Eurasian economic union:
lost in the middle of nowhere


Inozemtzev V.L.,

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Director of Center for Postindustrial Studies, Head of the Department of World Economy, Faculty of Public Governance, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, slava_in@yahoo.com



DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2014.06.06


For citation:

Inozemtzev V.L. Eurasian economic union: lost in the middle of nowhere. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No. 6. P. 71-82. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2014.06.06



Abstract

In the article analyzing profund changes that occured in the global economy since the second half of the 19th century, Professor Vladislav L. Inozemtsev argues that current economic trends decrease the importance of huge continental landmasses, shift the focus of international trade from land-to the searoutes, and thus signify the emergence of a complex sea-shore economy never seen in previous centuries. He investigates the developments in land and maritime transportation, the patterns of development of both oceanic and landlocked countries and from this point takes on the possible future of the post-Soviet area. Here he points out on a very different paths of landlocked CIS nations and those who possess direct access to the high seas. No one of the latter (Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia) never expressed any interest in siding with Russia it its efforts to restore the USSR-like political structures in Eurasia, while the landlocked countries (Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgizia and Tajikistan) were among the Eurasian Union’s supporters. Therefore, the author concludes, one may say that current Eurasian integration looks like an attempt to impose Russia’s domination on those nations that are highly dependent on Moscow in economic terms. At the same time the author argues that at the era of seaborne economies the expansion into the biggest landlocked territory in the world – i.e. Mackinder’s “Heartland” – will not yield any economic benefits and will only strengthen the commodity nature of Russia’s economy. He also suggest to rethink the importance of the continental (“New Silk Road”, Transsiberian, etc.) transit since it appears to be extremely costly and cannot assist Russia’s economic development. The overall conclusion reads that the eastward direction of Russia’s integration projects is unproductive and will end in restoring economically ineffective and politically outdated Soviet-like structures that may crumble as the new downside trend in commodity prices takes place.

Keywords
Eurasian EconomicUnion; geopolitics; Eurasianism; Heartland; H. Mackinder; economic integration; coastal zone economy.


Content No. 6, 2014

See also:


MacKinder. H.J.,
Democratic ideals and reality. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No2

Isayev B.A.,
Geopolitics: classical and modern. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No2

Lukin A.V., Lukin P.V.,
Economic policy in post-soviet Russia and the russian history. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No4

Korybko A., Morozov V.M.,
Pakistan’s Role In Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No3

Butler W.E., Entin M.L., Entina E.G., Torkunova E.A.,
Greater Eurasia: In Search of a Legal Order. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No4

 
 

Archive

   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991