Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The article analyzes Eurasian crises through a historical lens, suggesting implications for modern geopolitical strategies.
The article develops a comparative historical framework to reinterpret contemporary Eurasian crises as the culmination of a “New” Eastern Question. It argues that the core dynamics of nineteenth-century rivalry between maritime and continental powers—then Britain and Russia, now the United States and Russia—persist under transformed conditions. Using five analytical parameters, it compares the classical Eastern Question (1774–1918) with the post–Cold War period (1991–2026), showing that Eurasia remains the primary strategic theater and that competition over chokepoints, resources, and religious-ideological narratives endures. At the same time, nuclear weapons, globalized interdependence, information technologies, and the weaponization of international law make this New Eastern Question more volatile and dangerous. Applying the framework to the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East, the article highlights escalation risks and draws implications for Western defense planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Konstantinos Papadimitriou (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: