A Philosophy of Victory

Essential internal reforms must logically begin in Russia. This is required by the Special Military Operation (SMO), which has intensified the contradictions with the West—and with the entire modern Western civilization—to the extreme. Anyone can now see that it is no longer safe to simply use the norms, methods, concepts, products of this civilization. The West spreads, along with its technology, its ideology, which then permeates all spheres of life. If we recognize ourselves as a part of Western civilization, then we must readily agree to this total colonization and even enjoy it (like in the 1990s). But in the case of the current confrontation, which is fatal!—such an attitude is unacceptable. Many Westerners and liberals have already become fully aware of this and have therefore left Russia just when the break with Western civilization had become irreversible. And it became irreversible on February 24, 2022, and even two days earlier—at the moment of recognition of independence of the DPR and LPR—on February 22, 2022.

In principle, everyone has the right to make a civilizational choice of loyalty or betrayal. At least with those who are involved, everything is clear—it is clear now and was clear before. At least they are consistent—after losing liberalism in Russia, they went off to their own.

It is more complicated with those who are still here. I mean those Westerners and liberals who still share the basic norms of modern Western civilization, but for some reason continue to stay in Russia, despite the rupture that has already taken place between it and the West. They are the main obstacle to real and full-fledged patriotic reforms.

Reforms were inevitable, because Russia found itself not only cut off from the West, but also essentially at war with it. On the eve of World War II, the USSR had a sufficient number of important strategic industries created by Nazi Germany. And relations between the USSR and the Third Reich were not particularly hostile. But after June 22, 1941 obviously the situation changed dramatically. Under those conditions, continuing cooperating with the Germans—legitimate and encouraged before the war—took on an entirely different meaning. Exactly the same thing happened after February 22, 2022—those who continued to remain in the paradigm of the hostile (liberal-fascist) civilization, with which we are at war, found themselves outside the ideological space that clearly emerged with the beginning of the SMO.

While the presence of Germany on the eve of WWII in the USSR was specific and single-pointed, the presence of the liberal-fascist Russophobe West on the eve of the SMO was well-nigh total. Western technologies of methodology, norms, know-how, and even, in part, values permeate our entire society. This calls for a radical revision. But who will carry it out? The people who were educated during perestroika? The liberal and criminal 1990s? The people of the 1980s and 1990s who were trained and educated in the 2000s? All of these periods were under the basic influence of liberalism as an ideology, as a paradigm, as a fundamental and comprehensive position in philosophy, science, politics, education, culture, technology, economics, the media, even in fashion and in life. Contemporary Russia knows only the inertial ruins of the Soviet paradigm and everything else is pure liberal Westernism.

There is no alternative paradigm; at least none in power or among the elite, at the level at which the civilizational confrontation should now unfold.

Today, we oppose the West as a civilization against a civilization. And we need to define what kind of civilization we are. Otherwise, no military, political and economic successes will help us. Everything will be reversible. The trend will change and everything will collapse (I’m not even talking about the necessity to explain to Ukrainians, who will henceforth be inside our zone of influence or directly inside Russia) who are we, after all? At the moment there is only the inertia of Soviet memory (“granny with a flag”), Western Nazi propaganda (“vatniki”, “occupants”), our—so far only initial—military successes and complete confusion in the local population. And here the voice of Russian civilization should sound. Clearly, distinctly, convincingly. And its peals must be heard in Ukraine, and on the territory of Eurasia, and in the whole world. It is not only desirable, it is vital, just as cartridges, missiles, copters and bulletproof vests are needed at the front.

It is most logical to begin the reforms with philosophy. It is necessary to form the General Staff of the Russian Logos, either on the basis of an existing institution (after all, not a single humanitarian institution can or will ever do this: liberalism and Westernism still dominate everywhere), or in the form of something fundamentally new. Hegel said that the greatness of a nation begins with the creation of a great philosophy. He said it, and he did it. This is precisely what Russian philosophers need today, not vague and out-of-touch agreement about the SMO. We need a new Russian philosophy. Russian in content, in essence.

And the reform of all other branches of humanitarian and natural science knowledge should start from this paradigm. Sociology, psychology, anthropology, culturology, as well as economics, and even physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are based on philosophy, are its derivatives. Scientists often forget this; but recall what “PhD” actually means, in any of the humanities or the natural sciences. PhD—“philosophiae doctor;” that is, “doctor of philosophy.” If you are not a philosopher, you are an apprentice at best, not a scientist (“doctor” is Latin for “scholar,” “learned”).

This is where the most important internal battle of starting civilizational reforms in Russia itself (as well as in the entire space of our expansion, in the entire zone of our influence) will unfold—the battle for Russian philosophy begins.

And here there is a clearly shaped pole of the internal enemy. These are representatives of the liberal paradigm—from analytical philosophy to the postmodern, to the completely feeble-minded cognitivists and transhumanists, who maniacally insist on reducing man to a machine. I’m not even talking about outright liberals and liberal progressives, proponents of the totalitarian concept of “open society,” feminism, queer studies, and the “queer culture” raised on sorority grants. This is pure “fifth column”—something like the Azov Battalion banned in Russia.

It is very easy to draw a portrait of the philosophical enemy of the Russian Idea and Russian civilization. It is not simply a question of connections with Western scientific and intelligence centers (which are often on quite close terms), but also of adherence to a number of quite formalizable attitudes:

  • belief in the universality of modern Western civilization (Eurocentrism, civilizational racism);
  • hyper-materialism—up to and including deep ecology and object-oriented ontology;
  • methodological and ethical individualism—whence the philosophy of gender (as a social option) and in the limit transhumanism;
  • techno-progressivism, the development of Artificial Intelligence and “thinking” neural networks;
  • hatred of classical theologies, spiritual Tradition, philosophy of eternity;
  • denial or ironic ridicule of identity;
  • anti-essentialism, etc.

This is a kind of “philosophical Ukraine,” scattered throughout virtually every scientific and educational institution that has anything to do with philosophy or basic scientific epistemes. These are signs of philosophical Russophobia, since the Russian Idea is built on the basis of directly opposite principles:

  • the identity of Russian civilization (Slavophiles, Danilevsky, Eurasians);
  • placing the spirit over matter;
  • communality, collegiality—a collectivist anthropology;
  • deep humanism;
  • devotion to Tradition;
  • careful preservation of identity, nationality;
  • belief in the spiritual nature of the essence of things, etc.

Those who set the tone in contemporary Russian philosophy vehemently defend liberal attitudes and just as vehemently reject Russian ones. Such is the powerful stronghold of liberal Nazism within Russia.

It is precisely this firing-point of the enemy, this high-ground, that we will have to take in the next phase. Moreover, liberal Nazis are defending themselves against philosophy no less fiercely than the Azov Battalion or the desperate Ukrainian terrorists from Popasna. They wage information wars, write denunciations of patriots, and use all levers of corruption and apparatus influence.

At this point, it is appropriate to recall a little—personal, but very revealing—incident about my dismissal from the Moscow State University (MSU) in the summer of 2014 (note the date).

From 2008 to 2014, at the Sociology Department of MSU, together with the Dean and founder of the department, Vladimir Ivanovich Dobrenkov, we organized the rigorous work of the Center for Conservative Studies, where we did just that—undertake the development of a Russian civilizational epistemological paradigm. Without hesitation, we supported a “Russian Spring.”

But, in response, we received a vicious letter from…Ukrainian philosophers (initiated by the Kyiv Nazi Sergey Datsyuk), demanding the “expulsion of Dobrenkov and me from MSU. And most strangely—but then, not very strangely—the leadership of MSU met the demand. Dobrenkov was removed from the post of Dean, and I, frankly, left of my own accord, although it looked like dismissal. I was asked to stay, but on humiliating terms. Of course, it was not Sadovnichy who resolved this issue, but he was rather gracious and open-minded and approved my appointment as the Head of the Department, which passed all voting procedures at the Academic Council of Moscow State University.

But then, something happened. The “Russian Spring” was curtailed. And the question of the Russian world, Russian civilization, and the Russian Logos was removed from the agenda altogether. But it was symbolic—the initiators of the abolition of the Center for Conservative Studies at Moscow State University were Ukrainian Nazis—theorists and practitioners of Russian genocide in Donbass and Eastern Ukraine as a whole. Exactly the same people with whom we are now at war.

This is how liberal fascism penetrates Russia. Or rather, it penetrated a long time ago; but that is how its mechanisms work. A denunciation comes from Kiev; someone inside the Administration supports it; and the next initiative to deploy the Russian Idea collapses.

Of course, you can’t stop me—over the years I’ve written 24 volumes of Noomachy, and the last three are devoted to the Russian Logos. But the institutionalization of the Russian Idea has again been postponed.

My example, of course, is not an isolated one. All or almost all thinkers and theorists involved in justifying the identity of Russian civilization have experienced something similar. We are dealing with a philosophical war. A real one—a fierce and well-organized opposition to the Russian Idea, supervised from abroad, but carried out by local liberals or just ordinary officials, passively following fashion and trends and a well-organized information strategy of direct agents of influence.

We are now at the point where the institutionalization of Russian Discourse is needed. Everyone has seen in our information war how controllable and manipulable the attitudes and processes in society are. But this is a consequence. The most serious clashes take place at the level of paradigms and epistemes. He who controls knowledge, Michel Foucault wrote, is the one who has true power. True power is power over the minds and souls of people.

Philosophy is the most important front line, and its implications are far superior to the news from Ukraine that every Russian is so avidly watching today—how are our people doing? What new frontiers have they seized? Has the enemy wavered? Herein lies the main obstacle to our victory.

What we need is a philosophy of victory. Without it, all will be in vain, and all our successes will easily be turned into defeat.

All true reforms must begin in the realm of the Spirit. And as news from the front is sought in the news—what about the institution of philosophy? Still holding its ground? Has it surrendered yet?

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Fireworks on Victory Day,” by Mikhail Bobyshovl painted in 1961.

Civilization State, or the Multi-Polar World

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine (SMO) is widely recognized by competent experts in International Relations as the final and decisive moment in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world.

Multipolarity often seems intuitively clear; but as soon as we try to give a precise definition or a correct theoretical description, everything becomes less obvious. I believe that my work A Theory of a Multi-polar World is more relevant today than ever before. But since people have forgotten how to read—especially lengthy theoretical texts, I will try to share the main points.

The main actor of a multipolar world order is neither a nation-state (as in the realist theory of International Relations), nor a unified World Government (as in the liberalist theory of International Relations). It is civilization state. Other names for it are “big space,” “Empire,” “ecumenism.”

The term “civilization state” is most often applied to China. Both ancient and modern. As early as ancient times, the Chinese developed the theory of “Tianxia” (天下), the “Celestial Empire,” according to which China is the center of the world, being the meeting place of unifying Heaven and dividing Earth. And the “Celestial Empire” may be a single state; or it may be broken up into its components and then reassembled. In addition, Han China itself acted as a culture-forming force for neighboring nations that were not directly part of China—primarily Korea, Vietnam, the Indochina countries and even Japan, which is quite independent.

The nation-state is a product of the European New Age, and in some cases a post-colonial construct. The civilization state has ancient roots and uncertain, shifting boundaries. The civilization state at times pulsates, expanding and contracting, while always remaining a constant phenomenon. (This is what, above all else, we need to know about our SMO.)

Contemporary China behaves strictly according to the principle of “Tianxia” in international politics. The One Belt, One Road Initiative is a prime example of what this looks like in practice. And China’s Internet, which cuts off any networks and resources that might weaken the civilizational identity at the entrance to China, demonstrates how the defense mechanisms are built.

The civilization state may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.

Civilization state is always more than just a state in both spatial and temporal (historical) terms.

Russia is increasingly gravitating toward the same status. After the beginning of the SMO, this was no longer mere wishful thinking, but an urgent necessity. As in the case of China, Russia has every reason to claim to be precisely a civilization. This theory was most fully developed by the Russian Eurasians, who introduced the notion of a “world-state,” or—which is the same thing—”Russian world. Actually, the concept of Russia-Eurasia is a direct indication of the civilizational status of Russia. Russia is more than a nation-state (which the Russian Federation is). Russia is a separate world.

Russia was a civilization in the era of the Empire, and remained so in Soviet times. Ideologies and regimes changed, but the identity remained the same.

The struggle for Ukraine is nothing less than a struggle for the civilization state. The same as the peaceful Union State of Russia and Belarus and the economic integration of the post-Soviet Eurasian space.

A multipolar world consists of civilization states. This is a kind of world of worlds, a megacosmos that includes entire galaxies. And here it is important to determine how many such civilization states can even theoretically exist?

Undoubtedly, this type includes India, a typical civilization state, which even today has enough potential to become a full-fledged actor in international politics.

Then there is the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Morocco. Here the fragmentation into states and different ethno-cultural enclaves does not yet allow us to speak of political unity. Islamic civilization exists, but the question of its assembly into a civilization state is rather problematic. Moreover, the history of Islam knows several types of civilization states, from the Caliphate (the First, Umayyad, Abbasid, etc.) to the three components of Genghis Khan’s Empire that converted to Islam (the Golden Horde, the Ilkhan and Chagatai ulus), the Persian Safavid Empire, the Great Moghul state, and finally, the Ottoman Empire. The borders once drawn are still relevant today in many respects. But the process of gathering them into a single structure requires considerable time and effort.

Latin America and Africa, two macro-civilizations that remain quite separate, are in a similar position. But a multipolar world will somehow push integration processes in all these zones.

Now the most important thing—what to do with the West? The theory of a multipolar world in the nomenclature of theories of International Relations in the modern West is absent.

The dominant paradigm there today is liberalism, which denies any sort of sovereignty and autonomy, abolishes civilizations and religions, ethnicities and cultures, replacing them by a forced liberal ideology, the concept of “human rights,” individualism (in the extreme leading to gender and transgender politics), materialism and technical progress elevated to the highest value (Artificial Intelligence). The goal of liberalism is to abolish nation-states and establish a World Government based on Western norms and rules.

