a geographical point of view, it should be noted that it is more than a vast territory has always favoured the dialogue of civilizations. So, P. N. Sawicki proposed to define the Eurasian space, stretching from the Baltic and the Carpathians to the Pacific ocean and adjacent on the North to the Arctic ocean, and to the South delineated the seas, the lakes region (Black, Caspian, Ural)[4]. The Eurasian area of Russia borders with the countries-members of the "European" development (for example, the Baltic States, Finland, countries of the former USSR) and East (Mongolia, China, Kazakhstan).

The concept of "Eurasia" as such was formulated by the founders of geopolitics that emerged in Western Europe in the late nineteenth century.

That geopolitics has had a powerful influence on the minds of Russian immigrants and led to the formation of flow – Eurasianism that emerged and developed, according to supporters of the geopolitical approach, "by the mistakes committed in the course of Pro-Western reforms"[5].

Geopolitical approach in the strict sense of the word considering the global process "as the struggle of States seeking to expand and establish control over the planet's resources, leading to conflict between them"[6].

The most common classification divides the world into East and West as two opposing global civilization[7]. Scientists often illuminate the issue of relations between countries in this vein, and a considerable part of the work is the study of the conflict between the West and the East. So, A. N. Polyakov said that as a result of the Europeanization of Russia in the country originated the complex "bad" Europeans[8], which is still important in the country. Here it is necessary to quote Danilevsky, who was in his judgment is categorical: "unfortunately or to pleasure, fortunately or unfortunately, Russia belongs to Europe"[9].

It was a dramatic phrase should be seen as the cause of many skirmishes in the scientific world. These contradictions among the scholars, outlining the essence of phenomena and describing processes in history lead how to productive discussions leading to progress in science, some new useful conclusions, and to the complication of dialogue and perception of information by people because of the multiple points of view. From the latter it follows that often, people make erroneous conclusions because of "congestion" sources of bipolar information.

Unfortunately, at the moment the construction of the "East-West" in the minds of the people greatly simplified and popularized, a lot of people considers political events, identifying only one of the parties and primitively the border of right or wrong. Of course, developing this concept, scientists put in its basis the idea of prejudice, but only wanted to create a new tool for the study of history that can explain conflicts that arise, but it is firmly entrenched in world history and is used in the writings and debates of today.

The problem of the distorted opinions from distorted information leads to political illiteracy and ignorance of the people on a massive scale.

Also on the background of a difficult political situation for its scale and the regular appearance of conflicts on national soil and to differences in religion or culture, the issue of peaceful coexistence of different civilizations in Eurasia was always acute and always requires maximum control in the interaction of peoples from the authorities.

All of the above determines the relevance of the analysis information further summarizing of the selected topics.

The fundamental idea of the first Eurasians were dogma "Russia – not Europe and not Asia". They put forward the idea that Eurasia, with extensive territories with separate it people of different faiths and views, has a universal mission of world unification, i.e. it is the forming element of world history. The Eurasian doctrine popularly associated with Slavophilism, however, it is worth noting that in the doctrine of Russian identity is not allowed the thought of any symbiosis with representatives of other faiths other than Orthodoxy and equivalence of cultures as they are perceived lower in their mission than the Orthodox and true Orthodox people in General. Thus, there is a major difference between the radicalism of the Slavophiles, and more loyal to the views of Eurasians of promoting the idea of a strong Union of Europe, Asia and Russia with the features of the people.

Z. N. Akavov wrote that the Eurasian concept is consonant with the work of Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy, Gogol, and Dostoevsky. The latter, according to Akavov, based on my own experience, has created his own artistic world model[10], which found reflection in his work and was a "plurality of independent and naselennyh voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully votes" (according to Bakhtin)[11]. And A. N. Poles in Dostoevsky's novel "Teenager" saw the beginnings of this thought[12].

His vision of Russia also actively expressed and another famous scientist D. I. Mendeleyev, who was involved in the explanation of the processes in the country, in terms of aspects of the "national economy". After approval of the positions of Russia in the Pacific, it was considered useful to "understand China" and to enter with him into a solid Union[13]. The necessity of rapprochement with the Far East and saw the S. S. Prince Ukhtomsky, one of the first noticed the Eurasian nature of Russia[14]he writes that Russia "Slavic by language and religion, but in the sense of blood unusually colorful and mixed with the native elements"[15].

