Russia's Civilizational Choice: the Eurasian Alternative

Grachev Bogdan PhD in Politics Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 109240, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12, str.1 BogdanGrachev@gmail.com Other publications by this author

IntroductionOne of the central directions of Russia's foreign policy at the moment is the gathering of border spaces, which finds expression in the formation of various kinds of interstate and integration organizations.

The most significant achievements of recent years include the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015. Officially, the creation of the Union was based mainly on economic considerations, but the need to rely on the historical community and the philosophical justification of the "common house" is obvious and has repeatedly found expression in the media [For example, 7, 21, 26].

Indeed, the economic interdependence of the member countries of the Union - Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia – is relatively low, and the main factors of integration can be called the protection and realization of national interests, the awareness of which was manifested directly in the political will of the leaders ^[14]. It is worth noting, however, that the national interests themselves are determined not only by the reaction to the current international conjuncture, but also based on the historical and cultural-civilizational paradigm, because the most profound, time-stretched social transformations are caused by the dynamics of events at this level. In this regard, the question is of particular importance: does the Eurasian Union as a political and economic entity have cultural and historical grounds for further existence and development, and what is Russia's place in this Union?

Civilizational characteristics of Russia in Eurasian conceptsThe very name of the new association implies an appeal to Eurasianism – the current of Russian intellectual thought of the early twentieth century, which opposed Russia to Europe and defined its historical path as distinctive – different from the West and East.

Developing this idea of Russia's uniqueness, the Eurasians relied on the already quite rich heritage of Russia's socio-philosophical thought by that time. For example, A. S. Khomyakov, in his Notes on World History ^[42], criticized Hegel's Eurocentric philosophy of history, introducing the concept of sobornost, understood as "unity in the multitude", as one of the key characteristics of Russian culture.

A significant contribution was made by N. Y. Danilevsky. Russian Russian people denied belonging to the European (Germanic-Romanesque) cultural and historical type, he was looking for an alternative "supranational" cultural and historical identity of the Russian people and in this regard declared the emerging new type - Slavic ^[15]. In the future, the theme of cultural centers of the world was developed by the outstanding Russian historian V. I. Lamansky, author of the treatise "Three Worlds of the Asian-European continent", where, according to the criterion of geographical, ethnographic and cultural foundations of independent existence, he singled out the Germanic-Romance, Greek-Slavic and Asian "worlds of cultural humanity".

The ideas of A.I. Herzen, who criticized European civilization, had a tangible impact on the Eurasians. "We honor the past and present of Western European culture, but we do not see it in the future… With trembling joy, with a trembling fear of indulging in devastating pride – we feel, together with Herzen, that "now history is pushing at our gates" - the Eurasians refer to him in the preface to the first and fundamental collective collection "Exodus to the East" ^[17].

The publication of this work by Russian emigrants in August 1921 in Sofia laid the foundation for a new ideological and socio-political movement. It is symbolic that this collection already organizationally concealed the "symphonic" principle of unity in diversity, since the authors relied on various directions: P.N. Savitsky was a geographer and economist, P.P. Suvchinsky was a musicologist, N.S. Trubetskoy was a linguist, G.V. Florovsky was a philosopher. Subsequently, those who created the doctrine of H.H. joined the current.Alekseev (jurist), G.V.Vernadsky (historian), L.P.Karsavin (philosopher) ^[32]. Indeed, the Eurasians did not have a single "paradigm", their views diverged more and more over time, but they were brought together by the need to create an interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary "science of Russia".

The emergence of a new trend was the result of revolutionary transformations in Russia – the Eurasians considered them natural, but they found their source not at the political or economic level, but at the cultural level. Political cataclysms, in their opinion, are only a consequence of deep centuries-old cultural processes that are constantly taking place and determine the main characteristics of the people.

It can be argued that the task that Eurasianism sought to solve was the formation of a new ideology of Russia, different from the European one. Moreover, the concept being created had to cover all spheres of life as widely as possible, focusing not only on issues of history, ethnic groups or language, but dialectically unite science, religion, philosophy.

In an attempt to define the new foundations of Russian statehood, the Eurasians drew a clear line between Europe and Russia as independent cultural centers. In particular, Eurocentrism as a claim to universal cultural universality was sharply criticized, in connection with which, the transformations of the era of Peter I were perceived as erroneous and evaluated sharply negatively, since the result of the reforms was the separation of elites from the people in the form of loss of cultural continuity, which led to a natural result – the social split and the revolution of 1917.