This is the line pursued by Biden and the modern Democrat Party in the U.S., as well as most European rulers. This is what globalism is all about. It categorically rejects civilization state and any hint of multipolarity. That is why the West is ready for war with Russia and China. In a sense, this war is already going on in Ukraine and in the Pacific (the problem of Taiwan)—but so far via proxy-actors.

In the West, there is another influential school—realism in International Relations. Here the nation-state is considered a necessary element of the world order; but only those who have achieved a high level of economic, military-strategic and technological development—almost always at the expense of others—have sovereignty. While liberals see the future in a World Government, realists see it in an alliance of major Western powers setting global rules in their own interests. Again, both in theory and in practice, civilization state and a multipolar world are categorically rejected.

This creates a fundamental conflict already at the level of theory. And the lack of mutual understanding here leads to the most radical consequences at the level of direct collision.

In the eyes of supporters of multipolarity, the West is also a civilization state or even two—North American and European. But Western intellectuals do not agree with this; they have no theoretical frame for this—they know either liberalism or realism, and no multipolarity.

However, there are exceptions among Western theorists, such as Samuel Huntington or Fabio Petito. They—unlike the vast majority—recognize multipolarity and the emergence of new actors in the form of civilizations. This is gratifying, because through such ideas it is possible to build a bridge for supporters of multipolarity (Russia, China, etc.) to the West. Such a bridge would at least make negotiations possible. As long as the West categorically rejects multipolarity and the very notion of the civilization state, the conversation will be conducted only at the level of a clash of brute force—from military operations to economic blockade, information and sanction wars, and so on.

Finally, to win this war and defend itself, Russia itself must first clearly comprehend multipolarity. We are already fighting for it, but still do not fully understand what it is. It is necessary to urgently dissolve the liberal structures created in the Gorbachev-Yeltsin period and establish new multipolar structures. It is also necessary to restructure the educational paradigm itself—first of all at MGIMO, MGU, PFUR, the Maurice Thorez Institute, the Diplomatic Academy, and other specialized universities. Lastly, we need to really turn to a developed and fully-fledged Eurasian school of thought, which has proven to be highly relevant, but against which the overt and covert Atlantists and foreign agents, who deeply penetrate our society, continue to fight.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “The Course of Empire: Consummation,” by Thomas Cole; painted in 1836.

Poland and the Partition of Ukraine

In regards to Poland… The plan to hand Western Ukraine over to Poland existed even before the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in the Ukraine, when the West was only considering the possibility of such a conflict. NATO believed that Russia would destroy the command center in Kiev at the very beginning of the SMO, and this would be the cue for Poland. The transfer of embassies from Kiev to Lvov was linked to this.

Russia’s strategy of focusing on Donbass and liberating Novorossia, with some delay in the operation as a result of Kiev-sanctioned terrorist (Syrian) strategy by the Nazis in eastern Ukraine, as well as the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev, modified the initial plan. For a moment, it seemed to the West that the Russian attack had fizzled out. In this situation, the Polish scenario was postponed.

It was revived after the sorry surrender of the neo-Nazis from the Russian-banned Azov Battalion. It became clear that Russia would sooner or later liberate Donbass and then Novorossiya, and that the Nazi front was about to fall. It was at this point that the West again turned to the “Western Ukraine as part of Poland” plan. Duda’s visit and Zelenski’s unprecedented moves to integrate Ukraine with Poland—in fact, the abolition of the border—are a watershed moment. The plan, ready from the start, has become valid again.

On the one hand, this greatly simplifies Russia’s task. Now it is obvious to everyone that the Western line in Ukrainian politics has reached a critical point, and the choice is no longer between a “non-independent Ukraine” and the return of Novorossia to Russia, but where Ukrainians will live—in Russia or in Poland. This is how the dream of the EU and NATO is realized.

But for Eastern Ukraine it is not acceptable at all. It will finally become clear to everyone here what Russia came for. And this means that the pro-Russian underground will revive, and the patriots will begin to exterminate the gravediggers of Ukraine little by little on their own.

There will also be some resistance in the west of Ukraine, but it is not yet clear what will come first—the slavish aspiration to join the EU and NATO, or straightforward Ukrainian nationalism. However, this is of secondary importance: Kiev is controlled from Washington, and the local population and its sentiments are irrelevant. Russia acts as the liberator of the united Russian people, which is what it has been since the 17th century.

Apparently, that is why the question of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and the banning of the deputy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine has become so acute. Everything indicates that integration into Poland is being prepared at an accelerated pace.

This could have been advantageous, if it were only about Novorossia for us. We will liberate the territory from Odessa to Kharkov, and in one way or another we will annex it. This is already beyond question. Western Ukraine as part of Poland is, at first glance, acceptable. For us it is ours; and the other half of the failed Ukraine goes back to what it was hoping for.
But there is another side.

First, NATO will still expand in our direction, and significantly. Even if not to the full extent, but half as much.

Secondly, the introduction of Polish troops would mean the direct participation of NATO in the conflict, which means that everything moves to a new level of escalation. The likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons increases. The question again arises about the red lines, which Russia has established with such difficulty and at such a price. And the borders between Eastern and Western Ukraine, or more precisely between Poland and Russia, will have to be defined in battles with the NATO contingent. This is highly problematic and risks moving the situation into the category of World War III.

And finally, in the third place. Russia, by agreeing to Poland’s annexation of Western Ukraine, loses its status as friend and liberator of the fraternal Ukrainian people, albeit a status that is not yet obvious to many. The state “Ukraine” no longer exists. But there are Ukrainians; and there are Orthodox Ukrainians; and in Western Ukraine they are still a majority. This is a problem. It turns out that we exchange “our” half of the Ukrainians for “someone else’s” half. And that is a trade transaction, not the fulfillment of a liberation mission.

As a private matter: the withdrawal of Western Ukraine to Poland can serve as an excellent argument for captive Ukrainians to take our side with fervor and rage and liberate what they consider “their land” under our command.

After Duda’s visit, Moscow has to solve a new dilemma. How should one deal with the direct involvement of Poland in the war against us?

Historically, the Russian Empire and then the USSR expanded westward in stages. One zone after another was conquered from Poland and the Ottoman Empire, right up to the Great Patriotic War, when Western Ukraine was also included in the USSR. Of course, this is not a linear process—there were also partitions of Poland, which for centuries ended up under the direct rule of Russia. And even earlier, there were battles for Kiev between the princes of Vladimir and Galicia. There were also repeated attempts to establish in Western Ukraine a metropolis, separate from the Great Russian metropolis. Ukraine is a frontier; a zone between two civilizations—Russian (Eurasian) and Western European; and earlier a zone between three—the Turkish-Islamic, from which the Russian Empire recaptured Novorossia, populating it with its own—both Great Russian peasantry and brotherly Little Russian Cossacks.

