{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033952594490711085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005124919923126201, 'mean_word_length': 5.401639344262295, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relevance of Vadim Tsymburskie’s geopolitical intuitions

This article is the polemical response to the report of Yu.D. Granin “Island of Russia” by Vadim Tsymbursky and the geopolitical project of Greater Eurasia” within the frame­work of the round table “Problems of civilizations in the books of the Institute of Philo­sophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences”. The purpose of the work is to indicate the po­sitions of the author of the concept “Islands of Russia” in relation to a few modern geopol­itical problems. The tasks set in the text can be defined as 1) to understand what Tsym­bursky meant by “Russian civilization”; 2) to distinct between “Russia as Eurasia” and “Greater Eurasia” in his concept; 3) to reflect the methodological relationship between the historical and projective components of his concept; 4) to identify the prospects for the development of local Russian civilization, as Tsymbursky understood them. The ba­sis for hermeneutic analysis was the texts of Vadim Tsymbursky, devoted the concept of the “Island of Russia” and the problem of sovereignty. Conclusions: 1) the Russian ethno-cultural component is of decisive importance for Russian civilization; 2) the devel­opment of the “Island of Russia” is more significant than continental integration with other local civilizational centers; 3) the historical methodology and constructivism in local civi­lizational studies are complementarity; 4) the value consolidation of the Russian elite and ordinary citizens is a priority purpose for the existence of the Russian “island”.