Eurasia: What is it? Is it?

Does the former Soviet space have any historico-regional significance, or is it really no more than an area occupied by an imperial aspirant, taking advantage of the weakness of European and Asian powers following the First World War? The author argues that the term “Eurasia” is merely a convenient way of referring to what had been Soviet territory. Recent history has seen attempts to endow it with a larger civilizational significance, but these attempts are rooted in Russian myth-making. Those areas which understand themselves as European and are part of historical Christendom will return to the “democratic,” consumer culture of Europe as rapidly as they can. The nationalities and small nations of the Caucasus and central Asia, predominantly Islamic, are becoming part of the “Middle East,” as it is commonly understood in contemporary geopolitical discourse. Portions of what had been the eastern and southern parts of the Soviet Union are drifting into the orbit of China, and even India may exert a certain influence. The methods used by non-Soviet and Soviet scholars alike to study the Soviet Union are almost entirely irrelevant to contemporary scholarship.