The Thesis provides a comprehensive overview of the development and formation of the Eurasian geopolitical school of thinking in Russia. Moreover, we disclose the content of the ideas of Eurasian teaching from the end of the 19th century up to the present time. During this period, we try to explain the reasons of occurrence of Eurasianism and its further popularization. Additionally, our research focuses on the impact of ideas of Eurasianism on practical policies that Russia conducts. In particular, we see the character of concrete reforms, implemented in various politics. Finally, following the process of the Eurasian Union project's development we observe the quality of development of the ideas of Eurasianism that constitute the ideological base of the Union. Key words: Eurasianism, Neo-Eurasianism, Putin, Dugin, Gumilev, Eurasian Union, Eurasia. Bibliographical Record Fetishcheva T. (2013): Neo-Eurasianism: Russia's National Idea or a Dangerous Doctrine for the 21st century? (Master thesis). Prague. Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Geopolitical Studies. 79 pages. Supervisor: Mgr. Markéta Žídková, Ph.D., M.A

This essay aims to determine the prevalence of Neo-Eurasianist ideas in the Russian official political discourse be examining the Presidential Addresses to the Federal Assembly 2014, 2015 and 2016. Neo-Eurasianism is understood as a political ideology encompassing narratives, norms and policy suggestions. The study is conducted in two steps. Firstly, it interprets Neo-Eurasianism as conveyed by Aleksandr Dugin and develops an analytical scheme based on his ideas. Secondly, the prevalence of Neo-Eurasianist ideas in the Russian Presidential Addresses to the Federal Assembly 2014, 2015 and 2016 is thematically analysed within the established analytical framework. The study affirms a limited presence of Neo-Eurasianist ideas in the material. Normative notions concerning cultural plurality, a multipolar world order and Russia’s role in the world are present, whereas the underlying assumptions and subsequent policy suggestions cannot be fully affirmed. Contrary, Putin at occasion enacts the Neo-Eurasianist normative notions to articulate other policy suggestions than what Dugin’s ideas prescribe, e.g. counter-terrorism measures. This suggests that the Neo-Eurasianist discourse is used as a rationale to legitimize regime policies, a conclusion that has been drawn in previous studies as well. Regardless of motive, Neo-Eurasianist ideas seem to have taken a limited, but firm, hold in Russian official political discourse.