Talk:Eurasianism

Use of the term 'Anglo Saxon'

This has no place in an encyclopaedic article unless it's directly quoting Russian propagandist use of the term, which is considered a slur. Impulsion 10:40, 14 October 2024(UTC)

Old talk

hm, it doesn't strike me as self-evident that there is much of a connection between "Byzantism" and "Neo-Eurasianism" (why the "Neo-" btw?) -- Byzantism appears to be essentially Hellenism, Orthodox Christian values, while Neo-Eurasianism is rather less Christian, identifying with the Turkic and Mongolian tribes of Central Asia. That's just what I gather from the surface and from google; I haven't read any of these gentlemen's works. 81.63.61.110 23:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• The connection is that both deny that Russia is a part of Western (aka European) civilization. Thus, such things as democracy, secularism, public political life, freedom of press, free market economy etc. are assumed to be foreign and harmful for Russia. For many of these gentlemen the conclusion is more important than the base (whatever it is because of the assumed Byzantium influence or because of the influence of Tartars and China. abakharev 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • huh? you realize, of course, that Byzantium/Hellenism is the very core and nucleus of European civilization? By identifying with Byzantium, they are actually saying "we are more European than any of yous". 09:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It is difficult to defend the POV I don't share, but they mostly refer to the later Byzantine Empire of 12-15th centuries. It was reasonably different from the core Western European civilization of that time. It had different religion - the Orthodox Christianity, that crusaders consider not lesser the enemy than Islam, it had no semi-independence of knights and barons -just an absolute power of the Emperor and the Church,it had lesser interest to the trade and science, and probably stronger interest to the theology and the martyrdom, etc. Some people claim Russia to be the third Rome (with the first Rome killed by the barbarians, the second Rome (Constantinople) killed by the crusaders and Islam, with the Moscow, the only surving major capital of the Eastern Orthodoxy that they believe is the only legal heir of the Church of jesus Christ. Then they claim the modern Western Europe to be the spiritual ancestors of the barabarians who destroyed the first Rome, etc. It would be better if a proponent of this views will argue them, I can make a straw man out of their argumentsabakharev 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • come now, I know the crusaders sacked Constantinople, but that was because they were an undisciplined rabble, not because they had an ideological axe to grind. The great schism only occurred in the 11th century, before that, there was no "Eastern Church" as distinct from a "Western Church" (of course there were cultural differences before that). 'Byzantinism' still strikes me as rather different from identifying with Turkic (Byzantium's arch enemies!) and Mongolian tribes, so I think I'll try to clarify the positions a little bit. I admit that insomuch as the main point is 'rejection of the West', the ideologies are similar. But they appear to have positive agenda that are in themselves rather irreconcileable. dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we add a reference to Alexander S. Panarin?

I have considered the late Alexander S Panarian to be a Neo-Eurasianist (see his book Politologia: uchebnoe posobie. Moscow, Gardariki, 2002; also Pravoslavniaia Tsivilizatsia v Global'nom Mire, Moscow, Algoritm, 2002). While, as the latter title suggests, he refers to Orthodox Civilization, he sees it aligned with Islam and especially Hindu civilization on the Eurasian continent, and opposes it to the "pirate" Atlantist civilization; futhermore, he is fiercely critical of Huntingdon's taxonomy of civilizations. -- 19:02, 5 September 2006‎ 85.186.239.141

transliteration

Shouldn't Евразийство be Yevraziistvo? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish?

The Turkish section should be expanded, since it seems to be Ottoman revivalism, versus Russian Imperial revivalism of the Russian community. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What does Evraziitsi mean?

The word "Evraziitsi" is used 13 times in the article, but nowhere is it explained what the word means. It is just used as if the reader already understands, but without ever explaining. I assume that Evraziitsi is Russian for "Eurasianists" or something, but this needs to be made clear. --Hibernian (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Greater Russia

The section about the concept of a "Greater Russia" should it's own page, it's not the same thing as Eurasianism because the latter is not always Russian-centered. Charles Essie (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Per discussion, the content of article is not about the topic that the proposed target name refers to--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Eurasianism → Russian imperialism – WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME; see also American imperialism. Երևանցի ^talk 03:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I'm quite surprised there's no article titled "Russian imperialism". The term "Eurasianism" is definitely not the most common term for it (see below). It is perhaps derived from the Eurasian Union, which is the dominant concept of modern Russian imperialism.

