Party documents | Program of Eurasia Movement | Part 1| Dugin | 12.04.2001

Program of the Socio-political Movement  EURASIA

New challenges for Russia, new strategic orienting points, new purposes 

   Russia faces a set of new historical challenges. Today more than ever before it is necessary to affirm in a new form priorities, purposes, constants of the historical path of Russia and to correlate them with the shapes of that new world in which we shall live in the next millennium. 
 

Traditions. Fundamental directions of development of Russia as State, people, society 

   Addressing to the future, we must give a pondered estimation of our past. This past more than once in Russian history has been rewritten in a favour of this or that ruling ideological group. Today, leaving the era of ideologies behind, we are obliged to sum up the landmarks of our historical path as much as possible objectively and impartially beyond ideological preferences, outlining the most important features and leaving aside the details. To this purpose there are today all reasons and conditions. This freedom from untouchable dogmas and obligatory clichés is possibly the most positive achievement of young Russian democracy. 

`
The eurasist choice 

   There is no doubt that Russia has its own path. Its external forms constantly vary, sometimes in dramatic turnarounds. But in every epoch a common line is traced — the eurasist direction, the eurasist substance of Russian history. Much can be questioned in considering our past, future and present. But the eurasist Idea is not subject to doubt. Russia is Eurasia, and this predetermines its geographical, cultural, civilizational, strategic and economic life. 
 

Assertion of a special civilizational mission 

   The eurasist identity of Russia constitutes the substance of our historical mission. Russia has its own image of the logic of history, of the Truth of the world. The search for this Truth and its affirmation is the content of national historical life. Loyalty to this Truth was defended by our ancestors, many generations of Russian people, Russians giving their lives on the altar of Fatherland. To defend this mission is our duty, also beyond the present moment. It is our historical covenant. 
 

Russia has only an eurasist future 

   Our future must be planned and built according to the common landmarks of our history. Any attempt to depart from this road, to refuse its predestination, means the end of our historical being. Russia has either an eurasist future, or none. 
 

We are for idealism (cult of the truth) 

   The cultural forms of national life vary through the centuries. But the idea of a society of Equity and Good was always saved as a constant. Cultural feature of the Russians is traditionally the aspiration to a high ideal and some kind of neglect of the sphere of material benefits. A heightened feeling of idealism and universalism can be distinguished at the most different stages of Russian history. The ideal of sacrifice was initially understood in Christian terms, as a special liability of the Russians to the Christian Tradition, entrusted to them. In the Soviet period the same Russian idealism was understood in a secularised way, as the ethics of heroical service to the principles of social justice and universal equality. Is is characteristic, that the basic conflicts in Russian history passed not between supporters of idealistic systems and pragmatists, but almost exclusively between two idealistic camps, in different ways and with a different degree of intensity defending idealistic, sometimes even utopian models, variedly expressed and formulated. The cultural style of the Russians through the whole course of history is characterised by a dynamic rethinking in a national key of aesthetic and stylistic elements borrowed from different cultural contexts, their creative and original elaboration, their skilful insertion into a particular specifically Russian context. Freedom of creative adapting and assimilation of borrowed scales of values, doctrines and symbols discovers the openness of the Russians to the ethnic variety surrounding them. The loyalty to its own national origin, reshaping anything borrowed into a unique and unrepeatable  typical Russian product, vice-versa, demonstrates the constancy of the cultural type, its national specificity and stability. 
 

Our idealistic conformation implies that the set of our ideals is also the set of our purposes: 
 

Our ideal of own self-consciousness 

   - We are a special people, a special world, a special geopolitical formation 

   As an historical community (people), as a unique economic and social organism, as a special geopolitical formation, we represent a complete self-supporting system entered in the common planetary equilibrium of civilisations, cultures, peoples, religions and states. To affirm and to save our multivariate originality is our major task. 

   - We are against the repetition of mistakes 

   We are simply obliged to not retry the bloody mistakes of our ancestors, having taken in the new millennium all the best of our national history. In the new conditions, the limit to rough mistakes and sharp departures from our destiny has been reached. The fatality of some definite mistakes repeatedly made by our ancestors has become obvious. Our task is not retrying the most rough of them. We have to accept our destiny, to realise it and triumphally to affirm before the world the RUSSIAN TRUTH. 

