Rus İmparatorluk Jeopolitiğinin ve İdeolojisisin Tahayyülü Olarak Yeni Avrasyacılık

Yıl 2024, , 371 - 391, 30.08.2024

İbrahim Kurnaz

https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1475395

Öz

Yeni Avrasyacı jeopolitik düşünce uluslararası politikada temel aktör olarak her daim genişleme arzusunda olan imparatorlukları görmektedir. Çünkü Yeni Avrasyacılık Rusya gibi imparatorluk geçmişine sahip güçlerin hayatta kalabilmelerinin yolunun imparatorluklarının genişlemesinden geçtiğini iddia etmektedir. Bu düşüncenin en başta gelen iki temsilcisi Alexandr Dugin ve Alexandr Panarin dünya tarihine yön veren sürecin hâlihazırda iki zıt güç arasında jeopolitik hâkimiyet mücadelesinden neşet ettiğini dile getirmektedir. Bu bağlamda Rusya’nın Avrupa’dan ve Batı’dan ayrı olarak kendine özgü toplumsal ve jeopolitik yolunu izlemesi gerektiği fikrine dayanan Yeni Avrasyacı yeni jeopolitik, kendini Avrasya’nın önde gelen devleti olarak gören Rusya’ya SSCB sonrası alanda özel bir rol vermektedir. Geleneksel jeopolitik kimliğini yeniden inşa etmeye yönelik doktrinel temellendirmelere sahip olan Yeni Avrasyacılık Rusya’nın jeopolitik ve coğrafi düzlemde temel ideolojilerinden biri olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu ideoloji ekseninde Yeni Avrasyacılar Rusya’nın en önemli amacının, Rusya’nın emperyal yönetimini kültürel ve coğrafi argümanlar yoluyla meşrulaştırmak olduğunu iddia etmektedirler. Dolayısıyla esas olarak büyük bir güç olarak kalmak istediği sürece Rusya’nın jeopolitik ve stratejik ekseni olarak kalması gerektiği görüşünü benimsemektedirler.
Çalışmada Avrasyacı küresel düzen vizyonu ve çok kutuplu bir dünya arayışı çerçevesinde Yeni Avrasyacıların bir Rusya-Avrasya imparatorluğu kurma fikrini hangi temeller üzerinden jeopolitiğe dayandırarak geliştirdikleri üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı klasik jeopolitik ile Yeni Avrasyacılık arasındaki bağlantıyı ortaya koyup Dugin ve Panarin nezdinde Yeni Avrasyacı jeopolitik ve ideolojinin küresel hegemonya ve Rusya’nın imparatorluk tahayyülünü hangi açılardan bir araç olarak sunduğunu ortaya koymaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Avrasyacılık, Rusya, Jeopolitik, Alexandr Dugin, Alexandr Panarin

Neo Eurasianism: As the Imagination of a Russian Imperial Geopolitics and Ideology

Öz

Neoeurasian geopolitical thought sees empires that always desire expansion as the main actors in international politics. Because Neoeurasianism claims that the way for powers with an imperial past, such as Russia, to survive is through the expansion of their empires. The two leading representatives of this idea, Alexandr Dugin and Alexandr Panarin, state that the process that shapes world history currently arises from the struggle for geopolitical dominance between two opposing powers. In this context, Neoeurasian geopolitics, based on the idea that Russia should follow its own social and geopolitical path, separate from Europe and the West, has given Russia a special role in the post-Soviet space. Neoeurasianism, which has doctrinal foundations aimed at reconstructing its traditional geopolitical identity, is defined as one of Russia's fundamental ideologies on a geopolitical and geographical level. On the axis of this ideology, neoEurasianists claimed that Russia's most important aim was to legitimize Russia's imperial rule through cultural and geographical arguments. Essentially, they take the view that Russia should remain the strategic axis of Eurasia as long as it wants to remain a great power.
The study will focus on the basis on which Neo-Eurasianists developed the idea of establishing a Russian-Eurasian empire based on geopolitics, within the framework of the Eurasianist vision of global order and the search for a multipolar world. In this context, the aim of the study is to reveal the connection between classical geopolitics and Neo-Eurasianism and to reveal in what ways Neo-Eurasianist geopolitics and ideology serve as a tool for global hegemony and Russia's imperial imagination in the eyes of Dugin and Panarin.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neo Eurasianism, Russia, Geopolitics, Alexandr Dugin, Aleksandr Panarin