Therefore, changing hands was the fate of Ukraine. Hence the dual identity of being Russian, or anti-Russian. Hence the loyalty and betrayal deeply rooted in frontier culture. Taras Bulba and his son. Bogdan Khmelnitsky and Mazepa. The border runs through families, through hearts.

The activation of Poland’s role in the conflict aggravates the degree of the war between Russia and the West, civilization against civilization.
Theoretically, there are two solutions:

Agree to partition Ukraine, while trying to take as much as possible, and allowing Poland to act for itself rather than on behalf of NATO;
or go all the way with the risk of escalating the confrontation to the level of nuclear confrontation.

From the beginning of the SMO, I assumed that we would come to exactly this dilemma at some point. But it seemed to me that it would come to the fore during the fighting for Kiev. Events are unfolding according to a somewhat different logic, which does not cancel the basic geopolitical regularities, only framing them each time in an original and unpredictable way. This is what living history is all about—both to follow the lines of destiny and to deviate from them. If one raises the question of ending the SWU and any negotiations before the complete liberation of Novorossia, it is pure betrayal—only a “foreign agent” can advocate this. But the question of Western Ukraine is not so clear.

If it were not for the risk of nuclear war, I would be inclined to establish control over the entire territory of Ukraine. This would coincide with the president’s stated goals of demilitarization and denazification—in order to realize them, full control over the territory is necessary. It is clear that we would get a time bomb inside our territory. But after the excesses inevitable during military operations, normalization of both eastern and western Ukraine would require extraordinary efforts, from our side in any case. Things have become too brutal and bloody to hope for simple solutions. All of Ukraine is a challenge to our very being, and if we can deal with Eastern Ukraine, we will somehow deal with Western Ukraine as well. And, very importantly, we will preserve the church.

But at the same time, to limit ourselves to liberating Novorossia—with or without Kiev—would not be a direct “betrayal.” This plan can be considered, without betraying Russian destiny. There is room here for political realism, weighing the pros and cons, and considering the consequences. But at the start of the SMO—there was no such opportunity. It is a question of to be or not to be; and it is decided in favor of to be. The foothold of traitors is undone; and most importantly, the decision is irreversible.

With Poland the situation is different. And in some ways, it is no less complicated. If the duty of a patriot is to demand from the authorities the complete liberation of Novorossia, no matter what, then, in my opinion, in regards to the situation with Poland, the duty of a patriot is to accept the decision that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will make.

A true victory begins with the liberation of Novorossia. After that, it’s up to God.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

The Clash of Realism and Liberalism

We need to understand what is happening to us and around us. To do this, common sense is not enough; there must be methodologies. So, let us consider the SMO (the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine), in the context of a discipline like International Relations (IR).

There are two main schools of thought in international relations: realism and liberalism. These we will discuss, although there are others; but these two are the main ones. If you are not familiar with these theories, don’t try to guess what is meant here by “realism” and “liberalism.” The meaning of the terms is taken from the context.

Thus, realism in IR is based on the recognition of the absolute sovereignty of the nation state. This corresponds to the Westphalian system of international relations that emerged in Europe as a result of the 30 Years War that ended in 1648. Since then, the principle of sovereignty has remained fundamental to the system of International Law.

IR realists are those who draw the most radical conclusions from the principle of sovereignty and believe that sovereign nation states will always exist. This is justified by the realists’ understanding of human nature: they are convinced that man in his natural state is prone to chaos and violence against the weakest, and that a state is therefore necessary to prevent this. Furthermore, there should be no authority above the state to limit sovereignty. The landscape of international politics thus consists of a constantly shifting balance of power between sovereign states. The strong attacks the weak; but the weak can always turn to the stronger for help. Coalitions, pacts and alliances are formed. Each sovereign state defends its national interests on the basis of cold, rational calculation.

The principle of sovereignty makes wars between states possible (no one can forbid someone from above to wage a war, because there is nothing higher than a state); but at the same time peace is also possible, if it is advantageous for the states; or in a war there is no unambiguous outcome.

This is how realists see the world. In the West, this school has always been quite strong and even prevalent. In the US, it remains quite influential today: about half of American politicians and IR experts follow this approach, which during the Trump presidency dominated. Most Republicans (except neocons) and some Democrats lean towards it.

Now consider liberalism in IR. Here the concept is very different. History is seen as a continuous social progress. The state is only a stage, on the road to progress; and sooner or later it is bound to fade away. Since sovereignty is fraught with the possibility of war, one must try to overcome it and create supranational structures that first limit it and then abolish it altogether.

Liberals in IR are convinced that a world government must be established and humanity united under the most ‘progressive’ forces—i.e., the liberals themselves. For liberals in IR, human nature is not a constant (as it is for realists) but can and must be changed. Education, indoctrination, media, propaganda of liberal values and other forms of mind control are used for this purpose. Humanity must be turned liberal and everything illiberal must be exterminated and banished. These are the “enemies of the open society,” the “illiberals.”

After the destruction of the “illiberals,” there will be global peace—and no one will be at war with anyone. For now, war is necessary, but only against the “illiberals” who “impede progress,” challenge the power of the liberal global elites and are therefore not “human” at all, and can therefore be dealt with in any way—up to and including total extermination (including the use of artificial pandemics and biological weapons).

In the near future, according to this concept, states will be abolished and all humans will intermingle, creating a planetary civil society, one world. This is what is called “globalism.” Globalism is the theory and practice of liberalism in IR.

The new version of liberalism has an addition: artificial intelligence will dominate humanity; people will become first genderless and then “immortal;” they will live in cyberspace and their consciousness and memory will be stored on cloud servers. New generations will be created in a test tube or printed by a 3D printer.

All this is reflected in the Great Reset project of the founder of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab.

Liberals make up the other half of politicians and international relations experts in the West. Their influence is gradually growing and sometimes exceeds that of IR realists. The current Biden administration and the majority of the US Democratic Party are liberals in this sense. Liberals are also dominant in the EU, which is the implementation of such a project, as it aims to build a supranational structure. It was IR liberals who conceived and created the League of Nations and then the UN, the Hague Tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the IMF, the World Bank, the WHO, the Bologna education system, digitalisation. All globalist projects and networks are all the work of liberals. Russian liberals are an integral part of this global sect, which has all the characteristics of a totalitarian sect.

Now let us apply this explanation to the NWO (New World Order). After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became a tool of both liberals and realists in IR—precisely a tool of the West. The liberals in the MoD encouraged Ukraine’s integration into the global world and supported its aspirations to join the European Union and NATO (the military wing of globalism). The realists in the MoD used Ukraine in their interests against Russia. To do so, it was necessary to make Ukraine a nation-state, which contradicted the purely liberal agenda. This is how the synthesis of Ukrainian liberalism and Nazism, against which the SMO fights, was formed. Nazism (Extreme Right, Azov and other structures banned in Russia) was necessary to build a nation and a sovereign state as quickly as possible. Integration into the European Union required a playful and comically pacifist image (Zelensky). The common denominator was NATO. This is how liberals and IR realists achieved Russophobic consensus in Ukraine. When necessary, they turned a blind eye to Nazism, liberal values and gay pride parades.

Now to Russia. In Russia since the early 1990s under Yeltsin, Chubais and Gaidar liberalism has firmly dominated IR. Russia then, like Ukraine today, dreamed of joining Europe and joining NATO. If this had required further disintegration, the Kremlin liberals would have been willing to do that too. But at some point Yeltsin himself and his foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov adjusted the agenda slightly: Yeltsin resented separatism in Chechnya; Primakov deployed a plane over the Atlantic during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. These were weak signs of realism. Sovereignty and national interests were invoked, but only hesitantly, tentatively.

Real realism began when Putin came to power. He saw that his predecessors had weakened sovereignty to the extreme, caught up in globalisation; and that the country was consequently under foreign control. Putin began to restore sovereignty. First of all, in the Russian Federation itself—the second Chechen campaign, the deletion of sovereignty clauses from the Constitution, etc. Then he began to deal with the post-Soviet space—the August 2008 events in the South Caucasus; Crimea and Donbass in 2014. At the same time, it is indicative that the international expert community (SWOP, RIAC, etc.) and MGIMO continued to be completely dominated by the line of liberalism. Realism was never mentioned. The elites remained liberal—those who openly opposed Putin and those who reluctantly agreed to submit to him.

The SMO has, like a flashback, illuminated the situation in the Russian Ministry of Defence. Behind Ukraine there is an alliance of liberals and partly realists in the Ministry of Defence, i.e., the forces of globalism that have turned against Russia. For liberals (and Biden and his administration [Blinken and Co.], like Clinton and Obama before him, belong precisely to this school), Russia is the absolute enemy, because it is a serious obstacle to globalisation, to the establishment of a world government and a unipolar world. For American realists (and in Europe realists are very weak and barely represented), Russia is a competitor in controlling the space of the planet. They are generally hostile; but for them supporting Ukraine against Russia is not a matter of life and death. The fundamental interests of the United States are not affected by this conflict. It is possible to find common ground with them; not with liberals.

For IR liberals, however, it is a matter of principle. The outcome of the SMO will determine whether or not there will be a world government. Russia’s victory would mean the creation of a fully multipolar world in which Russia (and China and, in the near future, India) would enjoy real and strong sovereignty, while the positions of the allied entities of the liberal West, which accept globalisation and are willing to compromise their sovereignty, would be dramatically weakened.

In conclusion, liberalism in IR is changing to include gender politics, information and hybrid warfare, artificial intelligence and post-humanism. But realism is also changing: confirming the logic of S. Huntington (incidentally, a proponent of realism in IR), who spoke of the “clash of civilisations;” the main actors are not states but civilisations, what he calls Big Spaces. Thus, realism is gradually shifting towards the theory of the multipolar world, where the poles are no longer nation-states, but states-continents, empires. This is also clearly visible in the course of the SMO.

In terms of various theories of international relations, the SMO is simultaneously a conflict between:

  • unipolarity and multipolarity
  • realism and liberalism in IR
  • small identity (artificial Ukrainian Nazism) and large identity (Eurasian brotherhood of Russia)
  • the civilisation of the land (Land Power) versus the civilisation of the sea (Sea Power), in the battle for the coastal zone (Rimland), which geopolitics claims
  • the failed state and the resurgent empire

Before our eyes, and with our hands and blood now—right now—the great history of ideas is being made.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Monopoly” by Bernhard Gillam; published in 1883.

The Russian Peace: A Conversation With Alexander Dugin

This wide-ranging conversation with Alexander Dugin, Russian philosopher, on President Putin, on the current conflict in the Ukraine, and the future destiny of Russia provides much-needed context on what is happening now throughout Eurasia, as the world undergoes a shift in allegiances, or what Dugin would call “multipolarity.” The West, mired in Wokery, has lost its way, while the world has chosen to move on. This conversation is with Yekaterina Sazhneva, columnist at the daily Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK). It is through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica that we bring you this English-version.

Yekaterina Sazhneva (YS): Alexander Gellievich, I was rereading one of your interviews about the existence of two Putin’s. “Solar” and “Lunar.” “Solar” is Krymnash, the restoration of the Eurasian empire, messianism. “Lunar” is a rational practitioner, a realist, a supporter of capitalist economics, looking back to the collective West. At the time, you lamented that Putin would never choose the “solar” path, preferring to combine both. So how is it today – has the choice been made?

Alexander Dugin (AD): Yes, of course, the “solar” Putin won, and I’ve been saying that he would win not a year ago, but for many years in a row. I have even published a book about this, Putin vs Putin, dedicated to the main paradox of Russian politics. The book has been translated into many languages, and in it I present my theory in detail.

There is an interesting author in historical science, Ernst Kantorowicz, who wrote a study called The King’s Two Bodies. It is about the fact that any great ruler is always dual. On the one hand, physically, he is certainly a man; and on the other hand, he is an historical figure, part of a continuous historical process. As a man, he can think one way. But as a historical figure, on which the fate of nations and states depend, he acts very differently.

Alexander Dugin. Photo Credit: Geopolitica.

This duality creates the deepest tension, the drama of the ruler, and is characteristic of a variety of political regimes. It does not matter whether we are dealing with democracy, as in the case of Churchill or Roosevelt, or with monarchy, as under Ivan the Terrible or Nicholas II. It is a split that arises in the soul and in the heart, in the consciousness of the ruler; when he is truly aware of his responsibility before history; when the future of humanity depends on his actions, his decisions with reliance on himself and his destiny; on the depths of his “I.”

An ordinary, normal person acts rationally, by inertia; this is what I call the “lunar” side. He adapts to circumstances and recognizes the rules of the game; follows moral and ethical norms.

The “solar” side, on the other hand, forces him to perform a great deed. In the image of our president, this is expressed very vividly.

On the one hand, Putin is devoted to the sovereignty of Russia as a state, but on the other hand, rationally, I think he was well aware of the consequences of a persistent insistence on his position. In this respect, Putin’s “solar” beginning is extremely tragic, because it implies a struggle with the ideas and values of the West. But Russia has crossed the Rubicon, which I am personally very happy about.

YS: But what was the reason for such a radical change in course? After all, back in December, we all went together into the “digital concentration camp,” introduced almost unanimously in the regional QR-certificates, as in the West, and, in general, nothing foretold a break with the West and its agendas. The impression is that there were some events of which we are not aware…

AD: I think that for all 22 years of Russian politics, associated with the rule of our president, he has continued to strive to combine the incompatible at all costs. On the one hand, integration into the global world system and meeting all its requirements—joining the WTO, WHO, adopting a liberal economic model, digitalization, and inclusion in international human rights institutions. And on the other hand, the strengthening and reinforcement of Russia’s sovereignty.

