Abstract: Most of the political debates of the late twentieth and early twentyfirst century focused on an identity crisis of Russia. This crisis was not a direct result of volatility in the post-Soviet space. Most recent identity debates relate to intellectual writings around the 1920s that invoked initial thoughts about Russian national identity owing to the national crisis and the Civil War of 1918- 1921. The main dispute around the Russian identity debate was that between Slavophiles and the Westerners; Russia and Europe; the West and the East. The belongingness became the fundamental issues of the Eurasianists. As per this belief, the Russian civilization did not belong exclusively to European or to Asian categories. The Eurasian movement of the 1920s acquired a distinct connotation postcollapse of Soviet Union. Though neo-Eurasianism equally popularized the idea of Russian cultural closeness to Asia instead of Western Europe, however, this did not reduce the social tensions. Massive inter-ethnic conflicts erupted in the late 1980s and early 1990s linked to ethno-social and cultural factors. Nature of these conflicts was erratic and had the potential of destabilizing the foundational existence of Eurasian identity. In the above context, the theory of ethnogenesis and concepts such as ethnos and super-ethnos that were promoted by Lev Gumilev became a convenient alternative perspective for the study of ethnicity as well as keeping the nation united. This article focuses on the basic understanding of the theory of “Ethnogenesis” and its relevance in the current Russian identity debate. 

Keywords: Eurasia, Eurasian ideology, Culture, Ethnicity, Gumilev, Ethnogenesis.