Two Views on One Problem: The Eurasian Project and “One Belt — One Road”
Authors: Hu Yanli , Plebanek O. V. 
Published: July 2022

The article compares the theoretical foundations of ethno-cultural policy in the Eurasian region.

Aim. The goal set by the authors is to compare two approaches in the theory of social dynamics, on the basis of which the ethno-cultural policy of the modern states of the region — Russia (USSR) and China — is based.

Tasks. Identification of fundamental differences in the geopolitical strategies developed by the theorists of Eurasianism and Chinese scientists.

Methods. In the context of the implementation of this task — a comparison of the methodological foundations of real political projects in the Eurasian space, through logical analysis, differences are established in the theories of geopolitical dynamics proposed in the Eurasian concept and in Chinese science. The method of comparative analysis of ethno-cultural and ethno-economic policies in the Eurasian region of the two most influential powers allows us to conclude that alternative theoretical concepts and their paradigmatic limitations are adequate to real geopolitical processes.

Results. The study showed that the concept of Eurasian geocivilization, which was formed as overcoming the limitations of the Slavophile version of Russian civilization in the context of the collapse of traditional approaches in social theory and in the context of historical collisions of the early twentieth century, had a positive potential, partially realized in the policy of the Soviet state. But the conceptual limitations imposed by the inadequate theoretical basis — the theory of civilizations existing at that time — did not allow the formation of a single Eurasian cultural space to be completed. The Eurasian unity represented by the Soviet Union was consolidated by institutional means, but it was not realized as a cultural synthesis. Chinese scientists have proposed an alternative project for the integration of the Eurasian space — the “One Belt — One Road”, which began to be implemented already in the XXI century. This project is based on Marxist theory and concepts of the second half of the twentieth century, complimentary to Marxism or being neo-Marxist.

Conclusions. The incompleteness and instability of the Eurasian project in the Soviet version is a consequence of the limitations inherent in the geopolitical theory itself, which does not take into account the positive potential of Marxist theory and social concepts developed in the second half of the twentieth century. Chinese scientists use the scientific potential of Eurasianism in interpreting the Russian mentality and consider the politics of modern Russia through the prism of Eurasian connotations, but Eurasianism as a geopolitical theory, in their opinion, has not passed the test of history. Therefore, Chinese policy in the Eurasian space is based on other theoretical foundations — in addition to classical Marxism, neo-Marxist approaches. The Chinese authors conclude, in this regard, that Russia is still facing the problem of choosing a geopolitical strategy, which in turn is due to the paradigmatic uncertainty of Russian science.