At the same time, in the military sphere, we have remained independent and promoted our own interests. For example, we defended territorial integrity during the second Chechen campaign, strengthened the central government and countered separatism inside Russia. These two objectives, “lunar” and “solar,” were in principle incompatible with each other. Up to a certain point, both aspects were fundamentally important for our president. But the internal conflict was growing. I think the overall relative equilibrium was maintained until February 22, 2022.

YS: Wait, but the exercise “Allied Resolve 2022” on the border with Ukraine began earlier than February 22, so we can’t talk about any sudden start of a special operation in principle?

AD: In fact, the two plans—the “lunar” and the “solar” ones—were not found on the same level. Liberalization and participation in international processes was one level; while the military and strategic defense of our national interests was another. These levels did not overlap, as far as I can see. But at some point, our leadership saw that the next step would be an attack by the Ukrainian regime on Donbass and on Crimea with Western support; and the concentration of troops on our own border was completely insufficient to prevent this attack. So it was impossible to preserve Russian sovereignty, without a special military operation.

The Siege Of Kiev Is Always

YS: So was Ukraine going to attack the Donbass or Russia?

AD: The success of the operation in the Donbass, if Kiev had started it first, would have led, under the current Ukrainian regime, to an inevitable attack on Crimea and the involvement of NATO troops. First, Ukrainian regime would have attacked the Donbass, then Russia… There were such plans.

YS: But how quickly could they have come to fruition? In a day? A week? A month?

AD: I don’t know. But I have no reason not to trust our administration to talk about these plans

YS: As we can see, neither the West nor NATO has intervened directly in what is happening so far. Although in theory they had every opportunity to do so. Not only that, they had a reason—it was Russia that started the special operation. But they are in no hurry to help Ukraine with military force or to close the sky with their air defenses. How then can you be sure that they would have helped Ukraine in any other circumstance?

AD: They wanted to attack with foreign hands. They wanted to pit the Ukrainian fascist regime against us.

Why aren’t they themselves attacking right now? I think the time is not right yet. They are now watching our progress and reserving the opportunity to take the escalation of the conflict to the next level. I think they believe that those measures, those sanctions that they were able to impose against Russia, taking advantage of our preventive, independent, preemptive, warning start of a special military operation—have worked. They believe that they have a chance to defeat Russia; not literally, because it is impossible, but to crush and force it to surrender, by excluding it from their global system.

They believe that by isolating us from everything into which they previously so diligently integrated us, by throwing us out of their civilization, they will make Russia cease to exist.

Yes, there are benefits to which the Russian inhabitants have become accustomed; they’ve been made to become accustomed to; they’ve been forced into these protocols of life. I think that the West believes that steps to isolate Russia are enough. That direct military action and confrontation with NATO will not have the desired effect.

After our president crossed the Rubicon, all the contradictions that were embedded in this dual model came to light. That system carried an internal poison, which—at least in the long term—was killing our society; but it also had a healthy military-strategic component. Globalization was a tool of a unipolar world. It sought to strengthen Western hegemony and weaken all those involved in this process. Apparently, it was not obvious to the country’s leadership until the last minute that the globalists were using us.

YS: Incidentally, China somehow managed not to be used.

AD: Yes, China, up to a certain point, was perfectly able both to respect its sovereignty, particularly on the Internet, and to take advantage of the open opportunities of globalization. But we are different. What China was able to do, we are not able to do.

YS: We have a different cultural code, first of all, it seems to me. It is easy for the Chinese to submit to power. If only because Confucianism originally contained the idea of a state order, where the ruler is the father of the nation and everyone must love him simply by virtue of the fact; where the individual and his interests are not important compared to the interests of society.

AD: Yes, you’re right. They have a unified culture; and, much more importantly, a particular centralist political system, with complete control of the Communist Party. It’s not so much capitalist or socialist as it is Chinese-Communist-Confucian.

Maybe because there is no real ideology in Russia, there has not been a hard line to reject the toxic sides of globalization. But, of course, we have the prerequisites to be like China. By the way, today China, as well as Russia, is in a confrontation with the globalists. All this is quite obvious. The experience of China and Russia should be combined and combined, building a multipolar world. We should be friends with China.

YS: And why would China want to do that?

AD: Because China looks at us with deep respect, because we are not inferior to it in some respects. For example, we have the great Russian people, which has united all other peoples. We have a unified history. We have a strong identity. The “solar” world we are all now entering can be diverse.

YS: And who builds the “solar” world? Sorry, but the faces are all the same; the positions are the same as they were under the “lunar.” The people who were in power and looked up to the West are now saying the exact opposite slogans. Chubais just left for Turkey…

AD: There is no hurry. The irreversible shift in the tectonic plates of history, the return to the true Russia, happened just a month ago, everything is just beginning. And Chubais’ flight is actually a symbolic gesture. “Chubais flying away” is a symbol.

YS: He still feels good about himself. He can still take out his cash from the ATM.

AD: No need to be bloodthirsty. If he ran away, so be it. It’s important to have some kind of amnesty in society. If someone who was a liberal yesterday is no longer a liberal today, but warmly supports the special military operation and the president, then he is on our side. Let Chubais run. Let Dunya Smirnova run away with him.

All that matters to a Russian is that there should be no evil. Russian people are very kind. And if some officials continue to engage in sabotage, then they will be treated in the same way as the Nazis from the Azov battalion [recognized as terrorists in Russia and banned—MK). But every person today has the opportunity to become a Russian. And we should not deprive him of this opportunity.

YS: This is the most important question I would like to ask you. Are you the ideologist of the very Russian world that everyone is talking about?

AD: I do not deny that I am an ideologist of the Russian world. But this does not contradict Eurasianism, which I also adhere to. It is hard to imagine more supporters of the Russian world than Russian Eurasians.

It was Eurasians who rightly and correctly insisted that Russia is an independent civilization; that the Russian identity is not national, not ethnic, it is a cultural type, an open identity. It is, in a sense, an empire that has absorbed everything.

Its center is the Russian people. And it is open to those peoples who combine their destiny with the fate of the Russian people, so that they get a decent and full opportunity to participate in our destiny. I came to this back in the 1980s, studying and researching the fate of Russia. By the beginning of the 1990s my worldview had been honed and became my own truth and my life program.

YS: And you haven’t changed since then, since the early 1990s?

AD: Yes, I laid out my principles at the beginning of the 1990s in a series of works. They have been translated into a lot of languages. These are natural things before me, and a lot of the things that are happening now, I was describing in detail thirty years ago.

I have always believed that my main idea and the idea of my people is the idea of a great free and independent Russia. Russia as a civilization. And I, as a philosopher, am called to gaze into the depths of the Russian beginning, which I have been fortunate enough to carry within me. The logic of Russian destiny is transparent to me.

YS: And what is that?

AD: It is certainly the assertion of Russia as an independent civilization with its own traditional values. And it will not be complete until we unite all the eastern Slavs and all the Eurasian brothers into one big space. Everything follows from this logic of destiny—and so does the Ukraine.

YS: And if someone doesn’t want to be a part of our destiny voluntarily?