Google Books:

• "Russian imperialism" - 58,400 results
• "Eurasianism" Russia - 12,100 results

• Support as per 4 out of 5 of our naming criteria. The only one it loses on is WP:CONCISE, but the rest are a snap. Red Slash 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Does the fact that the article is not actually about Russian imperialism matter? —  AjaxSmack  00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose after looking it over. Wow, thank you, I missed that one. We should probably write an article about the Russian Empire's growth but yes, this is definitely and definitively not it. Red Slash 16:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - this is a inaccurate translation into English of a recent Russian term (and probably from other former Soviet Union languages). Imc (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The 11 other non-Slavic interwiki articles translate it the same way. —  AjaxSmack  00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Russian imperialism certainly exists/ed but this article is about another topic entirely. It is about the program of two 20th century political movements (the Eurasianists and the Neo-Eurasianists) and not about Russian imperialism. If you look at the Google book results cited in the nomination, you see they are largely about Russian imperial expansion in the 19th century and before and not about the Eurasianist movement. By all means write a Russian imperialism article, but this ain't it. —  AjaxSmack  00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Greater Russia" section deleted.

this section is WP:SYNTH original research. There is no Russian movement whose name may be translated as "Greater Russia". You may probably be fooled by several references, but this is WP:SYNTH. Yes, there is an idea to restore Russia to the boundary of Russian Empire, but is is not called "Greater Russia". There is one book cited with title starting with "Greater Russia?". Notice the question mark. The author coined the term in an analogy with Greater Romania, etc. But Greater Russia there is no such movement. So I am deleting this section. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Map has severe accessibility and even basic usability problems

The top two colors (the dark reds) are almost distinguishable on many monitors, and the bottom to simply are, period, on every device I've tried. It's very cute the make them all shades of red, but this is CleverInJokePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the map tries to do too much in one map. It tries to show both the expansion of the Soviet Union, but also territory that was part of the Russian Empire that was never part of the USSR. This causes problems:

• Congress Poland was part of the Russian Empire, the Western part of this was never part of the USSR but became part of the sphere of influence in 1945, and the Eastern part was annexed by the USSR in 1939.
• Finland was part of the Russian Empire, most of it was never part of the USSR, but some border regions were annexed by the USSR in 1940.
• Port Arthur in Manchuria was part of the Russian Empire until 1904, but became part of the sphere of influence in 1945.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong info in the map

"(Soviet territories that were never part of the Russian Empire: Tuvan ASSR, Kaliningrad Oblast and Zakarpattia, Lviv, Stanislav and Ternopil regions in west Ukraine) "- actually, the Russian Empire spanned as far as Poland(including it), and all parts of Ukraine were once parts of the Russian Empire, as was Tuva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.121.160 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Eurasia Movement to Eurasianism on the grounds of short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Support the proposal to merge Eurasia Movement to the relevant section here; that page is very short, which doesn't warrant being split from the broader topic. Klbrain (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree They differ. One is an ideology and the other is a political movement. Instead let's reduce the focus on Dugin. Herreshoffian (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The argument is that discussion of the movement benefits from the context of the ideology, and that readers are best served by having related but distinct topics discussed in one place for ease of navigation. Klbrain (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

support merge. Joyous! | Talk 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom Jjpachano (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lev Gumilyov

A mention of Lev Gumilyov and his work Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, and Putin's belief in it, would improve the article. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References not supporting a statement in the introduction

At the end of the introduction one can read: « Eurasianism has been officially endorsed in Russia's 2023 Foreign Policy Concept approved by Vladimir Putin, which defined Russia as a "Eurasian and Euro-Pacific" civilizational-state closely aligned with China, the Muslim world, and other countries of the Global South, seeking to replace Western hegemony by a "Greater Eurasian Partnership". »

However the references do not support such a statement: there is no use of "closely aligned", and indeed only one occurrence of the word "align" in "non-aligned", no expression meaning "closely aligned with China", no mention of "muslim world", no mention of "global south", no mention of replacing western hegemony by a "Greater Eurasian Partnership", in the official russian document, nor, for most items, in the two opinion articles commenting it. Also, out of rigor, the term "civilizational-state" is not used, but "country-civilization" is. In conclusion i think the references do not support the statement quoted above, and that the quoted statement is misleading; thus i think it should be amended or deleted. Plm203 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References