   - We are for succession 

   The succession of civilizational policies and strategies distinguishes wise peoples from senseless ones, mature states from adventurist ones. The most various classifications of the historical periods of Russian history converge in saying that the Russian people (being rather young in comparison to the majority of the European ethnoses), nevertheless has left youth behind, and is characterised by a deep attention to its destiny, a more mature estimation of its position in the world. The wise state reflects about its historical predestination, about the combination of traditions and vanguard innovative paths more and better than the adventurist, temporary, transient state. Russia has clearly approached to the necessity of a new deep comprehension of its “ego». 
 
 

Our ideal of internal political construction: organic democracy, eurasist federalism 

   The eurasist political model must be founded on the imperative of participation of the society in adopting the founding historical decisions, on genuine people’s government. The participation of the people to its own destiny — so is defined a genuine democracy. This participation can be realised in various ways. As Russia represents a massive strategic formation, the management of its strategic potential must be concentrated in the hands of a small group or distinct personalities, no matter how they are called —  president, monarch, High council, leader etc. Such personification of authority does not contradict the principle of organic democracy in the event that the communal vector of activity of the highest State personalities (or group of persons) corresponds to the reference direction of historical development, and is based on the constants of national life. Thus, criterion for evaluating the adequacy (or inadequacy) of the head of the State must not simply be his efficiency in fulfilling his functions and official duties, but first of all his loyalty to the «great project» of the people, his being at the service of the historical mission of the State. 
   At a basic level, «organic democracy» supposes a wide and flexible system of self-government correlated to cultural, religious and professional traditions of concrete collectives. Somewhat it is possible to see in this pattern an analogy to the  Soviets (councils). Here must act the principles of «direct democracy», the mechanisms of collective elaboration of decisions having local political significance and inscribed in concrete regions. 
   Between the strategic unitary principle of the supreme authority and the differentiated plurality of autonomous groups at a local level, there must exist a flexible system of political co-ordination in the person of bodies of the executive and legislative authority of an intermediate level, realising the co-ordination between the will of the communities and the strategic line of the central administration. 
  The cohesion will be mostly effective in the event that the highest State authorities will control only those aspects of political life, which have strategic meaning, such as: 
- preserving territorial integrity of the State; 
- ensuring its sovereignty and independence;
- planning the development of strategic sectors of industry and economy; 
- ensuring juridical norms to the citizens; 
- asserting the interests of Russia across the globe etc.,
but in the remaining non-strategic questions the many public local formations will be granted the highest autonomy, independence and right to define the parameters of political life at a local level. 

- eurasist centrism 

   The politological identity of Russia predetermines that vector of political world-view which must be accepted as an axis of the political Centre. This vector supposes the combination of principles of social justice rule and social economy (left-wing economy, socialism) with values of conservatism and cultural traditionalism in the pure political orientation of the State (right-wing politics, conservatism). This combination of “left» and “right-wing» elements in the definition of the Russian idea of political Centre is the opposite of the way similar elements are combined in the liberal politics of the West, where the political Centre is founded on the combination of the «free market» (right-wing economy, liberal–capitalism) with modernism, innovation and antitraditionalism in the political sphere, but also at the level of ethics, culture, religion (left-wing politics, progressism). 
   Around the fundamental line of the eurasist political Centre, political flanks directions can dynamically be developed — right and left-wing, i.e. parties, fractions and different political formations disagreeing in this or that direction from the centrist line. Yet they will be limited by their loyalty to the common historical project of Russia, fully reflected in the position of the Centre. The transition beyond a definite limit toward alternative politological models will be equivalent to political marginalisation. Thus the tolerance of the Centre in relation to even the most extreme, extremist and extravagant projects (close to the liberal politological pattern) will depend directly on the intensity of geopolitical confrontation with atlantism. If the situation in international life will be favourable to Russia, the political tolerance to liberal and extremist political formations will increase. In the difficult times of active confrontation, this tolerance, vice-versa, must become minimal. 