In general, Eurasians are characterized by a critical attitude towards the entire imperial period of Russian history due to the dominance of the European, Germanic-Roman idea among the elite. Its disadvantage was seen in the fact that Western civilization as a whole is characterized by a model of colonization of territories, such that the traditional foundations of the colonized peoples are destroyed, and only external material and utilitarian practices are offered to replace them. So N.S. Trubetskoy believed that European civilization "produces unprecedented devastation in the souls of Europeanized peoples, making them barren in relation to spiritual creativity, indifferent and feral in relation to moral creativity" ^[34]. Therefore, borrowing European practices was for him "a combination of imperialism and national vanity with an insult to national feeling and the religious foundations of Russian life" ^[38].

 Russian Russians, continuing the traditions of the Slavophiles, believed that Russian culture was inextricably linked with Orthodoxy, however, unlike their predecessors, they did not recognize the integrity of the Slavic-Russian world, admitting the presence of "islands of a related culture in the sea of European culture" ^[20]. The concept of the "Eurasian-Russian cultural world" appears in the center, which includes various ethnic elements: Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Turanian. This is the "Exodus to the East" - in recognition of the contribution of these peoples to the formation and development of Russia.

The Eurasians offered to look at the Tatar-Mongol yoke from a different angle, which defined two and a half centuries of Russian history. According to N.S. Trubetskoy, Genghis Khan gave a model of the unity and sovereignty of Eurasia, since it is the state of the Golden Horde that is the predecessor of Russia, geographically roughly corresponding to it. The unification of Eurasia and the creation of one state was carried out not by the Slavs, but by the Turanians in the Golden Horde period, bringing elements of their culture to this territory. It should be noted that the political system of the Golden Horde did not coincide with the ideal of the Islamic state, there was no complete subordination of the way of life to religious dogmas, and the state of Genghis Khan itself was located on the periphery of the Islamic world, far from cultural centers. Subsequently, the reverse process began: by annexing new territories, the Russians spread their culture among the local Turanian peoples.

Despite Europeanization, Russia managed to preserve the Eurasian essence, which was reflected in the expansion of the state at the expense of the regions of the Horde Empire: the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian region, the Crimea, Eastern Siberia was annexed. This "gathering of lands" was the idea of creating Russia-Eurasia, which was actually expressed in the transition from nomadism to agriculture, the plowing of the steppe, symbolizing the transfer of Eurasian statehood from the Turanian peoples to the Russian.

Thus, the Russian and Turanian types are closely intertwined: the construction of Moscow Rus as one of the most extensive powers of its time would have been impossible without the assimilation of the characteristic Turanian features by the Russian people. In this regard, N.S. Trubetskoy wrote: Russian Russian cohabitation with the Turanians runs like a red thread through the entire Russian history" ^[37]. "The legacy of Genghis Khan is inseparable from Russia. Whether Russia wants to or not, it will always remain the keeper of this heritage, and its entire historical fate is determined by this" ^[35].

Despite all the differences in religions, anthropological types, and the origin of the Eurasian peoples, coexistence in a single space has determined significant similarities between them. Differences in appearance are most noticeable if we consider the population of regions that are geographically very far from each other, for example, Belarusians and Uzbeks. If we compare neighboring types, for example, Belarusians and Ukrainians, Tatars and Bashkirs, Kazakhs and Uzbeks, then the transition will not be so noticeable, a kind of "anthropological rainbow" will form ^[8], where one type gradually "flows" into another. This idea was developed by L.N. Gumilev. He wrote: "The Great Russians include in their composition: Eastern Slavs from Kievan Rus, Western Slavs - Vyatichi, Finns - Merya, Murom, all, Zavolotskaya Chud, Ugrians who first mixed with the listed Finnish tribes, Balts - Goliad, Turks - baptized Polovtsians and Tatars and a small number of Mongols" ^[14].

In Eurasianism, the Russian (national) identity ceases to be perceived through the prism of the ethnos, the key factor in its definition is the space, area, historical natural and geographical development of the people, which determined special mental characteristics. The Eurasians saw continuity and proximity to the East as a source of civilizational alienness, differences from Europe, and this is the strength of Russia as an original culture. According to P.N. Savitsky, the Eurasian state is a "cathedral of nationalities and a cathedral of faiths" ^[28].

