The Ethnic Factor in Russia-Mongolia Cross-Civilizational Dialogue with Evidence from Buryatia: Analyzing Expert Interviews

Introduction. The article examines the role of the ethnic factor in the cross-civilizational dialogue between Russia and Mongolia with evidence from the Republic of Buryatia. The latter federal subject is a border region located in the ‘overlapping’ zone of Russian and Mongolian civilizations, i.e. serves as somewhat an outpost of both the latter. This may actualize the question of competition (combination) between ethnic, civil and civilizational identities for Buryat residents of the Republic. Materials and methods. The methodological research basis is compiled from elements of social constructivism and civilizational political science. In 2024, an expert survey (structured in-depth interviews) was conducted among representatives of science and education of the Republic of Buryatia (N=13). Results. The survey reveals that experts tend to perceive the Republic of Buryatia as a bridge for cross-civilizational cooperation between Russia and Mongolia — given that such cooperation mainly covers the fields of science, culture and education. Experts are not inclined to exaggerate the importance of ethnic and religious affinities between Buryats and Mongolians. Russian civil identity is reported to have taken complete shape among the Buryat, and to date they belong — to a greater extent — to the Russian civilization, which, in particular, has manifested itself during the Special Military Operation. Quite a share of the experts also confirmed the importance of regional identity for representatives of all ethnic groups inhabiting Buryatia. Conclusions. As for practical use of categories inherent in civilizational political science, the experts positively assessed the prospect of their implementation in program documents on national (ethnic) policies. Meanwhile, it is necessary to undertake research efforts to clarify key concepts and integrate them into the education system so that the use of the category ‘Russian civilization’ should contribute to both the protection of our country’s cultural diversity and the consolidation of society.

1. Russian Census. On: Federal State Statistics Service of Russia, Buryatia Office (website). Posted on 19 January 2023. Available at: https://03.rosstat.gov.ru/vpn2020 (accessed: 12 December 2024). (In Russ.)

2. Antonov V. I. Features of identity of Mongolian ethnic groups of Russia in the context of history and modernity (On the example of the Buryats). International Journal of Cultural Research. 2024. No. 3(56). Pp. 81–94. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.52173/2079-1100_2024_3_81

3. Vernadsky G. V. Outlining Russian History. St. Petersburg: Lan’, 2000. 320 p. (In Russ.)

4. Mongolian authorities promise to issue residence permits for Russian citizens. On: RBC. Posted on 1 October 2022. Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/01/10/2022/6337be319a7947208f0e9afd (accessed: 25 May 2025). (In Russ.)

5. Gumilyov L. N. Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere. Moscow: Tanais DI – DIK, 1994. 544 p. (In Russ.)

6. Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. Moscow: Drevnee i Sovremennoe, 2002. 548 p. (In Russ.)

7. Drobizheva L. M. Ethnicity in Russia’s Sociopolitical Space: Twenty-Year Experiences. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2013. 336 p. (In Russ.)

8. Zheleznyakov A. S. Civilizational political science as a scientific direction. In: Gaman-Golutvina O. V. et al. (eds.) Russia in a Polycentric World Order: Challenges and New Paradigms of Development. Jubilee congress proceedings (Moscow, 5–7 December 2024). Moscow: Aspect Press. 2024. Pp. 207–208. (In Russ.)

9. Zheleznyakov A. S., Litvinova T. N. Civilizational and sociocultural aspects of multiethnic regions’ modernization in the Russian Federation. Theory and Practice of Social Development. 2014. No. 17. Pp. 14–21. (In Russ.)

10. Kombaev A. V., Borisova A. S., Sumaneev E. V. Ethnic identity in Baikal Asia. Sociology. 2021. No. 6. Pp. 84–92. (In Russ.)

11. Pope characterizes Chechens and Buryats as most brutal in Russian army. On: Kommersant. Posted on 28 November 2022. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5693530 (accessed: 25 May 2025). (In Russ.)

12. Savitsky P. N. The Eurasian Continent. Moscow: Agraf, 1997. 464 p. (In Russ.)

13. Tishkov V. A. On reconciling constructivism and primordialism: Tribute to Andrei Vladimirovich Golovnev. Etnografia. 2023. No. 1 (19). Pp. 6–25. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31250/2618-8600-2023-1(19)-6-25

14. Toynbee A. J. A Study of History. Moscow: Airis Press, 2010. 640 p. (In Russ.).

15. Trenin D. V. What we are, where we are, what we stand for – and why. Russia in Global Affairs. 2022. Vol. 20. No. 3. Pp. 32–42. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2022-20-3-32-42

16. Trubetskoy N. S. Paneurasian nationalism. In: Mukhachev Yu. V. (ed.) Russian Émigré Community: Past and Present. Collected articles. Vol. 3. Moscow: Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences (RAS), 2014. Pp. 198–206. (In Russ.)

17. Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Moscow: AST, 2003. 603 p. (In Russ.)

18. Chetvertakova Zh. V. Socio-cultural approach to the definition of the concept «ethnos». Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Philosophy. 2023. No. 1(47). Pp. 61–67. (In Russ.)

19. Spengler O. The Decline of the West. Moscow: Alpha-Kniga, 2010. 1085 p. (In Russ.)

20. Brass P. R. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1991. 358 p. (In Eng.)

21. Smith A. D. Theories of Nationalism. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1983. 350 p. (In Eng.)

22. Smith A. D. When is a nation. Geopolitics. 2002. Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp. 5–32. (In Eng.) DOI: 10.1080/714000928

23. Sorokin P. A. Reply to my critics. In: Allen Ph. J. (ed.) Pitirim A. Sorokin in Review. Durham: Duke University Press, 1963. Pp. 371–496. (In Eng.)