- third path 

   The combination of moderately socialist elements in economy and conservative statalist traditionalist of the tendencies in politics is conventionally called as «third path» model, in order to distinguish it both from usual socialism (the Marxist version, which offers a combination of left-wing economy and the left-wing politics), and rightist dictatorial regimes (where political conservatism is combined with market mechanisms and absolute power of a financial oligarchy). The «third path», in its different interpretations, most exactly corresponds to the political history of Russia. Moreover, an attentive analysis of the shifts between the rightist and leftist regimes in Russian history finds that these revolutionary processes streamed around of a common axis, some of them departing from it, some of them turning closer. This axis represents just that absolute political Centre -  until now never plainly manifest - whose politological the configuration is identical to the «third path» model. Hence, choosing the political system of the «third path» as fundamental shall be the thoughtful, responsible, fatal step toward the definitive adoption by Russia of its leading role as the most general, universal and all-inclusive alternative world-view in the political field. And if such transition to the theory of the «third path» will indeed take place, this will mean liquidating the basic reasons of the dramatic revolutionary confrontations, of the cruel destructive revolutions and extremist unrest which coloured Russian political history in a bloody tone. The «third path» is the only guarantor from forthcoming revolutions, civil wars and revolts, which again can divide Russia between conflicting camps in the event that such choice will not take place. The thoughtful and clear adoption of that model - which has been the hidden core of Russian political history - as the basic tendency of political Centre will mean real political consent, long-term stability and internal political peace. 

- eurasist federalism 

The scale of historical mission of Russia, necessary to prevent the establishment of the «new world order» and to oppose to it a global alternative, implies the creation of such internal political system as much as possible open for involving in the eurasist block other peoples and states with diverse cultural, civilisational, political, religious and economic history. For this purpose the general political structure of Russia must be as much as possible close to the model of the forthcoming eurasist continental formation. It means building the system of «eurasist federalism», whose main feature must be combining strategic unity at the level of central administration and wide diversity of political, social, legal and economic organization of the forming parts.
   Eurasist federalism supposes a political and administrative system considerably different from the pattern of nation-state on which the modern western powers are based. In a nation-state there are strict political centralism, linguistic and cultural homogeneity, universal requirement of a uniform juridical, constitutional, political and economic system. The nation-state is supposed to represent a uniform mono-cultural block composed of atomized citizens, enjoying the equal juridical status before the unitary state system. 
   Eurasist federalism is based on completely different reasons. It precisely shares two concepts — strategic unity and wide ethno-cultural, regional pluralism. The state is politically unitary, in the sense of accomplishing a unique historical mission, a common geopolitical «great project». But this unity does not apply to a usual country, but to a whole civilisation; here we have no ordinary state formation, but the liberation of a «democratic empire» of a new kind. Therefore solidarity at a level of planetary destiny is accompanied by the broadest differentiation at the level of the constituent parts, of advanced cultural and religious autonomies. Even in its present shape, Russia has saved distinctly federative features, basic signs of an «empire» made of a whole constellation of extremely heterogeneous regions in the ethnic, social, cultural and geographical sense. Each region represents a self-supporting system with a lot of unique, unrepeatable features. This specificity as an ethnic, social, juridical and communitarian mosaic must be mirrored also at the political level, as a wide federal association of collective subjects differing in status and level. At the basic definition of units of federal space must not lay administrative and territorial descriptions (as in centralist nation-states), but a flexible system of criteria taking into account the whole complex of cultural, social, historical, economic, ethnic identity must lay. And the federal subject, playing a structuring role in the formation of the State, must replicate the federative-democratic pattern also at an internal level, i.e. represent the not the narrow analogue of a small scale nation-state (as it happens in the case of newly formed republics separated from Russia, of national and territorial-administrative formations aspiring today to raise to political autonomy, down to separatism), but of a mini-empire with the broadest spectrum of internal collective subjects, being structured, in turn, as the subject of the great federation. And so on, down to self-ruling working collectives, executive boards of local communities and councils. 
   Such internal federative system will facilitate Russia’s strategic union with the different powers, potential participants of the continental eurasist block. In case of conclusion of such unions, the federative principle will be saved inviolable, but the configuration of the federative room will be extended (in the event that the strategic integration will be very tight). All territorial controversies, fully or  partially preventing the establishing of tight allied mutual relation between neighbouring states will thus be solved. If – for instance – Russia’s neighbouring countries and potential participants to the eurasist block will go on developing federalism inside their states, the dimensions of the Eurasist Union organically and naturally will begin to expand, since the presence of wide cultural and religious autonomies will not weaken the traditional states, constantly threatening separatism and military conflicts, but, vice-versa, will strengthen the strategic block, in which many small peoples and cultural ensembles will have the long-awaited chance of reunification into an organic whole and by that become a binding element, having changed today's (destructive) geopolitical mission into its opposite. For multinational Eurasia such wide federalist approach would be the ideal solution. 
   In an even more remote perspective, eurasist federalism could become an attractive political pattern across the globe, representing the political alternative to the mondialist levelling of the «new world order». 
 

Our ideal of geopolitical strategy for Russia 

   The highest geopolitical priority for Russia in the forthcoming century (millennium) is the creation of an eurasist strategic block — with a flexible and differentiated world-view and a multilevel membership — as a counterweight to atlantist and mondialist tendencies on a global scale.
   As against the previous epoch, the axis of such block must be neither a world-view [weltanschauung] neither a specific economic or political system, but geopolitical and strategic principles, civilisational imperatives.
   Russia must definitely understand itself as the «geographical axis of history», as the core of Eurasia, with full responsibility to affirm at the new stage and in new terms the global extent of its historical and civilisational destiny (taking into account mistakes and deviations of previous historical periods). 

- the multipolar world 

  In a long-term perspective it is necessary to be guided by the aim of creating a genuinely free and fair multipolar world, organically forming around different cultural, civilisational, social and historical centres. The riches of mankind is directly linked to the variety of civilizations, which must not only be saved, but also newly asserted. Eurasia itself, in the best periods of its history, was distinguished for this «imperial» variety, where strategic and geopolitical unity was combined with a constellation of organic and cultural autonomous parts. The eurasist pole initially must be formed as a civilisation stronghold of liberation, so that the forthcoming multipolarity becomes for Eurasia the natural and desirable result of the temporary return to the bipolar pattern. Hence, the same structure of the new eurasist block must initially bear in itself the germs of cultural pluralism, of differentiation, of variety, of  «blossoming complexity». In such case the forthcoming advent of a genuinely multipolar world will be the organic continuation of the eurasist line, opposed to the  unifying unidimensional logic of atlantism. 

- eurasist strategic unions 

   The realisation of the eurasist project implies a series of steps aimed at increasing the strategic significance and the self-supporting weight of Russia. No other State, for geopolitical reasons, is able to become the axis of the eurasist block. Russia holds a geographically central place in Eurasia, and has a strategic potential, sufficient for ensuring the successful start of integration processes at the first stage. For Russia it is vitally necessary to be guided in external and domestic policy by the one and only imperative, to which all remaining ones must be subordinated —   the creation of the Eurasist Union. 

- minimal size: the post-Soviet integration 

   The minimal scale of the eurasist integration, or its first stage, must become the strategic reunification of CIS countries (former Soviet republics) in a common strategic construction, united by the consciousness of common geopolitical concerns and common strategic and civilisational destiny. The integration of CIS countries into a new, more solid strategical formation must be based on global geopolitical tasks, instead of momentary social and economic interests or combination of forces within political élites. The fatal meaning of the Eurasist Project is so great, that it incomparably exceeds the balance of practical pluses and minuses originating from such integration, of obviously stands well above the political and psychological portraits of contingently ruling leaders and parties. 
   The geopolitical integration of CIS (which is possible since the first stage, except for those states too deeply involved in atlantist mechanisms) must be realised as the execution of the eurasist destiny, instead of arbitrary act of any political or ideological grouping. For this reason, the unity of geopolitical purposes must consolidate among themselves both ruling regimes and opposition, both the establishment élite and the revolutionary counter-élites. 
The history of mankind, the chance of establishing a multipolar world depends on the real integration of CIS. Hence, narrow political dissent must retreat in second plan before the grandiosity of this project, and political-social conflicts — objectively inevitable in any society — must not extend in any case to the sphere of the general strategic course, which under no circumstances can be held hostage by interparty struggles or social frictions. 
    In this precise way the geopolitical succession of US atlantist élite (which one disputing — sometimes rather roughly — tactical questions, political problems methods, decisions) never put into question what in America is called «Manifest Destiny», i.e. «clear predestination». 
   Eurasia, according to its own parameters, has a similar vocation and predestination, as much global, but with the opposite sign. 
   And the accomplishment of this eurasist predestination must gather the CIS ?lite at the first stage of the new affirmation of the eurasist block. 

 - continental block 

   The following stage of the Eurasist Project, which can be realised of in a parallel way to the strategic integration of CIS, is the creation of a unitary strategic association with eurasist States vitally interested in building an alternative to autocratic planetary domination of the US and the countries of the atlantist West. Such countries are some Arabian states of Near East and Northern Africa, Iran, India, China, and other Far Eastern countries included in the Pacific zone. 
  These countries have their ancient culture, advanced religious systems, and a complex and particular social and political structures. Their economic way of life represents an original germination of formations and systems. The majority of these countries have their own historical project expressed in the terms of civilizational, cultural, political, social and national originality. Not always this project harmoniously corresponds to the projects of neighbouring powers and civilizations, but they are united in the opposition to atlantist universalism, in the denial of liberal mondialist levelling, in the refusal autocratic domination of the US. On the basis of the principle of common negation, all these elements can be involved in the large scale continental block. 
   In the coming future, from this picture of highly differentiated plurality, a multipolar reality can be formed on the basis of a common Eurasist Path. 

-  union with Europe and Japan 

   Integration within the framework of CIS, the creation of the eurasist strategic block represent the preliminary steps towards an active planetary strategy of Eurasia, without which a strategic civilisational alternative will not have sufficient stuffing. 
   The following stage (which, in its basic features, can be prepared with no delay and in a parallel way to the other two) is activating a geopolitical line toward Europe and Japan. Europe and Japan represent the two major strategic «coast zones», the control upon which ensures to atlantism (the US) a steady supremacy over a potential eurasist civilisation. 
   For this reason, the final destiny of Eurasia will depend on the successful neutralisation of Europe and Japan, from their exclusion from US strategic control, and their subsequent including in the pan-eurasist project. Only once such dimension will be reached — including Europe and the whole Pacific region together with Japan — the Eurasist Project will be quite complete and is able to exert a decisive effect on planetary processes. 

- purpose: civilisation promotion of a new multipolar planetary reality 

   The global geopolitical task of Russia consists in the creation of a multipolar world, in the strategic promotion of such world. The transition to it, as to a pluralist and differentiated alternative to unidimensional atlantist mondialism, will be possible only in the course of the realisation of all three stages of the Eurasist Project. A multipolar free world, with a blossoming complexity of cultures and civilisations — here is the highest geopolitical ideal of Russia, its vocation, its predestination. 
 

Our ideal of geoeconomic strategy of Russia: self-sufficiency of large spaces 

- eurasist principle of «economic pluralism» 

   The eurasist economic model is based on a principle opposite to liberal universalism, to the postulates of the so-called «classical school» of economics. Each historical community has its own unique history of economic development, its own special structure as economic organism. The system of criteria according to one economic efficiency is valued, the parameters of  success or failure, cannot be separated from the historical, social and cultural context of a given society. The thought of the western classic school of economics comes from the wrong supposition of unidirectional economic development for all peoples and states, only with miscellaneous paces. On this belief is based the representation about «the doubtless advantages of the western economic pattern, as the most advanced stage in realisation of the economic pattern common to all peoples». Being pushed by this belief, the West felt itself legitimated to act as the economic arbitrator across the globe, imposing to anyone else that system of economic criteria, which reflects the logic of development of economic systems of western countries. 
   The eurasist economic pattern will come from the opposite principle — the impossibility of evaluating the economic systems of the various peoples starting from general abstract criteria and separately from historical and cultural reality. Against the economic monism of the liberal political economy, the eurasist world-view exposes the concept of an economic plurality. In practice it means that the world economic system consists of separate sovereign economic units developing according to their internal logic and unsuitable to be assessed proceeding from any general theory. Precisely just as it is impossible to demonstrate on the basis of abstract criteria the superiority of one culture over another, the truth of one faith in comparison with a different faith, the supremacy of one race above another, so it is impossible to justify the supremacy of one management system above another, since it would mean obliterating the original economic history of each concrete people and state. 
   The traditional economic complexes of archaic nations are perfectly efficient, balanced and adequate within the framework of their historical and cultural context, as well as the advanced industrial technological complexes of the Western world. Economic and management specificity mirrors cultural peculiarity. The task of the eurasist economy is to warrant within its domain the sovereignty, conservation and organic development of all present economic systems reflecting the cultural-historical path of concrete peoples. The economic plurality of the eurasist pattern mirrors at an economic level that principle of multipolarity, to which eurasist geopolitics are oriented. 

