Abstract. In the article there is done the attempt of historical analysis of the development of the theory and idea of neo-eurasianism. The study on eurasianism as the historically-cultural, worldview, ideological subject is not possible without the analysis of its origins and even considering stages of its formation. It refers to the idea of Greater Eurasia that emerged in 1920s by L.Gumilev and A.Dugin but was revised by the works and initiatives of the President of Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. His 1994 idea initiated the creation of Eurasian union, which happened to be integration union today.
The term Eurasia is a contentious and illusive one and there is no consensus or agreement among authors on its meanings, implications and ramifications. President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan introduced and developed his own vision, policies, perceptions and values of Eurasianism which he has been propagating and practicing on a continuous and consistent basis. In fact, the concept of Eurasianism and Eurasian policies have turned into state ideologies which are reflected in domestic, regional and foreign policies as well as in the foundation of the recent regional integration process. The purpose of the article is: to study and review the genesis of the old, popular as well as contemporary schools and thoughts of Eurasianism, their underlying goals, objectives and purposes in order to locate and understand Kazakhstan’s views and concepts of Eurasianism in a broad historical and comparative perspectives; to review and critically analyze how President Nazarbayev’s visions and policies of Eurasianism are reflected in the country’s domestic, regional and foreign policies and what are their implications.
The study on Eurasianism as historical, cultural, philosophical and ideological phenomenon is impossible without analyzing its origins and even review the stages of its formation. Modern processes of economic integration in the post-Soviet space in the form of the Eurasian Economic Union show how the idea of Eurasianism could be realized in practice. This indicates the formation of social, political, economic and other conditions in which it was possible to implement the Eurasian idea. What were the intentions of the first Eurasians? What transformations Eurasian idea has undergone in the past century? How the ideology of Eurasianism was formed before the beginning of the XXI century and how it looks like now? These questions would be answered to in the course of a retrospective analysis of the process of formation of the Eurasianism ideas.
Before proceeding to consider the genesis of Eurasianism ideas, it should be noted that the literature on the subject focuses on the importance of Russia’s role in promoting the Eurasian integration. This position is in some sense is justified because sources of Eurasianism somehow were formed by the Russian intellectuals in the early XX century. However, we will attempt to make a brief overview of the Eurasian views by Kazakh intellectuals of the last century.
Ideas, like people, have their own destiny a paradoxical and contradictory. They erupt in the sky of history, as if the stars go out and suddenly reappear, revealing the extraordinary brightness of the lights. This also applies to the idea of Eurasia – which arose in the twenties of XX century, two decades later, in the period between the two world wars, seemingly irretrievably forgotten then, but again imperiously was declared itself at the end of the century primarily in the works and speeches of the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. Putting forward in 1994 the initiative of the Eurasian Union, containing a powerful potential for integration, our President is persistently and purposefully taking vigorous actions for its promotion and implementation on the post-Soviet space.
Renaissance of the Eurasian idea gave rise to the need for integrated scientific and theoretical analysis of the problems related to Eurasianism: philosophical foundations, historical, philological, socio-cultural, political and other aspects of the Eurasianism phenomenon. The huge number of publications indicates that the problem is understood and studied in all its depth and comprehensiveness.
Eurasian origins take back to the XIX century, when Russia took shape for two trends: Westernism and Slavophilism. “This is the direction of Russian social thought in 1840-1850-ies., Whose representatives were engaged in a debate on the ways of socio-historical and cultural development of Russia. Active participants of the Moscow Westernizing circle were A.I. Herzen, Ogarev, N. Granovsky, V.P. Botkin, N. Catcher, K.D. Cavelin, V.G. Belinsky. The most prominent representatives of Slavophilism were I.V. Kireyevsky, P.V. Kireyevsky, A.S. Hamsters, I.S. Aksakov, K.S. Aksakov, Y.F. Samarin, F.M. Dostoevsky, K.N. Leontiev, N.Y. Danilevsky, D.I. Mendeleev and V.O. Klyuchevskii. If Westerners insisted that the countries of Western Europe and Russia are developing within a single law for all mankind, the Slavophiles believed that the most important historical task of Russia is to develop a distinctive social and cultural principles” [1].