At the same time, Orthodox Christianity undoubtedly occupies an important place in the concept of the Eurasians, it forms the basis of the entire culture, is a fundamental imperative. The task of the Eurasians was found by G.V. Florovsky "in the construction of religious culture on the solid ground of the Orthodox church and in unswerving adherence to the devoted fatherly precepts" ^[41]. N.S. Trubetskoy's Eurasian program included the need to protect Orthodoxy from the influence of other areas of Christianity, rapprochement with Old Believers and the full dissemination of theological knowledge and worship among the believing intelligentsia ^[25].

G.V. Florovsky believed that Russian culture is characterized by an intuitive and mystical approach to understanding the world, as a result of which state-building should take place on fundamentally different grounds than in Europe, where the rationalistic picture of the world dominates. In this regard, he noted that the loss of national character that occurred in the St. Petersburg period of Russian history is mainly due to the inclusion of the church in the system of the secular state-administrative mechanism. Such a formation was artificial and, therefore, was doomed. "In the convulsive whirlpool of the revolutionary process, a great shift was imperceptibly accomplished: the patriarchal throne of Moscow and All Russia was restored and the conciliar principle in the local Church of Russia was revived," he wrote ^[41].

P.N. Savitsky called Orthodoxy "the true ideology of Eurasianism" ^[29], justifying this by the fact that Orthodoxy has its roots in the psychology of the peoples living on the territory of Eurasia. Such features as "awareness of the organicity of socio-political life and its connection with nature, "mainland" scope, "Russian breadth", national identity, going into infinity" ^[30] were formed, among other things, due to the natural climatic conditions of Eurasia, which determined the fusion of nomadic and sedentary forms of social organization. In his opinion, the peoples of Eurasia are characterized by a "religious international", which manifests itself as a "symphonic" unity of various faiths.

The value of Islam for Eurasians lies in the fact that the way of life prescribed by this religion shows the unity of tradition, life, politics, culture in subordination to the ideals of faith. The whole life of a Muslim is spent in recognition and acceptance of the highest principle. Everyday life and the highest manifestations of the human spirit, individual and social actions should be correlated with faith. Religion is the dominant element of all social existence. This directly corresponded to the place of Orthodoxy in the value hierarchy of the Eurasians.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam were enclosed within the framework of a single Turanian psychological type, as a result of which its bearers acquired similar socio-cultural features, despite the fact that the two religions were formed on doctrinally incompatible dogmatic principles. Their kinship was manifested in a deep respect "for the worldly, illuminated by the light of faith," in a tendency to mysticism. Another factor that brings the two religions closer together is also fundamental. In the Eurasian space, Russian Orthodoxy and Turko-Tatar Islam are often closer to each other than to their co-religious communities outside Eurasia. L.P.Karsavin transformed this idea by proposing a concept where the church acts as a "symphonic personality" that exists along with other symphonic personalities (transpersonal social formations), but differs in a special spiritual and bodily structure ^[18].

The religious content of the Orthodox Russian idea among the Eurasians has a methodological "instrumental" content, which is expressed in the attitude that "the true idea is the meaning of reality itself <...> One should move from life to idea as well as from idea to life" ^[20]. To reflect this movement, the Eurasians developed a categorical apparatus that includes a number of concepts: "Russian-Eurasian idea", "ideocracy", "ruling selection (leading layer)", "citizenship of the idea", "idea-ruler", etc.

"Idealism" as a special case of "idealism", opposes "malice". The "ideal" is based on a system of ideas generated by the Eurasian locality and inherent only to it, is not artificially borrowed and is organic to popular culture. "Malice", on the contrary, arises due to the separation of culture from its own origins, which occurs mainly as a result of the actions of the intelligentsia and the elite ^[20]. One of the variants of the negative national ideal is the communist ideology as "resting on the ardent, but critically untested, naive and erroneous faith of the Communists" ^[29].

In general, positively assessing the revolution, the Eurasians could not formulate an unambiguous attitude to the USSR, which became one of the reasons for the ideological split of the current. Most of the leaders of Eurasianism were opposed to the Bolsheviks, recognizing, however, that the USSR represents the preservation of the historical existence of Russia. N.S. Trubetskoy opposed the politicization of Eurasianism. "Under Soviet rule, Russia for the first time spoke to Asians as equals, as comrades in misfortune, and discarded that completely inappropriate role of an arrogant cultural exploiter, a role that previously put Russia in the eyes of Asians on a par with those Romano-German predators-enslavers" ^[36].

P.N. Savitsky believed that the Russian revolution freed Russia from the cultural domination of Europe, and thus the Eurasian idea lives in the USSR, although it is not realized there: "It (the revolution) revealed the nature of Russia as a special historical world. But at present it is nothing more than a hint and a task. The goal of the Eurasians is to realize it in historical reality by replacing "communist internationalism" with "pan–Eurasian nationalism" ^[24]. One of the serious obstacles on the way to it is the conditional "reduction of the status" of the Russian people, which should become one of equal rights along with other small nations and nationalities. "By giving freedom and scope to the use and development of all the diverse languages of Eurasia, the communist government undoubtedly adheres to a healthy and creative Eurasian tradition," wrote P.N. Savitsky ^[28].

The equal union of peoples into one nation was seen by the Eurasians as a natural and necessary step of domestic policy. "The national substratum of the state, which is called the USSR, can only be the whole set of peoples inhabiting this state, considered as a special multi-ethnic nation and as such possessing its own nationalism. We call this nation Eurasian, its territory – Eurasia, its nationalism – Eurasianism" ^[33], N.S. Trubetskoy noted. It is necessary to make a reservation that the "nationalism" of the Eurasians is far from the European nationalist doctrines – National Socialism or fascism. Its nature is to preserve the civilizational diversity of the world.

Eurasian nationalism was supposed to become a strong pillar of Russian statehood, therefore, the proclamation in the USSR of the principle of the right of nations to self-determination was perceived by them with apprehension: huge spaces contribute to the formation of fragmentation and, consequently, require a high degree of centralization of power. As history has shown, these fears were not in vain: in the 90s, an acute demand for sovereignty arose in the Union republics, which persists to this day, hindering the integration process.

In the 20s of the twentieth century, the Eurasians formulated the concept of Russia's development, but at that time the niche of mass popular consciousness was already occupied by the ideals of building a society according to communist canons. These ideals were not far–fetched - they were suffered at the cost of revolution, war, famine. The beliefs obtained by blood turned out to be so strong that even the Orthodox Church, which for centuries formed the basis of public life in Russia, lost its position. The Soviet ideology at that time turned out to be a powerful mobilizing force capable of uniting the Eurasian region, and eventually even forming a supranational identity of the "Soviet man" ^[6]. In such a situation, the probability of replacing revolutionary ideals with Eurasian ones was negligible.

The importance of the Eurasian vector for modern RussiaThe collapse of the USSR symbolized the loss of faith in the development of the Soviet state and the building of a happy communist society, which led people to realize the need to rely on their own strength and search for a new identity.

This transition was an important stage in the psychological development of society and the building of a pyramidal system of values of the individual, where the basis is the awareness of oneself as a person, which above acquires "we"-sounding in the context of family, city, region, country (nationality), macroregion (supranational, civilizational identity) and humanity.

Through national identity, an individual relates himself to a certain ethnic group or people. The means of realizing such identity are the traditions and values of the people, historical events, language, peculiarities of everyday life and rules of behavior. Civilizational identity is "a category expressing a spiritual socio–cultural collective (conciliar) type of unity of society and personality, which is a form of cultural and historical self-consciousness and a sense of belonging to a certain macro-community that unites the peoples of entire countries and continents on the basis of common socio-cultural codes (sets of symbols, values and ideological attitudes) that play the role of absolutes in socialization, consolidation and solidarity of people in society" ^[16]. This whole system of values serves as a guarantee of self-understanding and self-respect of society, its ideological health, organic goal-setting and orientation to the future.

In the USSR, this structure was disrupted by a strong bias towards "Sovietism", which led to a crisis of the system, an acute manifestation of the tendency to autonomization, the building of a "private" identity. This was expressed both at the micro level (individualism, the increasing role of private property) and at the macro level (numerous nationalist movements in the post-Soviet republics). However, already in the 90s of the twentieth century, the inefficiency of such an "atomic" worldview manifested itself. The mass impoverishment of the population very quickly led to a loss of faith in Western values and a change in the leading trend. The values of individualism, competitive market and consumerism are increasingly losing their popularity today. Russia's deep technological lag behind the developed powers, dependence on the export of resources, the environmental situation, the restriction of civil rights and freedoms – all these factors only strengthen the demand for a new mobilizing national idea. The topic is widely covered by the media, it is firmly entrenched in political discourse, numerous scientific studies are devoted to it. Unlike the beginning of the twentieth century, at the beginning of the XXI century, Russia needs an idea capable of consolidating society and identifying new development priorities.