- creation of advanced self-sufficient economic systems of the mixed kind (plurality of regimes) 

   The economic vector of development of Russia must be organically adjusted to the basic geopolitical and strategic orienting point of its development, i.e. with the Eurasist Project. It is perfectly clearly, that following abstract dogmas of purely economic ideologies — be it Marxism or liberalism — withdraws Russia from its destiny in labyrinths of scholastics and civil conflicts. 
Moreover, liberalism, as well as Marxism, insists on economic unification, on the levelling of management processes. The natural development of the economy of Russia in the future must be realised on the basis of a complex approach taking into account both economic and non-economic factors. The strategic imperative of the eurasist line requires the edification of the economy in a regime of  «expanded self-sufficiency», prospectively on a continental scale. It is the neo-keynesian pattern of «economic isolation» or the updated version of the «customs union». 
   This economic pattern supposes the partial openness of economy (concerning the strategic allies) and the existence of economic barriers against the economic systems of countries belonging to the antagonist strategic block. 
   The second imperative of development of the Russian economy is the requirement of a due plurality of regimes, the differentiated combination of various economic systems — from state control (in strategic areas) to the free market (in small and medium production, trade system, services) through miscellaneous systems of collective management (cooperatives, joint-stock companies etc.) .

- keynesism for Eurasia, «eurasist economic isolation» 

   The economic pattern most suitable to modern Eurasia in view of establishing a civilisational factor is the keynesian pattern, centrally placed for respecting the strategic priorities of the eurasist ensemble of states and nations. In defining the orientation of economic reforms, emphasis must be put not simply on the achievement of the highest economic efficiency, but on the general civilisational and social context, in whose interest these reforms must be realised according to the logic of things. And since this context in its basic vectors is not simply different, but in many respects opposite to the liberal atlantist system, to the «new world order», a major problem is the creation of an «eurasist economic island», possessing relative self-sufficiency. It implies a paternalistic economic variant, indispensable through the whole period of economic development of Eurasia. Thus the development of the basic sectors of industry, information systems, agriculture and especially of high technology must be the main task of the central authority, responsible for strategic issues. Market elements, completely indispensable in a number of sectors of the economy — small and medium production, sphere of services etc. — must be combined with the public sector. The problem of employment must be solved at strategical state level, and not just at market level. The parasitic class of the rentiers must be marginalised to the benefit of productive social groups of businessmen and workers receiving a wage in the private and state enterprises (so-called «wage-earners»). 

- eurasist finance 

   It is necessary for Russia to create its own currency in a common planetary financial context. This is possible in three ways: 
1) pegging it to the dollar (being de facto the world reserve currency), 
2) pegging it to the currencies of other large geoeconomic regions (European or Pacific), 
3) creating its own financial system within the framework of a vast eurasist customs union - the so-called «eurasist rouble». 
The first alternative disappears for strategic reasons, as it makes the eurasist economy of Russia dependent from the atlantist geopolitical pole (that means suicide). The second and third alternatives can be realised in a parallel way with a the prioritary perspective solution of the «eurasist rouble». The warranties of the  «eurasist rouble» cannot only stay in our industrial-economic structures, but in the whole aggregate of geopolitical, resource and strategic potential of Eurasia, with a special emphasis on the sphere of Russian nuclear weapons and other innovative military technologies, assessed as a financial equivalent of the extent of power potential. Exactly according to such logic of US achieved supremacy in the post-war world within the capitalist camp have, having translated their strategic force superiority in the equivalent financial domination of the dollar as the world reserve currency, and – just as a result of such operation - having provided a solid base for strong economic growth. Within the framework of the eurasist strategic block Russia can quite reasonably repeat the given schema and peg its currency, the «eurasist rouble», to the conservation and development of its military strategic potential, seen as a warranty of freedom and independence for other eurasist powers from the neo-colonial dictatorship of the «new world order». 

