Geopolitics of ‘Imaginary Greater Eurasia’ and Russia’s dilemma of Asia-Pacific vs Indo-Pacific strategy: an analysis from India’s strategic perspective

ABSTRACT

Russia, because of its location and geopolitical proclivity, through its geopolitical doctrines of ‘Greater Eurasia’ and ‘Asia Pivot’ is interested in playing a major role in the Indo-Pacific. The growing role of the United States along with a marked increase in China’s expansionist policy in the Indo-Pacific region is also generating apprehensions for Russia. India, as a ‘pivotal player’ in the Indo-Pacific region, is also affected by the strategic developments, especially due to China's ‘imperial maneuvering’ in this geopolitical space. Being part of the Quad, and at the same time having a strategic partnership with Russia, provides India with an immense strategic opportunity. India can also strengthen its outreach to the Central Asian geopolitical space, particularly to energy-rich Kazakhstan through Russia’s Siberia and the Far East which connect with the Indo-Pacific. Russia-Ukraine war is also posing additional security challenges to Indo-Pacific.

KEYWORDS:

• India
• Russia
• Greater Eurasia
• Indo-Pacific

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the late Prof Devendra Kaushik, Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, and late Prof. Hari Vasudevan, Calcutta University, Kolkata, India, for their initial suggestions on this topic and to the anonymous referees for their constructive suggestions. He also acknowledges Prof Sanjay Chaturvedi, the Editor-in-Chief, who has given suggestions to the article along with the Commissioning Editor, Gurpreet S. Goraya for his cooperation during the publication of the article in the Journal.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 This article was written before the Russia-Ukraine war which started in February 2022. Attempts are being made to provide the impact of the war in the framework of Indo-Pacific region. A separate section is also being added to the present article in the form of a Postscript. Similarly, subsequent changes have also been made in the research questions and in hypotheses.

2 The notion of ‘Greater Eurasia’ was well articulated by Russian strategic thinker Sergei Karganov. Karganov gave a conceptual explanation of the notion from structural, geopolitical along with geo-economic factors. He outlines that this is a broader region, ‘that sets the direction for interaction among states on the continent’. In addition to the traditional Eurasian countries, he has also included ‘East, Southeast and South Asian countries, the central part of the continent, Russia, and most likely many countries located on the European subcontinent’ (Karaganov, 2018, p. 90). The phrase ‘Imaginary’ was used to denote the fact whether under a spell of sanctions which Russia is confronting since 2014 will be able to achieve its geopolitical goal of ‘Greater Eurasia’ or will it remains a mere pipedream? See for a similar analysis (Lewis, 2018).

3 The etymological roots of Indo-Pacific can be traced back to the writings of German geopolitical thinker Karl Haushofer who in his work Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozeans, (Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean), first published in 1924. In that book he describes this region as ‘ a giant space is expanding before our eyes’ In the same book, he further argues regarding the significance of this region by stating that, this region ‘await the dawn of the Pacific age, the successor to the ageing Atlantic, the over-age Mediterranean and the European era’ (Weigert, 1942, p. 735). The phrase Indo-Pacific in recent years was used by an Indian scholar Gurpreet S. Khurana. According to Khurana, Indo-Pacific refers to ‘the maritime space comprising the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific. littoral to it are the states of Asia (including West Asia/Middle East) and eastern Africa’ (Khurana, 2007, p. 150).

4 Though the notion of Asia-Pacific as Russia, advocates has not only a geopolitical connotation but is rooted in the philosophical doctrine of the superiority of Russian culture in the geopolitics of Eurasia. This is also known in a geopolitical metaphor as ‘Russian Heartland’ approach. The same was articulated by Russia’s foremost geopolitical thinker of recent times Aleksandr Dugin considered being the closest confidant of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Dugin in his book Foundation of Geopolitics outlines the ideological roots of Eurasianism in the context of the Asia-Pacific strategic vision of Russia’s foreign policy. Dugin outlines that ‘Only Russia can speak on behalf of Heartland with full geopolitical justification’ (Dugin, 1997, p. 94). To achieve that in his book he further argues that ‘It is not enough simply to strengthen the military contingent located in the Far East or in the Amur region’ (Dugin, 1997, p. 192). He further argues that ‘It is necessary to take large-scale geopolitical steps … . It is necessary to intensify positional pressure on northeast China, to take preventive pressure on this area, which would initially prevent any geopolitical encroachment of China towards northern expansion’ (Dugin, 1997, p. 192).

5 As defined by Spykman the rimland notion of Eurasia is ‘situated as it is between the heartland and the marginal seas. It functions as a vast buffer zone of conflict between sea power and land power … , Its amphibious nature lies at the basis of its security problems’ (Spykman, 1944, p. 44).

6 Highlighting the strategic significance of Indian Ocean in the India’s national security strategy, K.M Panikkar noted, ‘To the Indian Ocean we shall then have to turn, as our ancestors did, who conquered Socotra [Yemen] long before the Christian Era and established an Empire in the Pacific which lasted for 1500 years’ (Panikkar, 1945, p. 16).

7 The main proponent of the neo-realist perspective of International Relations Kenneth Waltz argues ‘Structural change affects the behaviour of states and the outcomes their interactions produce’ (Waltz, 2000, p. 39).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nalin Kumar Mohapatra

Dr Nalin Kumar Mohapatra is working as an Assistant Professor in the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. Dr Mohapatra's areas of research are Geopolitics, Energy Security, Regional Security, Democratisation, International Relations and Russian and Central Asian Studies. His recent publications are: “Geopolitics of water securitisation in Central Asia” GeoJournal (May, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10661-0 (Springer:) and Geopolitics of the Black Sea Region (Bsr) and Russia-Nato Strategic Game: India's Policy Options, (Policy Paper https://usanasfoundation.com/geopolitics-of-the-black-sea-region-bsr-and-russia-nato-strategic-game-indias-policy-options (October 30, 2021) also available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3957968.