At the beginning of the XIX century social thought Russia was concerned about Russia’s lagging behind Western Europe. It was necessary to find out the cause of the backlog, which Westerners and Slavophiles explained in his own way. The main controversy between these trends was conducted on the causes of backwardness of Russia from Western Europe, choosing your own path of development.
The beginning of the Eurasian movement and, therefore, considered to be the output stage, was the classic book by N.S. Trubetskoy “Europe and Humanity” (published in 1920, in Sofia, Bulgaria). Reading it, you will notice the ideas similar to Slavophiles. For example, “Intellectuals that westernized peoples should rip from this blindfold, imposing on them the RomanGermanic, whether to be free from infestation of Roman-Germanic ideology. They must understand quite clearly, firmly and irrevocably: European culture is not something absolute, but rather the creation of a limited and specific ethnic or ethnographic group of nations, thus, Europeanization is an absolute evil for every non-Romano-German people and that the true opposition the is only one – namely, the Roman-Germanic and all the other peoples of the world, Europe and humanity” [2].
In 1921 he published the first collection of the Eurasian materials (by Trubetskoy N.S., Suvchinsky P.P., G.V. Florovsky, Savitsky P.N.) “Exodus to the East. Premonitions and achievements. Adoption of Eurasians”; In 1922 they published a new collection called “On the Road. Adoption of Eurasians”. The writings dedicated also much attention to nomads, who played an important role in the formation of Russian statehood: “Russia was given the property of organized military, create state-forced Center, achieve sustainability; they gave her the quality to become a mighty horde” [3]. Eurasians believed that there should be a “turning to the east,” you need to change, entrenched in Russia in the XIX century, a negative attitude toward Asians, particularly the nomads, which is undoubtedly borrowed from the West.
The first Russian Eurasians, Trubetskoy N.S., P.N. Savitsky, G.V. Florovsky, are known to have invested in their doctrine primarily the ideological sense. They tried to oppose the Bolshevik class ideological policy of ethnic and cultural aspects. The idea was that in the space of the interior of Eurasia should be established a new, multinational European community of people, and it is on the basis of the unity of the historical fate of the various ethnic groups in the region, the unity of their mentality and culture. However, during the formation of this idea in the camp of Eurasians there were not any fundamental differences, whether big split over ideas. One branch of Eurasianism tried to keep the original settings, the other essentially merged with the ideology of Bolshevism. As a result of the split, and then defeat of the whole movement by security officers during the “Trust” operation, and further similar actions, the Eurasian idea has gone from the scene.
First the idea of Eurasia was formulated by young Russian intellectuals, formed in the twenties, in an atmosphere of alarm emigration, organizing a special school for the direction of public opinion towards “Eurasianism”. In 1921, they published in Sofia the first policy document “Exodus to the East”, “The Russian people and the people of Russian world who are neither Europeans nor Asians. Merging with the native people and the environment we have the elements of culture and life, we are not ashamed to plead the Eurasians” [4].
But while initially the Eurasian doctrine carried the ideological charge, it defined the essence of all the other facts, that it is not a purely ideological. Eurasianism should fit into the context of the global crisis, fracture of the entire European culture crisis, namely bases and principles of Western ideology, that “End of Europe” mood that gripped European intellectuals after the First World War, it was found that the culture in new forms enters into terrifying barbarism.
Neo-eurasianism idea in the modern context, continuing the origins of Gumilev’s ideas, itself is associated with the name of Alexander Dugin. His views on the Eurasian idea that were reflected in the works that came out in the period from 1993 to 1998: “Conservative Revolution”, “The Mystery of Eurasia”, “Conspirology”, “Metaphysics of the Good News,” “Foundations of Geopolitics”, “The Templars of the proletariat”, etc. At the same time, gradually New Eurasian movement was formed as a socio-political aspect of his works, and then it turned into a great party “Eurasia” (2002). Eurasianism, developed by Alexander Dugin, takes the form and name of “continentality”, whose task is to fully confront the “Atlanticism” (Western-style culture and geopolitics), to displace it from the world stage, that it, for his part, has not wiped out “continentality”. Therefore, according to Neo-Eurasian radicals, drastic measures are needed to establish the first continental Eurasia, and in the future a world empire.
