The Validity of Neo-Eurasianism and Its Geopolitical Implications

― How Russia’s Imperial Ideology Challenges Global Order ―

---

Introduction: Neo-Eurasianism as a New Geopolitical Logic

In the early 21st century, Russia has advanced a geopolitical ideology known as Neo-Eurasianism, presenting itself not as part of the West or the East, but as a distinct civilization rooted in the Eurasian landmass. It combines strategic geography, imperial nostalgia, and cultural identity into a comprehensive worldview that seeks to challenge the Western-led liberal international order.

This report analyzes the ideological structure, practical application, and global implications of Neo-Eurasianism, evaluating its validity and the geopolitical risks it poses.

---

Foundations and Strategic Intent of Neo-Eurasianism

Core Elements

Element	Description
Spatial Logic	Centrality of the Eurasian landmass (land power vs. maritime power)
Ideological Axis	Western liberalism vs. Eurasian traditionalism
State Philosophy	The state as the nucleus of civilization; preference for imperial models
Historical Vision	Russia as the legitimate successor to Byzantium and the Soviet Union—“the Third Rome”

Strategic Objectives

• Counter NATO expansion and reclaim historical spheres of influence
• Forge alliances with non-Western states based on shared civilizational values
• Present a civilizational alternative to Western democratic institutions and norms

---

Evaluating the Validity of Neo-Eurasianism

Ideological Validity

• Neo-Eurasianism offers a critique of Western-centric globalism and affirms a multipolar world order.
• However, it relies on subjective civilizational narratives to justify territorial ambitions, undermining international norms.
• The idea of civilization-based sovereignty, when prioritized over international law, lacks legitimacy in modern diplomacy.

Policy Validity

• Military aggression (e.g., Ukraine) has deepened mistrust among neighbors, isolating Russia rather than expanding its influence.
• Economic ambitions (e.g., Eurasian integration) have stalled due to sanctions and de-dollarization failures.
• Ironically, Russia’s pursuit of Eurasian independence has resulted in increased dependence on China, weakening its strategic autonomy.

Geopolitical Validity

• In theory, Russia can act as a strategic buffer among rising powers like China, Turkey, and India.
• In practice, its civilizational rhetoric undermines regional stability, discourages diplomatic dialogue, and fuels conflict.
• Neo-Eurasianism’s reliance on hard territorial control and imperial nostalgia appears outdated in the interdependent 21st century.

---

Geopolitical Risks and Global Lessons

Risk Category	Description
🌍 Risk 1: Return of Civilizational Conflict	Justifying war through religion, culture, and history (e.g., “Kyiv as the cradle of Rus”)
⚖ Risk 2: Erosion of International Law	Sovereignty is overridden by historical or civilizational claims
🔥 Risk 3: Struggles in Strategic Gray Zones	Central Asia, South Caucasus, the Arctic, and the Russian Far East become power vacuums
🛰 Risk 4: Hybrid Warfare and Narrative Conflict	Strategic use of propaganda to reshape public opinion and destabilize adversaries

---

Implications and Strategic Response for Japan

Key Insights

• Neo-Eurasianism parallels the civilizational state narratives promoted by China, Iran, and Turkey.
• Global conflict lines may shift from “liberalism vs. authoritarianism” to “institutional states vs. civilizational states”.

Strategic Recommendations for Japan

• Reinforce institutional diplomacy: Uphold international law and multilateralism
• Build semi-core coalitions: Deepen cooperation with ASEAN, India, and the EU
• Maintain Arctic and regional intelligence capabilities: Monitor geopolitical vacuums near Japan’s periphery

---

Conclusion: Neo-Eurasianism as a Strategic Reality, Not Just an Ideology

Neo-Eurasianism is not merely a fringe theory—it has become a functioning worldview embedded in Russian policy, military rhetoric, and media strategy. While it presents a coherent geopolitical logic, its reliance on violence, anti-Western populism, and historical revisionism renders its global legitimacy highly questionable.

Rather than confronting Neo-Eurasianism through military means, the international community must rebuild confidence in institutions and universal norms. In a post-hegemonic world, influence is no longer about domination, but about the persuasiveness of the order one proposes.