The main object of analysis was chosen as the culture of the interacting peoples. According to E. S. Safronova, "all spheres of culture are religion as the dominant factor"[16]so in the cultural sphere the most, you should give consideration to the integration potential of synthesizing religions, because it is relative to the spiritual development develops domestic life of the individual and, accordingly, the studied companies. This can be attributed to the position Ulanova: "...the core of the Eurasian culture is spirituality and the core of the spirituality – religion"[17]. Religion as the Foundation of the culture was determined and S. Filatov[18], under the assumption that Orthodoxy can interact with two massive religions – Buddhism and Islam.

Indeed, the Eurasian space is Russia unites the peoples of the three major religious faiths: Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

Taking into account that the active study of religions and desire to understand the "alien" culture has emerged with the formation of the idea of Eurasianism (XIX century) and preceding the Slavophile in a timely manner to say that until the study of cultures was considered by geopolitics, to build their views taking into account the geographical situation of the parties.

For example, the concept "Euro-Asia" geopolitics H. Mackinder formulated with a focus on Russia, as forming a state. He was sure that the Mongol invasion should be considered as a potential activator of the Russian state, and the country inherited by the Mongols organized structure and influence[19]. In this he echoed the ideas of Trubetskoy and Savitsky. According to them, such as La Suite, when in the XVI century Muscovy learned Tatar the idea of the unity of Eurasia, the continent has formed the cultural synthesis[20].

Most Eurasians showed interest in other cultures and were engaged in their learning, but most often in his works came to the same conclusion: "foreign" religion subconsciously seek and need to seek the most preferred Orthodoxy. To such conclusion Lamansky, Trubetskoy, Vasiliev, tanners, Solovyov, and many others. This consensus focuses and M. S. Ulanov, in his article, saying that the issue of formation of Russian culture of the Eurasians took the main role of the Orthodox Church[21] – it is, in their opinion, was "undeformed" borrowing.

Such a sharp position of Eurasians, is not supported by any documentary evidence, was regularly criticized, even by colleagues. For example, P. M. bitsilli said: "...is irrelevant and the claim that "pagans" East "potentially" closer to the only true Christianity, i.e. the Orthodox than the Christian "heretics", i.e., "Protestants and Catholics" - all it is a myth that they cultivated hardly not tactical reasons..."[22]. Thus, Bitsilli saw the effort to Orthodoxy political move Eurasians.

In the study of the religious component, considering the Slavic civilization, a big step was made by I. N. Danilevsky, putting forward the theory of cultural-historical types – a self-contained cultural entities. Developing his idea, he came to an important conclusion for the further study of religions, these cultural types are equal with respect to each other[23].

According to Limanskogo, unlike most of his colleagues, to give preference to the East, the Russian culture is close to the West: he saw a common origin in their development. It was concluded that the leading role in the civilizational development of the continent play Europe and Russia[24].

N. With. Troubetzkoy, on the contrary, in the civilizational aspect is opposed to East-Slavic-Finno-Ugric-Turkic-Mongol Russia-Eurasia Romano-Germanic Europe[25]. He defines Eurasia as a separate civilization, the mission of which is the confrontation between the West, which is committed to national genocide. For this reason have been expressed and M. Laruelle: the Eurasians condemned all intercourse with Europe before he graduated from the formation of the movement[26].

Troubetzkoy in his writings encouraged the rapprochement with the East and thought it only right vector of development of the country, as came to the conclusion that "ideological donor" to Russia was not the Kievan Rus, and the Mongol Empire.

On top of that the Eastern development was facilitated by the expansion of the Romanov Empire in the East with the submission of Turkic peoples[27]. However, it should be noted: in examining the literature it is easy to conclude that a positive assessment of the East Trubetskoi was not the original.

Summing up the conclusion in his article, Ulanov says that, starting from the ideas of the Eurasians, beyond the arguments about Christianity, you can talk about "Orthodox Buddhism" and "Orthodox Islam" [28].

In connection with the accession to the Eurasian scholars"of inavero", "Eurasians the goal was to show the constructive role of non-Orthodox peoples in the development of Russian civilization"[29]. Thus, the fashion for the inclusion of Mongolian and Turanian cultures to the Russian gained validity and was considered as a positive aspect.

