Russia's attitude to the neighboring continental Romano-Germanic civilizations in the West and the three traditional civilizations in the East (Islamic, Hindu and Chinese) has at least two planes, which in no case can be mixed together, as this will inevitably lead to a multitude of misunderstandings. Firstly, the cultural and historical essence of Russia, its spiritual self-determination, its “identity” are certainly determined by the formula “neither East nor West” or “neither Europe nor Asia, but Eurasia” (as Russian Eurasians put it). Spiritually, Russia is something Third, something independent and special, which has no expression either in terms of the East or in terms of the West. At this level, Russia's highest interest is to maintain at all costs of its uniqueness, defending its identity before the challenge of the culture of the West and the traditions of the East. This does not mean complete isolationism, but nevertheless limits the range of possible borrowings. Historical realism requires us to courageously acknowledge that the affirmation of “our own”, “ours” always goes parallel to the denial of “alien”, “not ours”. And affirmation and denial are fundamental elements of the national, cultural, historical and political independence of the people and the state. Therefore, the denial of both the West and the East in the cultural plan is a historical imperative for Russian independence. In this matter, of course, there may be a variety of nuances and discussions, recognizing the identity, some believe that it is better to open more for the East than for the West ("Asian direction"), others vice versa ("Westerners"), others prefer a complete rejection of any dialogue ("isolationists"), the fourth suggest uniform openness on both sides (some areas of "neo-Eurasianism").
At the strategic and purely geopolitical levels, the situation is completely different. Since Russia-Eurasia at the present historical stage as its planetary opponent has not so much “coastal civilizations”, Rimland, but the opposite “Island”, Atlantic America, the most important strategic imperative is the transformation of “coastal territories” into its allies, a strategic penetration entry into the “coastal” zones, the conclusion of a pan-Eurasian pact, or at least ensuring the complete and strict neutrality of as many Rimland as possible in a positional confrontation with the transatlantic West . Here, the strategic formula of Russia should clearly be the formula "both East and West",since only the continental integration of Eurasia with a center in Russia can guarantee everyone its peoples and states real sovereignty, maximum political and economic autarchy. At the strategic level, today there is only one opposition: either mondialism (planetary dominance of Americanism and Atlantism), or continentalism (dividing the planet into two or more Large Spaces that enjoy political, military, strategic and geopolitical sovereignty). Rimlands are necessary for Russia to become a truly sovereign continental geopolitical force. At the moment, with the actual development of military, strategic and economic technologies, there can simply be no other, noncontinental, sovereignty: all sorts of "ethnocratic", purely "isolationist" draft solutions to the state problem of Russia in the strategic sphere give a result strictly corresponding to the mondialist plans for total control over the planet and for the full strategic, political and economic occupation of Eurasia and Russia.
Obviously, the transfer of the cultural and historical problems of Russia to the strategic or geopolitical level (i.e., endowing the formula “neither East nor West” with a purely geopolitical meaning) is nothing but a political sabotage aimed at strategic disorientation of Russia's foreign policy. Whatever the basis of the "narrow-ethnic", "racial-nationalist", "chauvinistic" models of Russian statehood ignorance, naivety or conscious work against their people and their independence, the result is complete identity with the mondialist goals. Without turning Russia into an "ethnic reservation," the United States will not be able to gain full control of the world.
The Rimland problem is posed in this way only today, when behind us is the entire strategic history of the bipolar world and the planetary cold war of the USSR and the USA. At the peak of the political activity of Russian Eurasians, the strategic situation was completely different, and very few could look into the future. Therefore, some geopolitical projects of Eurasians should be considered with caution. In particular, the Rimland problem was interpreted by them more culturally than strategically. All this must be taken into account in order for Russia to develop a serious and justified geopolitical program, realistic and promising, which should be put at the forefront of the main geopolitical imperative of independence, sovereignty, independence, autarchy and freedom of Great Russia.