Nothing but Nyet
We’re approaching the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed, only this week did I learn about Eurasianism, the philosophy (if you can call it that) behind Russia’s aggression. It’s true that knowledge of Eurasianism isn’t necessary to understand the war. But I still think it’s good to know one’s enemy, and Eurasianism doesn’t just motivate Russia’s war against Ukraine. It also motivates Russia’s war against Western values.
Although the roots of Eurasianism trace back to the latter half of the nineteenth century, it bloomed in the early twentieth, in tandem with the fall of the czars and the rise of Bolshevism. Nostalgic Russian refugees in Europe, outcasts in their new cultures, romanticized the old country as the savior of humanity, heir to both true Christianity (after the fall of ancient Rome and medieval Constantinople) and Genghis Khan’s empire, which extended the length of the vast Eurasian steppes. Many of the refugees were aristocrats or members of the bourgeoisie, yet saw communism as another reason for the world to welcome Russian dominion.
The core of Eurasianism is the notion that geography determines psychology: ethnic groups living on the steppes form a civilization so distinct from its European, East Asian, South Asian, and American counterparts that it’s folly to speak of a common humanity. To put it another way, Eurasianism posits that Poles and Ukrainians have more in common with Mongolians than with Germans or even fellow Slavs. It follows (or does it?) that Russia, as the foremost steppe nation, has an obligation to unite steppe peoples under its rule and spearhead resistance to the alien ideas of ocean-going powers like Europe and the United States.
According to Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent polemicist for Eurasianism, “Outside of empire, Russians lose their identity and disappear as a nation.” This is where Putin comes in. Who knows whether he truly believes in Eurasianism or merely finds it useful, but he’s invoked it as the justification (with blessings from Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox church) for imperial conquest, sending his inept but brutal military into Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. As Northwestern’s Gary Saul Morson puts it, “Russia demonstrates the consequence of defining oneself with an idea. In the name of justice, one creates an ideocracy and divides the world into absolute good and evil. Immediate neighbors suffer first.”
I doubt it would deter Putin if we told him Eurasianism is a knockoff of satanic America’s Manifest Destiny, right down to the immediate neighbors suffering first (except perhaps Canada). From its beginnings, Eurasianism has attracted intellectuals, and Putin drew from their work during his interminable interview with Tucker Carlson. But all those sophisticated screeds boil down to the old authoritarian canards that might makes right and all human relationships are questions of dominance and submission. On some levels I’m surprised Putin even bothered holding forth to Carlson — explaining oneself is such a Western concept.
But I’m surprised only on some levels. Putin knows he’s a hero to many self-hating Americans, those who reject Western (read “liberal”) values and demand unity under their favored religion and despot — or else. Like me until a few days ago, these Americans probably never heard of Eurasianism. But they know a big dream for little people when they see one, and can’t resist a creed that offers to transform their worst impulses into virtue. From Putin’s perspective, there’s no down side to crying “reactionaries of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but the weird neighbors you’ve always hated!”
This is why humanity teeters on the edge of a new authoritarian age: the empirical evidence of liberalism’s unexcelled response to humanity’s spiritual, emotional, and material needs will never convince those who perceive authoritarianism as to their advantage. And a significant minority of humans believes (wrongly, with the exception of Putin and his ilk) that the hatred, cruelty, and violence of authoritarianism are to its advantage.