Accordingly, despite the overwhelming number of Orthodox, in the XIX – XX centuries the attention of scientists was attracted by the Buddhist philosophy that has spread beyond the usual dissemination. Study a number of scientists, among which were Vasiliev and tanners. In his book last said: "...educational, educational, moral and ennobling the meaning of all the religions that can be called world-historical"[30]and S. Soloviev considered the Russian Empire as a unity of East and West, "as a family, United voluntarily, not forcibly"[31], while paying tribute to the world-historical significance of the religion, but like most of my colleagues, have focused on the limitations of Buddhism.

In General, positioning his view of the structure of the state, is very revealing about the society, wrote A. N. The poles, comparing communal system (democratic organization) and civilized (the presence of the ruling elite): "...the Primitive state is a social system, which is based on personal labor, where labor is a cruel necessity for all (means for life). On the contrary, in any civilization it is easy to notice the presence of social strata, including those that not only have the opportunity not to work, but despise work, believing it to be a lot of "low," "vile" people"[32]. From this position it is easy to conclude that "stratification" of society, the emergence of different views to work (the desire of the individual to personal well-being, and not for the good of the whole team), communal system existed successfully, guided by the experience of ancestors and has its own culture, not trying to borrow "foreign" values.

And Bochkova L. V. focuses on the fact that, in her opinion, the world is United by the Russian language and historical memory of the people[33], i.e. it provides an owl interpretation in the vision of the invisible causes of the global enterprises, emphasizing, along with Polyakov, the fact that society has some passing experience through the generations.

Referring to the work of Pavlenko and Dodin, according to their opinion, "...the real unity of the historical life within Eurasia covered very short periods. Early medieval political formations of Eurasia max (and only at the regional level) prior to the beginning of the XIII century, never for a long time did not reach the steppe, forest-steppe and forest at the same time. Of the unity of the historical life of the peoples of Eurasia (the intensity of which should not be exaggerate) can speak only from the time of Genghis Khan and his direct descendants between the mid XIII and XIV."[34]. Accordingly, prior to the peak of popularity in the study of the interactions of the cultures kept the insulation design as cultural traditions of the people in the designated area, and religions.

For example, before the baptism of Rus by Prince Vladimir in 988 ("local civilizations" by A. N. Polyakov) on the territory of the Russian lands was dominated by the paganism that their practices and hard practices differed greatly from the border cultures of the West (Catholics) and the East (Buddhism, Lamaism), dramatically reducing the possibility of cultural dialogue. His power spread, the Prince set the goal of bringing large territories under one ideology by selecting it Byzantism, which is almost the complete opposite of "barbaric" and "mundane" worldviews of paganism, with similar "animal" customs with the customs of the enemy. An important step in the adoption of Orthodoxy became the social status of women and the change of the family unit, and bringing in a culture of progressive literature and art. However, studies show that the baptism of Rus ' throughout the ancient history has produced a radical change in the consciousness of society, because, as noted by E. P. Drunk, "under the cover of Christianity up to the eighteenth century, paganism persisted, partly mixed with Christian rites"[35].

During this period cultural exchange and if occurred, it was often carried out in times of war, because promoting Orthodoxy to the masses, in that period, the government sought to isolate from the effects of "foreign" cultures in addition to Byzantine in order to accelerate the process of integration of selected ideas to the people.

XV century E. P. Drunken notes as the Golden age of Russian Holiness; then the author identifies the sixteenth century as the decline of monasticism and focuses on the phenomenal interaction of debauchery and violence with ritual rigor under Ivan the terrible[36]. This was followed by the reforms of Nikon, which resulted in the split of the Church, which resulted in the practice of the old believers. Remembering the old belief, N.About. Lossky wrote: "the old Believers deserves attention as one of the manifestations of the basic properties of the Russian people. It expressed deep religiosity combined with the strength of feeling and will, leading to the astonishing bigotry and extremism"[37]. Ie Lossky was recognized for the practice of believers ancestral feature of the Russian mentality, putting it on a par with good qualities, but at the same time, noting a not unimportant detail – the ability of these qualities to develop into radicalism. After numerous reforms of Peter I jacked the rigid policies the people waited for the "bureaucratization" of monasticism in connection with the establishment of Soviet power.

