A remarkably well researched and intellectually persuasive book. Glenn Diesen manages to elegantly avoid biases of Russian and foreign authors writing on the subject. And it is highly relevant in the times of the unleashing struggle to fill the ideological void created by evaporation of communism and liberalism. A must reading for Russian intellectual class, too.”
— Sergey Karaganov, Higher School of Economics, Moscow
A much needed study of Russian political philosophy that casts important light on Russian politics today.”
— Jack F. Matlock, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1987–1991, Author of Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended
There is nothing more revolutionary in Russia than conservatism - the evolutionary adaptation to change and necessity. This paradox lies at the heart of Diesen’s original and challenging study. He analyses how Russian conservatism is developing in the context of restoring political subjectivity to Eurasia and the emergence of post-Western ideas of modernity. This is an essential contribution to important debates.
— Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics, University of Kent
A long-awaited comprehensive study of the genesis, historical evolution and modern manifestations of the Russian conservatism. The author did a great job in demystifying the conservative mindset in Russia and in explaining its spectacular resilience.
— Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council
The author's detailed scientific work presents the historical evolution and role of Russian conservatism to explain the continued relevance of traditional Russian civilizational ideas. Deserving of special attention, the author concludes that contemporary conservatism intensifies competition between various civilization projects, which marks the return to Russia’s pre-revolutionary interpretations of its metaphysical place and role in the world - as a possible saviour of Europe (the West) from the inevitable catastrophic consequences of the universalist model of economic, political and social development.
— Leonid Makarov, General-Major (retired)
There is a lot to internalize and learn from this book.... [T]his is a welcome contribution to a theoretical framework. Political science in general, and International Relations in particular, is not known for its reactionary biases, to put it mildly, and therefore by definition lacks theoretical contributions from that side, which is a disservice to a neutral study of historical analysis. In that light, this book fills a notable gap.
— International Affairs