Kaynakça

• Avcı, Y. (2020). Soğuk Savaşın Klasik Jeopolitik Teorilerin Uygulanmasına İmkan Veren Doğası ve ABD Dış Politikasının Soğuk Savaş Dönemindeki Seyri. D. Ş. Mangır içinde, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Jeopolitik Tartışmalar ve Pratikler (s. 53-103). Ankara: İKSAD International Publishing House.
• Bassin, M. (2008). Eurasianism “Classical” and “Neo”: The Lines of Continuity. M. Tetsuo içinde, Beyond the Empire: Images of Russia in the Eurasian Cultural Context (s. 279-294). Sopporo: IEDA.
• Bassin, M. (2021). Klasik ve Yeni Avrasyacılık, Geçmişten Gelen Devamlılık. Bilge Strateji, 5(2), 608-638.
• Bassin, M., & Konstantin, A. (2006). Mackinder and the Heartland Theory in Post-Soviet Geopolitical Discourse. Geopolitics, 99-118.
• Berryman, J. (2012). Geopolitics and Russian foreign policy. International Politics(49), 530-544.
• Blouet, B. (2010). Geopolitics and Globalization in the Twentieth Century,. London: Reaktion Books.
• Boliachevets, L. (2017). Post-Imperial Agony or Pan-Continental Future? Classical Eurasianism as a Global Ideology in the Interwar Period. Global Histories, 3(1), 2-18.
• Brzezinski, Z. (1986). Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the U.S.--Soviet Contest . Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.
• Brzezinski, Z. (1998). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books.
• Burbank, J., Von Hagen, M., & Remnev, A. (2007). Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
• Cohen, S. (1975). Geography and politics in a world divided. New York: Oxford university press,.
• Cohen, S. (2008). Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Criekemans, D. (2022). Geopolitics and International Relations: Grounding World Politics Anew. Boston: Brill Nijhof.
• Dennett, T. (1935). Mahan's "The Problem of Asia. Council on Foreign Relations, 13(3), 464-472.
• Dugin, A. (2005). Rus Jeopolitiği: Avrasyacı Yaklaşım. İstanbul: Küre.
• Dugin, A. (2012). The Fourth Political Theory. London: Arktos.
• Dugin, A. (2014). Eurasian Mission – An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism. Arktos.
• Dugin, A. (2015). Last War of the World-Island: The Geopolitics of Contemporary Russia. (J. Bryant, Çev.) London: Arktos.
• Erol, M. S. (2006). Küresel Güç Mücadelesinde Avrasya Jeopolitiği ve Avrasyacılık Tartışmaları. İ. Çomak içinde, Rusya Stratejik Araştırmaları (s. 119-141). İstanbul.
• Evans, G., & Jeffrey, N. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. Columbia: Penquin Books.
• Gaddis, J. L. (2006). The Cold War: A New History. Bristol: Allen Lane.
• Gaddis, J. L. (2014). George F. Kennan: An American Life. London: Penguin.
• Glebov, S. (2015). N. S. Trubetskoi’s Europe and Mankind and Eurasianist Antievolutionism:One Unknown Source. M. Laruelle, S. Glebov, & M. Bassin içinde, Between Europe and Asia: The Origins, Theories, and Legacies of Russian Eurasianism (s. 48-67). Pennsyvlania: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Gray, C. (1977). The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartland, Rimlands, and the Technological Revolution. New York: Crane, Russak.
• Gray, C. (1977). The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartlands, Rimlands, and the Technological. New York: Crane, Russack.
• Howe, S. (2002). Empire; a Very Short Introduction. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
• İmanov, V. (2008). Avrasyacılık Rusya'nın kimlik Arayışı. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
• İsmailov, E., & Papava, V. (2010). Rethinking Central Eurasia. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program.
• İşyar, Ö. G. (2010). Avrasya ve Avrasyacılık. Bursa : Dora.
• Kalinin, K. (2019). Neo-Eurasianism and the Russian elite: the irrelevance of Aleksandr Dugin’s geopolitics. Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(5), 461-470.
• Karaganov, S. (2016, Ekim 25). From East to West, or Greater Eurasia. Russia in Global Affairs: https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/from-east-to-west-or-greater-eurasia/ adresinden alındı
• Kennan, G. F. (1947, july 1). The Sources of Soviet Conduct. Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/george-kennan-sources-soviet-conduct adresinden alındı
• Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. London: Simon & Schuster.
• Lacoste, Y. (2020). Coğrafya Savaşmak İçindir. (S. Sezer, Çev.) İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
• Laruelle, M. (2008). Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Mackinder, H. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421-437.
• Mangır, Ş. D. (2020). Coğrafi ve Jeopolitik Eksende Neo-Avrasyacılık. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 43, 193-208.
• Marina, G. K., & Thomann, P. E. (2022). The concept of “Greater Eurasia”: The Russian “turn to the East” and its consequences for the European Union from the geopolitical angle of analysis. Sage Journals, 3-15.
• Marlène, L. (2007). The two faces of contemporary Eurasianism: an imperial version of Russian nationalism. Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 115-136.
• Matern, F. (2007). The Discourse of Civilization in the Works of Russia’s New Eurasianists: Lev Gumilev and Alexander Panarin. toronto: York University.
• Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.
• Morozov, V. (2015). Russia’s Postcolonial Identity: A Subaltern Empire in a Eurocentric World. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Morozova, N. (2019). From Ontological Insecurity to Counter-Hegemony: Russia’s PostSoviet Engagement with Geopolitics and Eurasianism. R. Belloni, V. Della Sala, & P. Viotti içinde, Fear and Uncertainty in Europe (s. 153-175). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nadezhda, A. (2019). Three Faces of Russia’s Neo-Eurasianism. Global Politics and Strategy, 7-24.
• Neumann, I. (1997). The Geopolitics of Delineating ‘Russia’ and ‘Europe’ The Creation of the ‘Other’ in the European and Russian Tradition. P. B. Tunander, & V. I. Einagel. içinde London: Sage.
• Nye, J. S., & Welch, D. A. (2014). Understanding global conflict & cooperation : intro to theory & history. London: Pearson Education.
• Østerud, Ø. (1988). The Uses and Abuses of Geopolitics. Journal of Peace Research, 25, 191-199.
• Paradorn, R. (2006). Interpretations of Eurasianism: Justifying Russia's Role in East Asia. Europe-Asia Studies, 371-389.
• Parker, G. (1988). Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century. Journal of Peace Research, 191-199.
• Petro, N., & Rubinstein, N. (1997). Russian Foreign Policy From Empire to Nation-State . Pearson.
• Peunova, M. (2008). An Eastern Incarnation of the European New Right: Aleksandr Panarin and New Eurasianist Discourse in Contemporary Russia. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 407-419.
• Pizzolo, P. (2020). Eurasianism: An Ideology for the Multipolar World. Lanham: Lexington Books.
• Quy, H. S. (2022). Aleksandr Gelievich Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism and its geopolitical implications. Social Sciences Information Review, 16(4), 3-14.
• Serbest, B. (2017). Tarihsel Süreçte Rus Avrasyacılığı: Klasik Avrasyacılıktan Neo-Avrasyacılığa. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(3), 285-307.
• Shlapentokh, D. V. (2014). Implementation of an Ideological Paradigm: Early Duginian Eurasianism and Russia's Post-Crimean Discourse. Contemporary Security Policy, 35(3), 380-399.
• Smith, G. (1999). The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New Eurasianism. The Royal Geographical Society, 24(4), 481-494.
• Sprout, H., & Margaret, S. (1968). An Ecological Paradigm for the Study of International Politics . Princeton: Center for International Studies.
• Spykman, N. (1969). The Geography of the Peace. Mishawaka: Archon Books.
• Świder, K. (2019). Russian Neo-Eurasian Geopolitics as a Total Ideology on the Example of Aleksandr Dugin’s Concept. Civitas Studiaz filozofii polityki, 61-85.
• Świder, K. (2019). Russian Neo-Eurasian Geopolitics as a Total Ideology on the Example of Aleksandr Dugin’s Concept. Civitas. Studiaz filozofi i polityki, 25, 61-85.
• Tsygankov, A. (2003). Communist and Post-Communist Studies. University of California Press, 31(1), 101-127.
• Tuathail, G. Ó., & Dalby, S. (1998). Rethinking Geopolitics. London: Routledge.
• Wallerstein, I. (2005). Dünya Sistemleri Analizi: Bir Giriş. (E. A.-N. Ersoy, Çev.) İstanbul: Aram.
• Wehrschutz, C. (1998). Rus Fikriyatının Parçası Olarak Avrasyacılık. Uygarlığın Yeni Yolu Avrasya (s. 23-41). içinde İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
• Wesson, R. (1974). The Russian Dilemma: A Political and Geopolitical View. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
• Yeşiltaş, M. (2014). Eleştirel Jeopolitik. T. Arı içinde, Postmodern Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri-2 (s. 227-259). Bursa: Dora.