It was in the late 20-ies of XX century, according to E. S. Safronova, some of the Eurasians took the Soviet Russia[38], then the country has long established itself illegal status of religiosity in quasireorganization the state, and for Eurasians split.

Immediately it should be noted that the Church and religion existed together the entire Soviet period[39]. However, the Soviets throughout the period led powerful policy under the auspices of internationalization, with an emphasis on the values of "current day", ie attempted under the beginning to unite all ethnic groups in the country, causing the overall pseudovector development.

According to Y. V. Pavlenko and E. Y. Dodin, in the period of tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union, the peoples of Eurasia formed the inter-civilization community. About the Soviet period, they note that, despite the attempts of the USSR to impose new quasirandomly established crops have failed[40].

Thus, we can conclude that in the vast territory of the Soviet Union in successful collaboration there was a unique culture of different peoples. The ethnic diversity of Russia was noted and S. Malevsky-Malevich: "the Different races and nationalities included in the Soviet Union, with all their ethnic and linguistic features and differences of the common historic past and common culture distinct from the cultures of West and East that constitutes the synthesis of Europe and Asia and represents the intrinsic value not only for themselves but for the whole of mankind"[41]. In a similar way about the Soviet people was expressed by V. A. Tishkov: "...the USSR was a multi-ethnic nation state, like other large States. As such it was recognized by international law and community"[42].

The post-war period for the Eurasians were not more favorable than the period of Nazi persecution. After 1945, the Eurasians and other activists emigre political groups collapsed Soviet repression[43]. Now Eurasianism has been compromised because many leaders of political movements, initially opposed orientation to Europe, changed his views, some even in favor of the established government.

For example, once an ardent supporter of classical Eurasianism, N. N. Alekseev, in the postwar period changed my ideas about the origins of the studied currents. Based on its rethinking, S. S. Malevsky-Malevich in the 1970-ies issued an updated Manifesto of Eurasianism[44], which proposed to counter China, not Europe, who now saw a successful companion experience in contacting with the early ideas stated Limanskogo.

S. S. Malevsky-Malevich in the evaluation of the situation of the Soviet Union came to the conclusion that the Communist experiment has failed[45], seeing in the concept of fellow Eurasians misplaced authoritarianism. He proposed to mitigate the scope of the course and to encourage freedom of press, speech and faith: "...personal freedom and integrity must form the basis of the future social order"[46]. However, as noted by Prudnikov, Malevsky-Malevich did not deny upadeshi Western utilitarianism, but is committed to "maximum personal freedom"[47]. This is the first difference from the ideas of his predecessor, Alekseyev, which involved the achievement of modern society conditional compromise between collective interests and interests of the individual.

Thus, Malevsky-Malevich assumed partial borrowing from the West of certain schemes (for example, the protection of human rights) in order to reduce the possibility of prosperity of the oligarchy.

A. A. Nikishenkov in his article noted that after the collapse of the Soviet Union was collapsing the established "ideological schemes" and in society there was a split[48] after disconnecting many areas, resulting in a gradual increase in ethnic conflicts. The reason for this was that after the collapse of a great state popularized the myth of the subordination of the "native Russian people" all the other ethnic groups. The consequences of such thoughts can be observed today: it is not uncommon mutual disrespect in the ongoing debate based on pseudocomplete born in the first years of the Soviet Union.

In the period of perestroika in the various former republics of the mythology of the "West-East" has changed its value[49], giving a conditional right to claim kinship with Western culture more than Eastern culture. In other words, wanting in the short term to achieve progress, many former elements of the Union (e.g. the Baltic States) has set its priority to join the "European family" to follow her progress. This attitude of the former republics to Russia, still has a place, and still face prejudice which just brought in a timely manner, "catching" the idea of freedom from the former control.

Perhaps in the subsequent fragmentation of such peoples and against Vladimir Putin was seen in his words, "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century"[50]. In General, the time of perestroika Russia was pouring outside the flow of media pressure in the form of Westernization, against which the East Slavic people have no immunity[51]. This is also reflected in public opinion.

