BRZEZINSKI AND DUGIN: WHAT IS EURASIAN GEOPOLITICS IN UKRAINE PERSPECTIVE?

BRZEZINSKI AND DUGIN: WHAT IS EURASIAN GEOPOLITICS IN UKRAINE PERSPECTIVE?

Preamble:

If we try to do a research on how the geopolitics of Ukraine is perceived by both the USA and Russia, I think the two main sources we will refer to are Zbigniew Brzezinski's Great Chessboard and Alexander Dugin's Russian Geopolitics Eurasian Approach. I examined these two sources for you and tried to determine the perception of both sides of Eurasia and Ukraine in a way that sheds light on our day. The purpose of writing both books is on the geostrategic and geopolitical formations that will occur in the 21st century in the changing world balances after the collapse of the USSR. Around the concept of "Eurasia", which defines the old world, Brzezinski made a geopolitical projection of the 21st century from the point of view of the USA and Dugin from the point of view of Russia, and shared their thoughts on what could happen, country by country.

When I examine the bets in both books about Ukraine in particular, within the framework of Eurasian geopolitics in general; The authors determined that Ukraine is one of the fault lines in the new world security architecture, and they foreshadowed the crisis between Ukraine and Russia years ago. In this article, we will share and analyze the opinions and predictions of the authors about Ukraine in a comparative way.

What Brzezinski Says

Geopolitical sovereignty, according to Brzezinksi, is global hegemony consisting of global military power, global economy and global law. Brzezinski defines geostrategy as the strategic management of geopolitical interests. He states that the main geopolitical prize for the USA, which he sees as the only global power, is Eurasia and sees Eurasia as a chessboard. Brzezinski bases the boundaries of the Eurasian chessboard on Lisbon in the west and Vladivostok in the east. The Middle East and India in the south and China in the east define the boundaries of the playing field. The territory of the Russian Federation is defined as the Central Area. The first thing that draws our attention here is that Ukraine is located at the intersection of the West, the Central Area and the South. With a holistic approach, Brzezinski says that a Europe integrated with the EU and NATO on the France-Germany-Poland-Ukraine axis is the most appropriate format for the US global hegemony. However, the attitude of Russia, the owner of the Central Area, will be decisive in the formation and continuation of the Western European system, which has become extremely strong with this format. Brzezinski determines that Russia is not in its former power and proposes integration with the Western world as the most convenient solution for Russia. According to Brzezinski, the important thing is how Russia will realize this integration. In this regard, it proposes positive and positive approaches to the USA and its Western allies against Russia. According to Brzezinski, Russia's membership in NATO is not a dream. As a matter of fact, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia had the status of an observer country in NATO for a while.

What Does Dugin Say?

Dugin, on the other hand, makes a much more detailed analysis than Brzezinski and argues that Russia is a natural global power due to its geography. Dugin also makes a definition of Eurasia and places the geography of Eurasia on the lands of the former USSR and Russian empire. In addition to this, countries such as China, Iran and Turkey are also considered within the definition of Eurasia. Dugin's detailed analyzes often refer to the historical process and make evaluations on races and religions. Of course, Dugin's priority is in the Russian race and Orthodoxy. Dugin cares about economic power and technology for competition, but he does not find Western values ​​such as democracy and human rights realistic. Dugin analyzes countries and geographies one by one in his book. Contrary to Brzezinski's holistic approach, it is particularist. The current Ukraine as a state has no place in the Russian and Russian-centered Eurasian approach, which Dugin refers to as the rebirth of the empire. According to Dugin, the current Ukrainian state is a temporary status and, in his own words, “unitary Ukraine cannot be allowed to live any longer. This country should be divided into several generations in accordance with the diversity of its geopolitical and ethno-cultural realities.” Dugin argues that Western Ukraine is not homogeneous and argues that the parts of current Ukraine east of the Odessa-Kyiv line are clearly Russian territory, except for the religiously and culturally diverse Western regions (keeping Crimea apart). He supports this claim on historical, racial and religious grounds. Dugin states that Crimea should never be under Ukrainian control. We have expressed the views of both authors in general. Now, let's put forward our findings;

Both Brzezinski and Dugin say that their global hegemony comes from dominating "Eurasia".
Both define Eurasia in more or less similar geographies. According to Brzezinski, Russia is not as effective and global power as it used to be, and Dugin is in the geography of Russia. 

Due to its national and historical mission, it is destined to become an influential and global power.
Brzezinski associates his geopolitical approach with concepts such as democracy, law, technology, economy, military power, while Dugin talks about geography, nations and imperial heritage.
According to Brzezinski, Russia should be in the Western alliance. Dugin denies this and says that a Russia in the Western alliance will lose its identity.

Brzezinski states that Ukraine's EU and NATO membership is close and now sees Ukraine as a part of the Western alliance. For Dugin, the current Ukraine is an artificial state and is unrealistic, it should be divided. At this point, the theses of both sides clash. Russia returned to Dugin Eurasianism with Putin. There is no calm and docile Russia that Brzezinski hopes to see, the integration of Putin's Russia with the West, with its current situation, is far from real political realities.

Conclusion

Of course, the racial, regional and historical facts expressed by Dugin regarding Ukraine are undeniable. Brzezinski's holistic approach to Ukraine is lacking. Brzezinski could not analyze Russia well, he did not take into account Russia's internal dynamics. Therefore, the opposite of Brzezinski's predictions came out. When we evaluate the above findings, we can say that Russia intervened in order to break up Ukraine with a proactive geostrategic approach in line with its own interests and geopolitical purposes. What will the US and the West do in this situation? Of course, he will punish Russia harshly for mischief.