- fourth zone, pragmatical involvement in world virtual economy

   Major economic task of Russia is the creation of a self-supporting, autarchic, closed economic zone within the limits of Eurasia. The eurasist fourth zone — along with the existing three: American, European and Pacific — must reunite in a common economic space the territory of CIS countries, and a number of East Europe and Asian countries interested to strategic independence in front of the economic pressure of the «rich North». Potential participants of the fourth zone can be countries with various economic systems, which implies an economic integration at miscellaneous paces depending on the specificity of the given region or country. The fourth economic zone must be guided by prioritary interaction with the neighbouring economic spaces — European and Pacific - with the long-term purpose of opposing American hegemony across the globe and normalising the economic balance on the territory of the whole planet. Even the first steps toward the realisation of the fourth zone will change the economic balance between highly technological, industrial regions and regions richly endowed with resources, breaking the univocal domination of the «rich North» and the colonial exploitation of the «poor South». 

- involvement in planetary geoeconomical processes with the purpose to give them an eurasist civilisational direction 

   The financial and economic system of Russia can not ignore the forming of a virtual economy at a world level, the translation of economic potential into the sphere of information technology and electronic stock exchanges. In a distant perspective, the eurasist policy course must result in the relativization (and even deletion) of such virtual financial system and in the returning to the priorities of real sectors, long-term investments and concrete production of material goods, to the transition from virtual capital to real, creative and organising management. But at a transitory stage Russia must participate in the world virtual economy, by delegating to special broker groups under strict strategic control of the highest state authorities, in order to assimilate the most recent technologies and whenever possible to readdress global trends in a direction strategically amplifying the positions of the eurasist geoeconomy. 
 

Our ideal of strategy of industrial development of Russia 

- informatization 

   The creation of the fourth zone requires a radical modernisation of the domestic industry, the large-scale and systematic introduction of advanced technologies in key spheres of strategic production. At the roots of such modernisation must lay the system of informatization, communication and transport, which constitutes the axial reality of the post-industrial stage of development of the economy. Due to large-scale informatization, many organisational problems of production, merchandising and allocation, and also processes of economic integration and work allocation within the framework of the eurasist zone will be successfully solved. Thanks to technological flexibility, informatization can be introduced both in hi-tech processes and in some traditional spheres of the economy, everywhere multiplying the efficiency. Planned and universal informatization must become a strategic priority of the State. In the issue of creating a solid system of eurasist customs union, informatization will play a central role, and the success of such union will depend to no small degree on it. 

- regionalisation 

   Integration processes in the eurasist economy must be accompanied by increasing significance of the single regions and increasing extent of their administrative and economic independence. Industrial zones must be integrated in a communal eurasist economic field not by way of decrees, but through organic and natural horizontal connections reproducing on an economic level the federative system. The control from the centre must encompass exclusively the strategic spheres, set general economic parameters, but the concrete ways of accomplishing the general tasks of industrial development must be decided at a local level. 

- creation of self-contained industrial cycles linked to local spaces 

   The allocation of work within the framework of the fourth zone does not imply the centralisation of production management. The large industrial areas must be based on the use of local infrastructures and resource potential. Such organisation of partially self-contained industrial cycles linked to local systems is indispensable for increasing the solidity of the pan-eurasist economic pattern and raise the level of industrial safety. The industrial complexes in such situation must become the core of social ensembles in view of the ethnic, demographic, religious and cultural specificity of the population. 

- ecological qualification of industrial productions 

   The environmental factor must be included among the basic priorities in expert estimation of industrial projects, and its evaluation is also indispensable in the issue of  restructuring existing productions. The probability of an ecological catastrophe in the present conditions increases, and in this situation the conservation of the eco-system becomes a major element of strategic safety.