The views of M. Ulanova E. S. and Safronova met in the outline of cultural synthesis. In recent years the popularity of the term "Eurasianism" has increased, but now the word is not much meaning in itself, how it expresses its presence: word serves as a marker of the otherness of Russia in other countries, emphasizes its uniqueness from other computer. If such modification of the meaning of the term, thus, continues the idea of freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The question about the popularity of Eurasianism asked and Y. V. Pavlenko, the main reason he considered the discussion of the openness of the question of civilizational identity the larger CIS countries (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan)[52]. In your rationale, he turns to the definition of a "clash of civilizations" by modern political scientist Samuel Huntington; he refers, and A. N. Poles, preferring his definition of "civilization". Huntington offers an interpretation of civilization as "integrity, which is characterized by the unity or similarity of such parameters as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and identity"[53].

Summing up the preliminary results in the question, it is necessary to quote M. V. Ulanov, who is also drawn to the civilizational context: "the Eurasianism of Russian culture and Eurasianism as a principle of civilized openness of dialogue, Symphony and complementarity of diverse cultures is a permanent factor that prevents a "clash of civilizations" and contributes to their social development"[54].

Catching a view of the future political structure of Russia, A. Y. Prudnikov, clinging to the idea Malevsky-Malevich about the warranty upgraded on the Western model of the state the rights and freedoms of the individual, develops the idea that true vector of development is to change the biased assessment of the West and to Western democracy, which is viewed by the very "typical".

To explain the current situation of the country and its prospects A. A. Nikishenkov also began to study the perception of Russia by other States and by itself. As he notes, "...the image exists in the mass consciousness is like a myth, i.e. on the basis of the collective unconscious..."[55]. Remarkably, in his work the author prefers to consider the issue through the concept of "East-West", but attribute it to the prevailing myths that mislead rational view of the layman with a true course. This problem is not so much geographical as political because its origin can be attributed to the age of Enlightenment, when thinkers formulated the thesis of "civilization" by defining Western Europeans as the highest category of people[56].

Also Nikishenkov affects standing acute problem of today: the image of Russia still does not have a strong outline, and the Russians themselves do not fully understand what it means to be a unit of this image. According to him, "...the Russian public consciousness to the present time is a kind of multi-voiced discourse, which includes strikingly different from each other ideas about the nature of Russia and its population. Each of these views is a certain image of our country, designed and promoted by various parties..."[57]. The image perceived reality radically affects the actions and opinions of the person, which can be modeled, and what do the agitators, politicians, activists and any other proponents of large-scale movements, capable of their own to set a particular vector of development of society, which will go after them. The logical conclusion is that the study of incoming information, you should consider the source to avoid distorted representations.

In the modern developed world, the transformation of the relationship is different than before the tech boom. Thanks to scientific progress in recent years, the country has reached a particular level of information exchange.

For example, on the Internet being a real information war and special impact on the view of politics as a whole and in its constituent States. Thus, free access to "infested" (and often unnecessary) information confuses the view of the masses and at the same time gives everyone an opportunity to speak, giving thus a tribute to the "pursuit of Western democracy". As you know, one can join another ten. This is the birth of the movement, and the idea finds its expression, and most importantly - followers.

Almost on the same principle policy lead the country through a massive network of media, presenting any event in a favorable light for yourself. Such a model leads to irreversible consequences in the understanding of events and leads to the abuse of demagoguery.

As correctly stated by Nikishenkov A. A, modern people for the most part "...do not feel themselves and their country"[58]. Hence, the return to the Russian idea in the consideration of scholars of the Fund "Russian world" (founded in 2007) should be taken as an attempt to solve this problem, i.e., the appearance of such instances is due to the attention of the authorities to question people's perception.

L. V. Bochkova believes that despite the current dismal state of the Russian Federation, the country has a chance of maneuvering in the framework of the Russian world[59]. In her opinion, the prospect for the country exists because of US engaged in conflict in the middle East and some other key countries and events in the Central Asian and Caucasus regions[60]. Wondering about the vector of development of the country, the scientist gives priority to the development "of the Russian idea in its widest interpretation, the Eurasian interpretation of it..."[61] and considers its use appropriate in the current situation.

The second problem is the misunderstanding of the parties, leading the dialogue, because not synchronized terminology and disunity in the areas of application of terms. Example Bochkova L. V.: in Russia there is an unspoken division of concepts into "Russian" and "Russian" for the Russian citizens the difference of interpretation is often not significant, while abroad from the use of one or another meaning is that of[62], changing the essence of the question.