It should be noted that numerous publications and statements by A.Dugin on Eurasianism now become a doubt, whether his views have something in common with initial Eurasian idea or not. For example, Yuri Kofner (Chairman of the Club of the Eurasian integration University) believes that “Dugin’s views can be named anything stagnation, conservatism or sofascism, but not Eurasianism. Please mentally compare his statements with the above excerpts from the works of classical Eurasians: “We have come to proclaim the era of the Great Purge. Our goal is to create a new army the army of Eurasia. “The blood of our dissolved, our dead, to build great empires of Eurasia, destroying millions of enemies, encouraging himself or others for the sake of a great goal.” “Our goal is Eurasian empire. But the rules in it will be wise and strong, and the selection will be ruthless”; “Our ethics death is better than disgrace. You can not be strong, it is better to do than to not be at all”, “The country needs new people... Funny and merciless”; “The project of national capitalism or right-fascism is an ideological initiative of that part of the elite of society, which is seriously concerned about the problem of power and clearly feels the call of the times”; “It is called incompetent fascism far-right ideology. This phenomenon is much more accurately characterized by a paradoxical formula Conservative Revolution”; “The dance and attack, fashion and aggression, excessiveness and discipline, will and gesture, fanaticism and irony seethe in the national revolutionaries young, angry, funny, fearless, passionate and do not know borders. They build and destroy, edit and execute orders, to carry out cleaning enemies of the nation and tenderly care for the elderly and Russian children. Angry and cheerful step they drew near to the citadel of dilapidated, rotten system. Yes, they are hard crave power. They know how to dispose of it. They breathe life into the society they cast people into the process of creation the Sweet Stories. New people. Finally, intelligent and courageous. Such as it is necessary”; “Russian Ivan, as a man isnothing, as most Russian in it, at all. The idea of all, the state and the people is nothing”; “In a society that Russia needs not to be representative democracy, there should be a market-based society in the monetary equivalent of all values, and should not be stupid, unnatural, ideology of human rights. Market, democracy and human rights have gone out”; “Dugin’s Eurasianism” is an oxymoron, distortion and deception. The perversion of the great ideas of Eurasianism and deception of the population that is now New Eurasianism [5].
In his works A.Dugin offers revival of empire in the former Soviet Union with the Russian people in charge, without recognizing thereby the sovereignty of former Soviet republics. A completely different model of the Eurasian idea is represented by the President Nursultan Nazarbayev. In 1994, speaking at Lomonosov Moscow State University, he offered a broad audience to remember and to practically implement the Eurasian idea, remembering our common history, without prejudice to the rights and preserving the sovereignty of the countries, the future of the Eurasian Union. In conclusion, it should be noted that Eurasianism as for could not be on the Russian soil. The debate between Westerners and Slavophiles, undoubtedly led to a study of the history, culture, ethnography of the Russian people and educated person it was easy to notice that the Russian Orthodox culture is a fusion of Slavic, Turkic, Mongolian cultures. Eurasians merit consists in the fact that they were the first to speak of the Slavo-Turkic symbiosis and questioned “the only true and correct” way of development the path that was Western Europe. Lev Gumilyov, in turn, looked up at the scientific level study of nomadism, it was he who put an equal sign between agricultural and nomadic cultures. Modern Eurasian directly associated with the name of Alexander Dugin as he positions himself well. However, at present the Russian public opinion, it does not recognize the Eurasian, as his worldview is almost fascist and totally contrary to the basic postulate of the Eurasian idea: the brotherhood of the peoples of Eurasia.
Naturally, all the positive and negative effects that arose after the collapse of the USSR, have an impact on Kazahstan who is actually in the geographical center of the Eurasian supercontinent. Newly independent Kazakhstan was among the first new sovereign that realized its Eurasian nature and through its first President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed the idea about the need to formation of the Eurasian Union (EAU) in the post-Soviet space, which would facilitate a more rapid and efficient and, most importantly, less overcoming painful deepen within the crisis, on the one hand, and a decent entry of new states into the international community as a civilized nation with a highly developed economy and democratic principles of the device, on the other. This initiative is primarily dictated by the awareness of impossibility for post-Soviet states to come out of this crisis alone, and concern about the fate of millions of people who lived before recent time in one country and now suddenly found themselves in different countries with different levels of life, the development of a market economy and the democratization of the political process.