AD: Sometimes it is difficult to take the right path. At every critical stage of history, we used to lose our Western-Russian territories, then to restore our unity anew; the siege of Kiev is a constant in Russian history.

YS: Siege of Kiev—now or in the Middle Ages?

AD: The siege of Kiev—always. These are different levels of the same pattern. Do you know how long we have been fighting for Kiev with the Western Russian principalities?

YS: Seven hundred years?

AD: From our Russian Middle Ages. We had a conflict between Velikorussians and Galicians for Kiev. Western Russia was closely formed by the Catholic and Polish identity and culture; and in Eastern Russia, since its inception with Grand Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky you can see a prototype of the Great Eurasian Empire, which we have become. And so, Kiev will be ours.

We Will Win, And Then We Will Explain Everything

YS: As Patriarch Kirill recently put it, the struggle is on the metaphysical level?

AD: The metaphysical and physical levels of being are much more closely connected than we may think. For me, it doesn’t matter when or what was or will be. That’s why I am able to see events that haven’t happened yet.

So, the siege of Kiev is a struggle for the unification of the Eastern Slavs and the creation of a sovereign civilization of the Russian world, which is directed against the West. But always the West—forever—uses Western Russian collaborators, starting with the backing and sending the crown to Daniel of Galicia by the Pope in 1253. And at a critical moment, the West betrays everyone. Everyone, of course, remembers Gogol’s famous phrase: “Did your Lyakhs help you, son?”—and this phrase is repeated again and again through the ages; and today, too. You could ask Zelensky.

YS: But besides Zelensky, there are 40 million people living in Ukraine. The special operation that is going on right now is in the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine. Russians live here. The Russian language is spoken here. Kharkov, Mariupol…

How to explain to a Russian mother who lost her home, her child, seeing all the horrors of destruction and bombing that all this was done for her own good? Not on a metaphysical plane, but on a concrete one—what is she suffering for?

AD: There are people who think and seek to comprehend the truth; and there are people who solve some technological problems on reunion. In 2014, it was clear to me what was going on and what to tell her. The streets of Kharkiv in 2014 were covered with flyers with my statements and quotes, my portraits were hanging on the building of the city administration.

YS: Yes, and Russian volunteers were going to Donbass with your ideas about the Russian world, but it’s now 2022. The homes of Russian-speaking Ukrainians were destroyed not eight years ago, but now.

AD: There is the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah. He is known for his lamentation. Here I can say that the state of my soul from 2014 to 2022 is Jeremiah’s lament for the Russian world. My heart was breaking as to what we needed to do.

Of course, we are in a difficult situation now, and many opportunities for soft solutions have been lost. I don’t know who is to blame. Just as I don’t know who is to blame for the fall of Troy…

YS: So how do you explain to a Russian mother from Mariupol that everything that is happening is a good thing?

AD: The death of loved ones is a terrible grief. It is practically impossible to explain a lot of things now. We’ll explain it all later, when we liberate Ukraine. When Mariupol will be ours, then your question will become relevant. Right now, our plan is to win.

As soon as the flag of Eastern Ukraine, Russia, freedom and independence soars over Kherson and Novorossiya; as soon as the Donetsk and Lugansk regions are liberated; the Kherson, Nikolayev, Zaporozhye, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and other republics are established—after that we immediately begin to explain.

YS: Igor Strelkov, the first Minister of Defense of the DNR, your pupil, by the way, as well as Alexander Boroday—the first head of the DNR. Where you were and them in 2014 is clear. And where have you been all these eight years?

AD: Before the decision was made about the setting of the “Russian Spring,” I was always on TV. After that, I disappeared. I was thrown into a kind of social prison, into exile. Nevertheless, I continued to do what I believed in.

I followed the logic I told you about. I had always been absolutely convinced of the arrival of such a figure as Putin, long before he came. And when there was only Yeltsin and Chubais.

But I knew that deliverance would come. And a “man of destiny” would appear who would reunite the Russian world.

My friend, the French writer, mystic, and poet Jean Parvoulesco, now deceased, wrote a terrific book, Putin and the Eurasian Empire. Jean predicted, by way of a number of signs. that Putin was the man Russia needed. Even before Putin appeared, Jean was saying that a great leader would come from the military and special services who would restore ancient Russian civilization. And will also “establish an imperial eschatological will over the land, from the Atlantic to the Pacific,” I read.

Ties with the old world are irreversibly severed. A special military operation is irreversible. I wish all this had happened in 2014. But then we wouldn’t have exhausted the full potential of “lunar light.”

YS: Have we exhausted it all now?

AD: Yes, all of it now.

He Who Is Not With Us Is With Satan

YS: And when will we win? Your disciple Strelkov complains that everything is taking too long to move forward; that an immediate mobilization, including of human resources, is required. But will the Russian people agree not just to support the president from the sofa, but to fight for the Russian idea with weapons in their hands, and maybe even die?

AD: The way Strelkov has been presenting his thoughts and views for the last eight years is, for me, categorically unacceptable. It is clear that he too is sick of the Russian world, and this is his lament. But the form in which he puts it, I cannot accept.

And in essence he is right. The military-technical side of the special military operation is not my area of expertise—how it goes, according to what plan, I do not know. But, in any case, the mobilization of the people in all senses is inevitable. We underestimate the “passionariness” of the Russian man. He breathes only when he acquires a “solar” origin.

YS: So maybe Putin should appeal to the nation to support him.

AD: In the near future, support for Putin will be total as it is. Chubais is gone; so power is now with the people. When the people are freed from the underground in which they have been driven, and the government inevitably turns to the Russian people, then the Russians will show what they are and what they can do.

YS: We are a peaceful people, but is our armored train on the reserve track?

AD: Yes, it’s worth it for Putin to say: Russian, get up, you’re really needed now. And the people will definitely respond.

The special operation should not be run by the state alone, but by the people. So far, the Russian people have not yet fully engaged. Without mobilizing the Russian people, without explaining to them their historical mission, without awakening their deepest beginning, without these words “brothers and sisters”, it is impossible to do without.

“Arise, Russian people, awaken, you are called to perform great deeds…” All your ancestors, all generations have been on their way to this moment, to this clash with our ontological enemy. Truth and God are on our side. We are fighting the absolute Evil embodied in Western civilization, its liberal-totalitarian hegemony, in Ukrainian Nazism. We were created for this mission. This is what is needed now—a call is needed.

YS: In one of your previous interviews, you talk about the inevitability of some kind of catastrophe that could destroy most of humanity. As we can see, the previously unthinkable is already being openly discussed, the possibility of using nuclear weapons – like that Chekhov gun on the wall that should go off. Aren’t you scared?

AD: We’re always on the balance of probability. Any weapon is designed to go off.

YS: And for the balance of power? I don’t shoot, you don’t shoot, nobody shoots.

AD: That’s right. It was explained to us that nuclear weapons are weapons to keep other weapons from firing; it is a method of deterrence, and it was not used in conventional wars, medium-intensity wars. But nuclear weapons, under certain circumstances, if we are talking about a clash of civilizations, can also turn into offensive weapons.