At the moment the situation is such that the countries of the Eurasian space is fragmented and bad enough interact. "Special is the question about the involvement of the Eurasian space to zapadnogermanskaya civilization. Traditional close ties with the peoples of Central Europe determined the particular, the intermediate position of Western Ukrainians and Belarusians between the Eastern Christian and zapadnodvinskiy worlds"[63]. In the end, the author concludes that at the moment the Eurasian space is nothing but "quasireversible".

Step towards addressing this issue is an attempt to create a Eurasian Union on the basis of the existing Eurasian economic Union open shopping space and established mutual integration. About this project writes to Vladimir Putin: "We suggest a powerful supranational Association capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world and play the role of efficient "link" between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region"[64].

The question of cultural exchange is now dominated by the absolute openness: fashion for the study of the cultural side of other States suggests that will soon finish their formation of a world culture, because the circle of information available gets tighter thanks to the above described availability of information. A vivid example in this sphere can serve as freedom of religion and even fashion on religion.

Largely the consequences of the historical conflicts between Russia and other countries based on the popularized concept of "East-West" defined by the scientists rather rigid conceptual boundaries, and often do not allow compromise of deviations in one direction or another. Fruit distorted historical facts reaps the whole world throughout history that leads to irreversible consequences. Because of the mutual non-objective evaluation of countries each other evolved psychological skeleton that became the basis of some mutual emotional closeness of States. Consequence confrontation "East-West" in the political arena are problems in the relations between peoples within countries, there is a growing local conflicts on national soil.

Despite a number of identified problems, Russia is open to dialogue and has a lot of potential and historical experience in the development together with other cultures. Unfortunately, this does not negate the fact that the interior of the country is not in the best condition from the point of view of operational solutions to incoming problems. Based on the tracked trends and facts it can be concluded that at this stage of development of the country contributes to and seek to promote inter-ethnic harmony.

 

[1] Polyakov A. N. Kievan Rus ' as a civilization. Orenburg: OSU, 2010. P.11.

[2] Polyakov A. N. Kievan Rus ' as a civilization. Orenburg: OSU, 2010. S. 41.

[3] Andreev, A. A., "Frontier" as a cultural-historical category. // Bulletin of the Maykop state technological University. 2014. No. 3. P.12.

[4] Dodin, E. Ya., Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P. 36.

[5] Y. P. Bokarev Geopolitical approach in comparative historical research. // Proceedings of the Institute of Russian history. 2004. No. 4. P. 182.

[6] op. CIT. in: Dodin E. Ya., Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P. 35-36.

[7] Kirdina S. G. the Philosophy of Russian modernization: from civilization to an institutional approach. // Reforming Russia. 2013. No. 12. S. 277.

[8] Polyakov A. N. Kievan Rus ' as a civilization. Orenburg. OSU. 2010. P.13.

[9] ibid. P.14.

[10] Akanov Z. N. Dostoevsky and Eurasianism. // Literary review: history and modernity. 2011. No. 1. Pp. 3-4.

[11] op. CIT. in: Bakhtin, M. M. problems of poetics of Dostoevsky. M., 1972. P.3.

[12] Polyakov A. N. Decree. CIT. p.39.

[13] Gloveli G. D. D. I. Mendeleev and Eurasianism. // The philosophy of management. 2009. No. 2. P. 253-254.

[14] M. V. Ulanov Eurasianism, Orthodoxy and Buddhism. // Vestnik of Tomsk state University. 2008. No. 313. P. 62.

[15] op. CIT. by: E. E. Ukhtomsky To the events in China. The attitude of the West and Russia to the East. SPb., 1900. P.9.

[16] op. CIT. by: Safronova E. S. Eurasian synthesis of cultures and Buddhism in Russia. // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2011. No. 3-4. P.168.

[17] CIT. by: Ulanov, M. V. Decree. CIT. p. 63.

[18] Filatov S. Buryatia: Eurasianism in the Buddhist context. // Publish The "Russian Review Keston Institute". 2007. No. 7. S. 23.

[19] Y. P. Bokarev Geopolitical approach in comparative historical research. // Proceedings of the Institute of Russian history. 2004. No. 4. P. 185-186.

[20] Lux, L. Notes on a revolutionary traditionalist cultural models of Eurasians. // Questions of philosophy. 2003. No. 7. C. 16.

[21] M. V. Ulanov Decree. CIT. p. 63.