Thus, the state of the Eurasian type these are states that in different historical periods, and there were settled both in Europe and in Asia. They currently include peoples living on two continents, and created mixtures them over the centuries a certain commonality in all respects. Of course, some customs and law, one ideology and one principles enforcers state apparatus, as well as ordinary human relationships at all levels all this led to objectively formed single mentality, to realize how community could meet the future.
Such states, in fact, laid the foundations of modern Eurasian mentality, which arose in ancient times and the Middle Ages and, in modern times there are at the present epoch. For example, in ancient times, it was Old Turkic khanate in the East and the Byzantine Empire in the West, in the early Middle Ages the Khazar Khanate in the East, Moscow Russia in the West, the Arab Caliphate in the South; in the late Middle Ages the Golden Horde in the east, Russia in the West, the Ottoman Empire in the South; in modern times
a Kazakh Khanate in the east, Russia to the West, the Turkish state in the South; in the modern era the Soviet Union in the West and the North, the south Turkey. At this stage, the states of the Eurasian type are purely the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, respectively.
Modern Eurasianism includes openness and tolerance of society and its readiness to accept other people’s and their ability to create on this basis a specific civilization, for which it would be characterized by a harmonious combination of universal and national values. At this stage, Eurasianism should be understood as a desire of peoples and nations for mutual understanding, cooperation and integration. It is featured modern states of the Eurasian type, Kazahstan, Russia and Turkey, although each of them has its own characteristics and is pursuing its own interests. They differ from each other and the inner mentality, their ratio sociopolitical forces, which are differently interpreting Eurasian mentality, sometimes accentuating on national and ethnic priorities. We believe that such mentality is primarily due to the social and historical legacy that they inherited from their predecessors. It is clear that the current state of the Eurasian type differs in many ways from its closest and distant predecessors, and each in its own way to be accept as inherited legacy, including social and cultural experience of ancestors and past societies. It is noteworthy that all three of these states have a greater or lesser degree of historically being related to the ancient states of the Eurasian type Turkic Kaganate and Byzantium. From Turkic khanate most was inherited by Kazakhstan and Turkey, and from Byzantium – by Turkey and Russia. In turn, Kazakhstan and Russia much later were apprehended by the Golden Horde [6].
One of the central problems of the “Eurasian theme” is a problem of forming a new, Slavic-Turkic integration within a large geographic region, territory between Europe and Asia. The relevance of this issue is objectively dictated by the processes that are linked with the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The experience of the independent existence of the young sovereign states clearly showed that the autonomy and independence in the modern civilized space is a very relative notion.
The collapse of the Union has led to the fact that all forms of communication between the former Soviet republics that existed in the field of economy, politics, ideology, and so on, were suddenly destroyed by the voluntarist ideas. As part of a single economic complex, each republics did their activities for decades to built something, especially taking into account its own interests, to the detriment of their own ideas sometimes.
So, the economy of Kazakhstan in the power of public division labor that existed in the former Soviet Union, had a pronounced raw-material orientation. It was orientated mainly on software located outside the manufacturing industries system or objects of their primary treatment. According to expert estimates, within the collapse of inter-republican union, in terms of economic relations Kazakhstan could provide only 27% of the created final product, which is 2.5 times lower than Russia (64.5%) [7]. And the quality of these products was clearly uncompetitive compared to that flooded into the republic, as in all former Soviet republics, from abroad.
For different countries the former Soviet Union became the object of not only economic, but other forms of any expansion. In these circumstances, the special importance for the entire post-Soviet space gained the problem of forming a new type of relations with foreign countries and together with each other at first. But, as practice shows, the dynamics of destructive and integrative processes occurring in this area is far ahead of the level of their theoretical idea and, consequently, in their scientific forecasting, including the more practical impact on their character. It is in this regard, of particular interest to the former Soviet republics are the theoretical ideas that are in one way or another, able to exert a certain influence on formed strategy and tactics of the new type of interstate relations. Among them is the idea of Eurasianism, taking the special place.
For the ideologues of Eurasianism which emerged in the 20s of the XX century, the problem of forming a new type of integration in the Eurasian space consisted primarily of theoretical interest. They have arisen in connection with an attempt to “re-read” Russian history. Its essence was that Eurasians look at Europe and the “world history” in terms of “natural world”, contrasting “the logic of space”, “the logic of time.” According to them, all the historical changes is “nothing”, because it is not defined. All is defined by “place of” god of this place [8].