A holistic concept of Eurasianism adapted to modern conditions could help to find an answer to this request. Based on the principle of unity in diversity, ensuring equality of different ethnic groups, religions and cultures, it allows you to preserve all levels of human self-identification. Nevertheless, the awakening of identity is a non–trivial, difficult task. Even if we imagine that such a task is practically feasible, it can take many years to complete it. Consequently, the formation of the Eurasian civilization should be considered as a strategic, long-term goal and direction of social development, and therefore, it seems appropriate to pay attention to the experience of China, whose strategic plans cover a horizon of several decades.

This task, first of all, falls on the shoulders of the elite: political, economic, intellectual. The analysis of political statements and fundamental foreign policy documents makes it clear that the strategic orientation towards Eurasian integration is realized, and work is underway in this direction. The first statements at the highest level were made back in 1994 ^[23], and in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin assessed the importance of Eurasian ideas for integration as follows: "The charge that Eurasian ideas carry is especially important today when we are building truly equal relations between countries. And on this path, it is important for us to preserve all the best that has been accumulated over the centuries-old history of civilization of both the East and the West" ^[12].

In a program article devoted to the development of the Eurasian integration process, N.A. Nazarbayev outlined the official position: "Today our peoples increasingly feel part of the emerging Eurasian identity with its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity <...>. We are all witnessing the birth of a new unique Eurasian community of nations, which has not only a rich experience of a shared past, but also an indivisible common history of the future" ^[22]. Putting ideas into the public space about "not introducing" a single currency ^[10] or about "not creating" a supranational parliament ^[31] looks like using the Overton window to prepare public opinion, an attempt to introduce the Eurasian agenda into political and public discourse. The work of regional international organizations, the simplification of migration procedures, the formation of a single customs space – these and many other practical measures are the necessary basis for further consolidation of the peoples of Eurasia.

The role of the scientific and intellectual elite in the formation of identity is also very high: it is through reflection and the formation of personal and social ideals that contributes to the development of people's self-consciousness, determines the foundations of education and upbringing of citizens. The contribution of religious ascetics, writers, scientists and philosophers in the processes of collective national and cultural identification is difficult to overestimate. As A.S. Panarin noted: "The Eurasian space undoubtedly needs painstaking organizers and workers, entrepreneurs and experts, because our everyday life is cluttered and neglected. But no less does he need ardent carriers of Faith and Meaning, because only taken in the spiritual dimension does it acquire unity, attractiveness and centripetal potential" ^[40].

Nevertheless, no matter what efforts are made "from above", it is impossible to impose a system of ideas about the world, about political reality, which would contradict the natural self-determination of a person. Western values of individual development, rationality, and consumer society have penetrated deeply into the way of life of the post-Soviet republics, they are actively reproduced thanks to the extensive spread of mass culture. Within the framework of this system, Russia is not an attractive country today, capable of creating a bright future for itself and neighboring peoples.

Does this mean that Russia does not have a solid foundation for the formation of a common Eurasian space? Such a statement would mean ignoring deeper factors of personal and social consciousness. The above-mentioned problems seem insurmountable today, but it is not by chance that the Eurasians investigated social processes not (only) at the current moment, but in the long term, on the scale of civilization, and did it from the standpoint of culture. The multinational people of Russia-Eurasia, that is why they can be whole, that is why they can offer non-violent and non-destructive integration, which is culturally open to the new. Therefore, the experiment of the Europeanization of Peter I began and ended, therefore, the experiment of building communism began and ended, therefore, the experiment of embedding in consumer society began and will end. All these experiments were successful due to the receptivity of the deep Eurasian identity, they all ended because they did not fully correspond to other deep characteristics described by the Eurasians.

In addition to the above, today there are a number of factors that contribute to the integration of the Eurasian peoples. One of them is the issue of national security and sovereignty, which each of the post-Soviet countries should solve independently. The opening of markets has led to an influx of foreign capital in the form of both direct investments and loans. First of all, this affected the raw materials sector of the economy of Central Asian countries, in particular Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, where already in the early 2000s American and European companies had a significant impact on the activities of local mining companies ^[19]. At this time, China actively joined the competition in the commodity markets of Central Asia. As a result, entire industries have come under external control; a foreign lobby threatens national economic sovereignty ^[39].

