Russian conservatism is making a forceful return after a century of experimenting with socialism and liberalism. Conservatism is about managing change by ensuring that modernization evolves organically by building on the past. Conservatism has a natural attraction for Russia as its thousand-year long history is largely characterized by revolutionary change - the destructive process of uprooting the past to give way to modernity. Navigating towards gradual and organic modernization has been a key struggle ever since the Mongols invaded in the early 13th century and decoupled Russia from Europe and the arteries of international trade. Russian history has consisted of avoiding revolutions that are either caused by falling behind on modernization or making great leaps forward that disrupts socio-economic and political traditions. Russian conservatives are now tasked with harmonizing the conservative ideas of the 19th century with the revolutionary changes that shaped Russia in the 20th century. The rise of Asia now provides new opportunities as it enables Russia to overcome its fixation on the West and develop a unique Russian path towards modernization that harmonizes its Eurasian geography and history.
Glenn Diesen is Associate Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. He was formerly employed by HSE Moscow.
Foreword by Vladimir Yakunin
1. Theorising Russian Conservatism
2. The Eurasian Schism in Russian Conservatism
3. The Rise of Conservatism from the Early 19th Century
4. After the Crimean War: The Great Reforms and Revolutions
5. Reforming the Concept of a Conservative Political Economy
6. Conservatism Under Communism and the Advent of Eurasiansim
7. The Liberal Revolution of the 1990s
8. The Return of Russian Conservatism under Putin
9. The End of the Occidental Era and the Birth of Greater Eurasia
10. Russia as an International Conservative Power
Conclusion: Taming Russia’s Revolutionary Impulses
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.