On this basis, they tried to justify the idea that the vast territory between Europe and Asia is a self-contained unit that can give rise to a new type of state. The basis to this as fate is Russia, and because of this it must fulfill its universal idea as a new great empire, able to withstand the onslaught from both Europe and from Asia.
A somewhat different version of the history of reading and determining the future of Russia was proposed by Gumilev, who in his own methods of natural science applied to historical material. This option was realized in the form of their passionately created theory of ethnogenesis. “Within the framework of the theory, we should distinguish one from the other ethnic group, which are not determined by “mode of production”, “culture”or “level of education”. “Ethnicity has objectively different ways of the behavior of their members (stereotypes of behavior)... The behavior of every person and every epic is just a way to adapt itself to its geographic and ethnic environment” [9].
According to its theory, the measure of human impact on the history “ is not so great, as they think”. Therefore, a strategy for further development of this or that type of state, in the opinion, it makes no sense, and especially worrying. After all, everything is determined by the logic of the development of a super-ethnos. According to his theory, superethnos, formerly is known as the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union and now the CIS, in accordance with the general model of ethnogenesis currently has an age of about 800 years. “... at this age drops one of the most difficult moments in the life of superetnos, phase of transition from a fracture to the inertia” [9, p.12.]. So we by the course of history “are doomed to inertia” in their development [10].
Diversity and inconsistency of the Eurasian idea is explained at least by the fact that over the past century, it was only polished, honed, crystallized, and could not go through a long and difficult path. To date, it has to be brought and appears to have been not just a multi-dimensional phenomenon, but including its specificity the unity of the diverse definitions. And this inner, the essential terms of Eurasianism must be understood as a special type of man’s relationship to the world.
At its core, and a deep sense, the Eurasianism implies the resolution of the conflict between the West and the East, a painful problem of mankind. In other words, we need to understand Eurasian idea not only as an attempt of synthesis between Europe and Asia (etnogeopolitical realities), but much of the West and East at philosophical sense of these terms.
With this, point of view Eurasianism includes a unique real possibility of overcoming polarity of Eastern and Western ways of being human in the world. In other words, the Eurasian idea is the idea of humanity, which, in turn, implies the idea of the unity of people. Finally, the unity of the people, lack of selfishness in their relations, mistrust, jealousy presupposes and harmony in the relationship between man and nature.
Thus, Eurasianism in its concrete holistic understanding is not just some new idea among other new ideas; not just a dialogue between East and West; not just historical, cultural, political or ethno-social idea. Eurasianism in its deep essence and practical intentions is none other than the new path of human development [11]. An indispensable component of the new path is the harmony between man and man, and therefore human harmony with yourself and with nature.
To sum up, Neo-Eurasianism is a school of thought, popularized in Russia during the years leading up to and following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that considers Russia to be culturally closer to Asia than to Western Europe. The school takes its inspiration from the Eurasianists of the 1920s, notably Prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy and P.N. Savitsky. Lev Gumilev is often cited as the founder of the Neo-Eurasianist movement, and he was quoted as saying that “I am the last of the Eurasianists”.
At the same time, major differences have been noted between Gumilev’s work and those of the original Eurasianists. Gumilev’s work is controversial for its scientific methodology (the use of his own conception of ethnogenesis and the notion of “passionarity”. At any rate, Gumilev’s work has been a source of inspiration for the Neo-Eurasianist authors, the most prolific of whom is Aleksandr Dugin.
Gumilev’s contribution to Neo-Eurasianism lies in the conclusions he reaches from applying his theory of ethnogenesis: that the Mongol occupation of 1240-1480 AD (known as the “Mongol yoke”) had shielded the emergent Russian ethnos from the aggressive neighbor to the West, allowing it to gain time to achieve maturity. The idea of Eurasianism contrasts with Konstantin Leontyev’s Byzantism, which is similar in its rejection of the West, but identifies with the Byzantine Empire rather than with Central Asian tribal culture.
Among the various types and versions of Eurasianism discussed in the paper, the Russian views and perceptions of Eurasianism developed, suggested and propagated mainly by radical nationalists who seem to be very active, dominant and organized academically and intellectually but it did not evolve as a state policy or ideology. Kazakhstan’s policy of Eurasianism serves several purposes: internationally, it helps the state to develop and maintain balanced and friendly relations with all major states and blocs; regionally it is used as a vehicle and policy guideline for creating and deepening the integration process at the post-Soviet space; domestically, the policy of Eurasianism is used for consolidating national integration, national-building and creating national consensus and harmony among the different segments of population.