This is the nature of neocolonialism – a system of indirect management and preservation of control based on the ownership of means of production, technologies, rights to develop minerals, unequal trade exchange, "import of brains". The use of neocolonialist technologies is due precisely to the spread of the Western value system to the colonized peoples, in particular, the patterns necessary for its functioning are the inviolability of private property, individualism, liberalism, the rule of law. Awareness of dependence on the "metropolis" will inevitably lead to the growth of national consciousness, and an attempt to free oneself will lead to the formation of a supranational identity.

The formation of a supranational Eurasian identity is certainly not beneficial to either the United States or China. Central Asia is of interest to the PRC in several main aspects: as a regional sales market, as a transport and logistics corridor with high potential and as a point of ensuring the security of the northern borders (the border with the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region). For the United States, on the contrary, Central Asia is an outpost near its principal competitors – Russia and China. Both countries actively use soft power, trying to influence the consciousness and value system of the Central Asian peoples, and of course, such a policy resonates, first of all, in the ranks of the business elite, extracting maximum profit from cooperation. But the more dependence on world powers increases, the sooner the Central Asian peoples will need to find a Eurasian home.

Due to the small size of the economies, the post-Soviet republics must constantly seek a balance in foreign policy, they are constantly under threat, so the choice of an ally is fundamental. It is here that the cultural and civilizational factor acquires an important role, because if there is a question of long-term joint existence, neither Kazakhstan nor Kyrgyzstan will be able to adapt to the Chinese tradition. The scenario of Ukraine – attempts to incorporate into the Western system - also seems a little real. There are only two options left – either reunification with Russia, or an attempt to build a new regional center led by Turkey. However, Istanbul, after the not so successful launch of the Great Turan project, lowered the level of its ambitions, realizing that the region would not bring any economic benefits in the medium term.

For Russia, the region was part of its territory, and today it remains a buffer and logistics zone necessary for the maintenance and development of transport corridors to Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, so Moscow invests quite serious resources in the EAEU project and directly in the economies of the participating countries. For Kazakhstan, an alliance with Russia is necessary in conditions of increased pressure from external actors in the presence of internal social tension. The choice of Russia as the main partner means the possibility of continuing the traditional multi-vector policy for Kazakhstan, the preservation of economic sovereignty. Belarus has a direct economic benefit by entering large markets and gaining access to cheap raw materials and energy resources. Kyrgyzstan and Armenia are becoming part of a more developed economic space, migration flows and foreign exchange earnings are growing, both republics are part of a community with the participation of Russia, which is directly interested in the security of its partners ^[14]. All these intra-national processes take place against a very important cultural and emotional background – the desire to live in a "great power". The loss of international positions and the decline in living standards is painfully perceived by the national consciousness, giving rise to nostalgia for the "golden times".

Many famous figures of Russian history came from countries that are now members of the Eurasian Union: scientists A. Chizhvsky, S. Kovalevskaya, J. Alferov, artists M. Chagall, I. Aivazovsky (O. Ayvazyan), writers Ch. Aitmatov, V. Bykov, statesmen A. Gromyko, A. Mikoyan, marshals I. Bagramyan, S. Khudyakov (A. Khanferyants), A. Babajanyan, Admiral I. Isakov (O. Ter-Isaakyan).

From a cultural point of view, even though the role of the Russian language is gradually decreasing, it still remains the language of intercultural communication. The very attempt to build an integral Eurasian space, indeed, seems to be a historical "reunification" - for centuries these lands were part of one huge state. It is not by chance that a similar political system has developed in the post–Soviet republics, far from the Western model according to which it was originally built - this reflects the national cultural code. It can be assumed that the course of history itself contributes to the acquisition of Eurasian identity, and the first steps have already been taken – the Eurasian Economic Union has been created.

At the official level, integration still has to be covered up by the economy, since all attempts to put the political aspect on the agenda run into a painful public reaction. This is not surprising, because 30 years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is not so much by historical standards. The formation of national identity has not yet been completed, and the search for a place in the world political system has not been completed. The former President of Kyrgyzstan, A. Akayev, has so charaktirized the current situation of the country: "The orientation of the current Kyrgyzstan is multi-vector <...> Russia and the West are not opposite concepts for us, neither geographically, nor culturally, nor economically. And Eurasianism itself appears as a powerful process of interaction and complementarity, including democratic traditions and conquests" ^[3]. It will take a considerable time until this process is finally completed and the creation of a supranational Eurasian identity based on the principles of pragmatism and alternatives to the culture of the West and East, where a new type of social structure will be based on the imperatives of preserving the biosphere, the development of culture, science, and spiritual evolution of the individual within an integral society.