[22] op. CIT. by: Bitsilli, P. M. the Two faces of Eurasianism // World of Russia - Eurasia: the anthology. M., 1995. S. 339.

[23] E. S. Safronova Eurasian synthesis of cultures and Buddhism in Russia. // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2011. No. 3-4. P. 169.

[24] The Fucking N. And. Art and civilization identity // Science. M. 2007. P. 278.

[25] Dodin, E. Ya., Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P. 38.

[26] M. laruelle, the Ideology of Russian Eurasianism or thoughts about the greatness of the Empire. M., 2004. P. 46.

[27] M. Laruelle Of The Decree. CIT. p.39.

[28] M. V. Ulanov Decree. CIT. p. 63.

[29] ibid. P. 64.

[30] Op. in: Solovyov V. Buddhism in comparison with Christianity. Essays in two volumes. M., 1988. Volume 1. P. 314.

[31] E. S. Safronova Eurasian synthesis of cultures and Buddhism in Russia. // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2011. No. 3-4. P. 172.

[32] op. CIT. by: Polyakov A. N. Decree. Op. p. 36.

[33] Bochkova L. V. Russia – Russian peace: the choice of strategy. // Vestnik of the Russian state agrarian correspondence University. 2011. No. 11(16). P.13.

[34] Op. in: Dodin E. Ya., Pavlenko YV.. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P. 37-38.

[35] op. CIT. by: the Drunken E. P. Religion and the Church in the history of Russia // Bulletin of the Ural state University of Railways. 2012. No. 2. S. 97.

[36] ibid. P. 98-99.

[37] Op. in: N. Lossky.About. The character of the Russian people. In 2 vol. M: Key, 1990. KN. 2. P. 58.

[38] E. S. Safronova Eurasian synthesis of cultures and Buddhism in Russia. // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2011. No. 3-4. P. 177.

[39] the Drunken E. P. Religion and the Church in the history of Russia // Bulletin of the Ural state University of Railways. 2012. No. 2. S. 102-104.

[40] E. Y. Dodin, Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P. 38.

[41] op. CIT. by: Malevsky-Malevich S. USSR today and tomorrow. Paris, 1972. P.146.

[42] Op. in: V. A. Tishkov, Unity in diversity. Orenburg, 2008. P. 177.

[43] A. Prudnikov, Y. the history of the Eurasian idea: S. S. Malevsky-Malevich and his project of the construction of Russia. // Vestnik of Perm University. Series: History. 2011. No. 1-15. P.149.

[44] A. Prudnikov, Y. Decree. CIT. p. 150.

[45] ibid. S. 151.

[46] Cited for: Malevsky-Malevich S. S. Decree. CIT. P. 143-144.

[47] A. Prudnikov, Y. Decree. CIT. p. 152.

[48] Nikishenkov A. A. Image of Russia in the context of civilizational, state and ethnic identity. // Personality. Culture. Society. 2011. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 103.

[49] ibid. P. 109.

[50] Bochkova L. V. Russia - Russian peace: the choice of strategy. // Vestnik of the Russian state agrarian correspondence University. 2011. No. 11(16). P.14.

[51] Dodin E. Y. Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. P.39.

[52] ibid. S. 35.

[53] Polyakov A. N. Decree. CIT. p. 34.

[54] Cited for: Ulanov, M. V., Eurasianism, Orthodoxy and Buddhism. // Vestnik of Tomsk state University. 2008. No. 313. P. 64.

[55] Op. by: Nikishenkov A. A. Decree. CIT. p. 102.

[56] Nikishenkov A. A. Decree. CIT. p. 106.

[57] ibid. P. 103.

[58] Nikishenkov A. A. Decree. CIT. p.112.

[59] Bochkova L. V. Decree. CIT. p.13.

[60] ibid. S. 13-14.

[61] Op. by: Bochkova L. V. Decree. Op. p.12.

[62] ibid. P.13.

[63] Op. in: Dodin E. Ya., Pavlenko. V. Eurasianism and civilizational structure of the post-Soviet space. // Cultural studies. 2003. No. 2. S. 39-40.

[64] Op. by: Putin Vladimir Vladimir Putin. New integration project for Eurasia – a future that is born today. // News. 2011. 3 Oct. P.9.

Balashova E. D.


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение