Despite connections and common traits between geopolitics and International Business based on geography and location, literature on this matter is scarce. This study aims to contribute to this literature gap, by assessing the importance of Poland’s geopolitical factors in FDI location decisions. By applying a hybrid methodology which combines qualitative and quantitative analyses we conclude that there is a connection between Poland’s geopolitical factors (stable, variable and interactional) and the volume, origin and distribution of the FDI received.

Eurasianism as a concept emerged among Russian émigrés in the 1920s, with the premise that Russia is a unique ethnic blend, primarily of Slavic and Turkic peoples. Its geopolitical implications for Russia include gravitation toward mostly Turkic Central Asia. Alexander Dugin, one of its best-known proponents, believes that the demise of the Soviet Union was simply a tragic incident. The people of the former USSR should again be united in a grand Eurasian empire, with Russia a benign and generous patron, providing its “younger brothers” clients economic largesse and defense, mostly against the predatory USA. The “orange revolutions” and the rise of Russian nationalism, for whose proponents a restored imperial presence is rather marginal, indicate that Eurasianism—along with the dream of the resurrection of the USSR—is becoming less viable.

Examination of the speeches, writings and editorials by the Putin Administration in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks showed a consistent storyline that equated Russia’s war against Chechen terrorists with the subsequent US attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The storyline made a strong case for a Russian alliance with the US and the West against those who were attacking the ‘civilized world’. Two alternative storylines also emerged. The centrist-liberal storyline was skeptical of the benefits accruing to Russia from its support of the Bush Administration’s policy, while the national patriotic-Communist storyline concentrated on the ‘imperialist’ drive of the United States to control the resources of Eurasia. The resonance of the dominant Putin storyline and its skeptical and suspicious alternatives among the Russian public is tested by analysis of the responses to a representative national survey of 1800 adults conducted in April 2002. Significant socio-demographic differences appear in responses to eight questions. The Putin storyline is accepted by the rich supporters of the Edinstvo party, males, ‘Westernizers’, residents of Siberia, singles and young adults, while the oppositional storylines are supported by Communist party supporters, the elderly, Muslims, women, the poor, and residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The author describes the development of geopolitical studies in Russia after the Soviet breakup. He identifies two main schools of geopolitical analysis, Traditionalist and Revisionist. Traditionalism is inspired by old European and Russian geopolitical theories and views the world through the lenses of confrontation over power and resources. The revisionist school, on the other hand, adopts a considerably broader definition of what constitutes geopolitics by proposing to study various forms of organizing space on a global scale. According to the paper’s central argument, the Russian geopolitics, while having emerged as a vocation, it is yet to turn into a full-fledged academic discipline. It continues to lack coherent and scientifically testable theoretical propositions and needs a broad discussion of its issues with the participation of both traditionalists and revisionists.

This essay assumes the significance of spatial imagination in shaping the political and cultural boundaries of the post-Soviet Eurasia and reviews the newly emerged geopolitical arguments in Russia. Rather than perceiving Eurasianist views in Russia as relatively homogeneous, I argue that such thinking is highly diverse and varies from West-friendly versions to those that are openly isolationist and expansionist. To support my argument, I select six recently published Russian volumes and group them into five distinct schools of Russia’s geopolitical thinking, each with their own intellectual assumptions, worldviews, and bases of support in the society. While writing on the same subject of the Eurasian geopolitics, each author proposes principally different solutions to the problems that emerged over the 10 years of Russia’s post-communist experience. The argument invites us to rethink the nature of Russia’s spatial thinking and activities in Eurasia and to seriously consider engaging Russia as an equal participant in a larger collective security-based arrangement in the region.