The historical experience of coexistence on the Eurasian territory of many peoples allows us to spread the form of organization of cultural interaction almost without restrictions, without referring to "technological" constructivist concepts such as "melting pot", "salad bowl" or multiculturalism. Nevertheless, the question of how exactly Eurasian culture will interact with non-Eurasian peoples remains open.

It should be understood that the Western ethical system is proactive, as it is based on Messianic values, that is, a sense of superiority and the need to translate their civilizational values. Their positions in South America. In Africa, Australia, and Southeast Asia, the West formed, turning to the rhetoric of "introduction to civilization and enlightenment." Over time, the growth of national consciousness of the colonized territories allowed the peoples of the inhabiting to get rid of external harsh management methods, but this led to an increase in the role of the "soft power" factor in politics and the formation of a neocolonial type of relations. It is difficult for traditional societies to resist the aggressive messianism of the West, therefore, forms of resistance to alien values can be quite harsh, such as, for example, terrorist attacks by Islamists ^[1].

China also has a proactive civilizational concept. Confucius institutes are operating all over the world, the global "One Belt, One Road" program has been launched, lending and direct investment volumes are growing, lobbying groups are being formed on the basis of extensive diasporas ^[2]. One of the key ways to strengthen China's prestige on the world stage is to demonstrate the success of the chosen strategy. China is gradually becoming a leader in many technological and knowledge-intensive areas, and the prestige of Chinese universities is growing. In addition, China is often perceived positively not by itself, but just as an alternative to Western expansion and globalism.

If a Eurasian identity is formed, will it be as proactive as the ideologies of the United States and China, and if so, what methods will it use to spread? Unfortunately, we have to state that today on the world stage Russia has a well-founded image of an aggressor state. This is facilitated not only by historical stereotypes, but also by the current policy of the country. One of the most extraordinary geopolitical events of recent times - the annexation of Crimea to Russia – was regarded by the international community as the annexation of part of the territory of sovereign Ukraine. The war with Georgia, the conflict in the Donbas, the deployment of troops to Syria, the "elimination of undesirable elements" – all these events support the sense of danger emanating from Russia. Therefore, the grounds for promoting the Eurasian brand have yet to be determined; it remains to be guessed what the format of the confrontation of civilizations will be, but today the countries of Eurasia need to be clearly aware that the line of the civilizational conflict outlined by S. Huntington has already shifted to the East: from Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe to Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Conclusion

Summarizing the above, we can draw several conclusions. Firstly, from a cultural and historical point of view, Russia's civilizational choice in favor of gathering the Eurasian space seems organic. This was sufficiently argued by the Eurasians who comprehensively studied the genesis of the Russian state. This assumption is based on the concept of local development, the gathering of various peoples on a vast Eurasian territory under strict political authority, but with the preservation of freedom of religion and culture.

Secondly, the stage of disintegration associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union, within the framework of the Eurasian concept, seems historically logical, since it frees Russia from the borrowed communist idea, which is not organic to the Eurasian space, and does not correspond to the necessary level of religiosity and the general national spirit of the peoples of Eurasia. This stage is necessary to overcome the false Soviet identity, to realize the peoples as independent historical units and self-determination of them as part of a large Eurasian civilization, to create a stable pyramidal identity system.

Thirdly, it can be argued that the public demand for a national idea that arose in the early 2000s is still relevant. The Eurasian idea could close this spiritual gap, just as a century ago it was done thanks to communism. Eurasianism as an idea has the potential to unite the Eurasian peoples, implying the organic coexistence of different cultures and religions, while compensating for the demand for the formation of a "great power".

Finally, from a geopolitical point of view, at the moment, in the medium term, Russia's Eurasian choice looks the only possible one. This is due to the increasing role of China in international relations and the deterioration of relations with Western countries, the escalation of civilizational confrontation and the shift of the fault line directly to the borders of the Russian Federation. The countries of Central Asia and Transcaucasia are an organic buffer zone and part of the Eurasian civilization, a space whose peoples are not included in either Western or Eastern value systems.