Kazakhstan welcomed the Russian and Belarusian views of integration with its own plans, ideas and suggestions and has been working hard for a greater integration of Eurasia. But there are potential challenges and difficulties; on the Russian side the nationalists and Neo-Eurasianists are excited and thrilled that Russia will re-emerge and re-establish its power and influence in the Eurasian space which was lost as a result of the collapse of the USSR which Vladimir Putin characterized as the “Great Geo-political disaster in Eurasia”. But nationalists, modernists, business leaders and elites in both Kazakhstan and Belarus may not be so supportive and enthusiastic about the Eurasian Union and may oppose such a move.
Nowadays, we could observe the movement towards modern Eurasian Union, which should have been created earlier in 2013, but recently was finally established in 2015. Hillary Clinton, being US State Secretary at that time, talked on the necessity to challenge the creation of this alliance, as she defined “the new Soviet Union version in the form economic integration”.
As if such a useful thing as economic integration is considered negatively. By the opinion of Vladimir Shubin, we have qualitatively new way of Minsk-Moscow-Astana line of relations, which could include new styles and methods of interstate cooperation, new format of discussions. And this public diplomacy should be based on the global strategy of the promotion of the interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan [12]. And the well-considered history of the development of eurasianism theory could help to make it in a better way.
As far as, Kazakhstan’s role and place in improving relations between Asia and Europe are concerned it appears to have the commitment, ability and willingness at the level of top leadership but its success and effectiveness will depend on a number of factors; political developments, institution building and democratization process in the country, political changes and future leadership, balance of political power and interests among political and social groups and forces and their influence and impacts on domestic peace, stability and harmony. Any radical changes in regional politics (Central Asian countries, China and Russia) and future trends and directions of the Afghan war may limit and affect Kazakhstan policy options and choices.
ReFeReNceS
- Filosofiya: Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar/Pod red. A. Ivina. M., Gardariki. 2004 [in Russ.].
- Trubetskoy N.S. Nasledie Chingishana//Evropa i Chelovechestvo. , 2000, S. 88-90 [in Russ.].
- Savitskiy N. Stepi i osedlost. Na putyah: Utverzhdenie evraziystva. Moskva, Berlin, 1922, S.315-316 [in Russ.].
- Ishod k Utverzhdenie evraziytsev. Predchuvstviya i sversheniya. Sofiya, 1921, S.7 [in Russ.].
- Kofner Dugin – eto ne evraziystvo! Rezhim dostupa – URL: htpp://www. gumilev-center.ru, data obrascheniya 30.11.2015 [in Russ.].
- Kaskabasov A. Evraziystvo v sovremennom ponimanii. Idei i realnost evraziystva: materialyi Valihanovskih chteniy «istoricheskie korni i perspektivyi evraziystva kak sotsiokulturnogo i sotsiopoliticheskogo fenomena», 11 dekabrya 1998 g., g. Astana .Otv. red. A.K. Koshanov, A.N. Nyisanbaev. Almatyi: Dayk-Press, 1999, S.183 [in Russ.].
- Plyishevskiy Reformirovanie ekonomiki gosudarstv SNG: Kazahstan. Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal, 1993, 9, S. 12 [in Russ.].
- Kantor K. Evraziystvo: za i protiv, vchera i segodnya (materialyi kruglogo stola. Voprosyi filosofii, 1995, 6, S.41 [in Russ.].
- Gumilev JI. , Ermolaev V. Yu. Gore ot illyuziy. Vestnik vyisshey shkolyi, 1992, 7-9, S.9 [in Russ.].
- Baturin S. Idei evraziystva i strategiya razvitiya Respubliki Kazahstan. Idei i realnost evraziystva: materialyi Valihanovskih chteniy «istoricheskie korni i perspektivyi evraziystva kak sotsiokulturnogo i sotsiopoliticheskogo fenomena», 11 dekabrya 1998 g.,
- Astana / Otv. red. A.K. Koshanov, A.N. Nyisanbaev. Almatyi: Dayk-Press, 1999, S.202