Naturally, Russia will never be the first to do this. Because our nuclear weapons bring peace, and their nuclear weapons are fraught with aggression. But I am not saying that a nuclear catastrophe is inevitable.

YS: I would very much like to avoid it.

AD: I think right now you and I can’t influence the decision as to whether or not humanity’s annihilation will begin.

YS: The point of no return – has it been passed or not yet?

AD: I think NATO going to war on the side of Ukraine will be such a point.

YS: And then that’s it?

AD: It seems to me that the people who represent Washington are balancing between manic rage and some rationality. When rage prevails, they are the ones calling for the destruction of Russia with nuclear weapons.

YS: And in my opinion, on our television we also have calls to use them. I heard it myself in a program on Solovyov.

AD: I think there are different messages that the government wants to send to other countries through TV. But I am deeply convinced that the decision to destroy humanity can only be made by the United States.

I think I understand the logic of the “solar” ruler; he really didn’t want what happened, he cares about people and keeping the peace. But I remember him saying that if Russia was put before the choice of accepting a nuclear strike, to respond or not to respond to it, he would not allow peace without Russia.

YS: “That is, we all go to heaven, and let the rest die,” to quote the “solar” ruler. You are a religious philosopher, a mystic. Doesn’t it seem to you that the struggle between the Good, which we represent, and the absolute Evil, which, from your point of view, the West embodies, can only end with one thing: the end of the world? As John’s Revelation suggests, Pestilence (coronavirus) is followed by War, followed by Famine and Death. Are the horsemen of the Apocalypse coming?

AD: We have all forgotten that Christianity is an end-time religion. Christ is coming in the Last Days, and it is impossible for a Christian waiting for the Second Coming to think otherwise. It is abnormal to believe in progress, in technical development, in the endless evolution of species. Either you are a Christian, or you belong to the modern, material world.

For a Christian, the Apocalypse is something that is always around. A return to Russian identity is a return to a deep, and only possible, Christianity, containing the book of the Apocalypse, as the last book of the New Testament. Of course, we cannot ignore the events described there. And sooner or later they will come true, literally.

YS: Now?

AD: I didn’t say that. But it would be very right, very responsible, very Russian, to consider what is happening today in the apocalyptic dimension and to do everything possible to ensure that the inevitable consequences do not come to pass. And if it is impossible to avoid what is destined to happen, it is important to be on the right side at the moment of the End of the World. On our side.

We Are First

YS: These are challenging times for the Church as well. After all, not everyone understood and accepted Patriarch Kirill’s sermon on March 9, stating that the state has the right to coerce other states by force, to do as it sees fit, if it feels threatened by them. He soon uttered another phrase of concern to theologians, that “forgiveness without justice is surrender and weakness.” Is not the moral and ethical basis of Christianity in forgiveness?

AD: In this new apocalyptic cycle, all proportions have been changed. What in peacetime might have been considered “the rule” has now been discarded as unnecessary. But there is no “Christianity in general.” Catholics themselves consider the Orthodox Church “schismatic,” and we respond in kind. So, they can’t tell us anything.

For us, Christianity is the Russian Orthodox Church, and no one else. We are conducting an eschatological military operation, a special operation on the vertical plane between Light and Darkness, in an end-time situation.

YS: We are the party of Light, I take it?

AD: And the West is the party of Darkness by all its signs and symbols.

YS: Where do you see yourself now? In the new Russian world?

AD: I guess I’m a symbol and a mythological figure, too, in a sense. Like Chubais. Only with an “anti” prefix. If Ukraine is the anti-Russia, then I am the anti-Chubais. I can be anything I want: from a private cartridge dispenser or a mobilized reservist during special operations to any position where the state and the authorities call me. Any position necessary for our victory.

YS: One last question: Putin practically speaks in quotations from your writings. Especially before the start of the special operation. Do you think he reads you?

AD: I think that he and I read the same writings, written in golden letters on the sky of Russian history.

YS: But it’s not on the metaphysical level, but on the ordinary earthly level, you communicate?

AD: I never respond to such a question.

Featured image: A late 15th-century icon of Saint George of Novgorod slaying the dragon.

The Fate Of The World Order Is Being Decided In Ukraine

Recently, the Italian journal Il Tempo asked Alexander Dugin a series of questions, in which he places the conflict in the Ukraine within the context of the greater struggle against globalism. We are grateful to Geopolitica for this opportunity to bring you the English version of this important discussion.

1. Let’s start at the beginning. When and why did the conflict in Ukraine begin?

Alexander Dugin (AD): This is a constant of geopolitics. Its roots go back to ancient Russia, when the Western Russian princedoms of Volhynia and Galicia fought with the Eastern Russian princedoms, primarily Vladimir Rus’, for control of Kiev. Kiev and Kiev’s great princely throne passed from hand to hand. Later, the Grand Duchy finally passed to the east of Russia—Vladimir and Moscow, and the western Russian lands came under the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Duchy.

Moscow reclaimed the territories of present-day Ukraine, divided between Poland, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire for centuries.
Thus two identities were formed: the Great Russian (Muscovites) and the Little Russian (modern inhabitants of western Ukraine). The Cossacks of Little Russia joined Russia in the 17th century.

Alexander Dugin. Photo Credit: Geopolitica.

The Russian Empire under Catherine reclaimed Novorussia from the Turks (all the territories of modern Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea). So, Russia bought back territories to the north from Poland—Chernigov, Kiev, etc. Finally, Stalin reclaimed Galicia from Austria and Poland during World War II.

The territory of the Ukrainian SSR consisted of different territories and different ethnic groups mixed between Velikorussians and Little Russians.
The West has sought to create an artificial Ukrainian nation since the 19th century. Geopolitician Mackinder was the Entente High Commissioner to the Whites and created a plan to build Ukraine independent from Russia as the main link in the cordon sanitaire between Russia and continental Europe. The Bolsheviks did not allow this to happen and incorporated the Great Russian and Little Russian territories of Western Russia into the USSR.

The new generation of Western geopoliticians—Brzezinski, etc.—again bet on the separation of Ukraine from Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, all of the territories of the Ukrainian SSR, along with Crimea, became part of Ukraine. But within the territory of Ukraine there were two peoples—one pro-European, the other pro-Russian. It was a frontier between two civilizations—Russian-Eurasian and Western. The West relied on only one, the pro-European one, and in order to accelerate the creation of a nation in Ukraine that never existed, allowed a Russophobic version of Ukrainian Nazism to spread.

Putin began to strengthen the sovereignty of Russia as a state and civilization. Then the West supported Ukrainian neo-Nazis and radical Westerners in the 2013-2014 Maidan coup d’etat. Putin responded by reuniting with Crimea and supporting Donbass. Kiev, backed by the West, established a neo-Nazi government in eastern Ukraine and began shelling Donbass and launching regular punitive raids. At the same time, Ukraine was rushing to join NATO, attempting to develop nuclear weapons, developing illegal bioweapons in biolaboratories created with the participation of Hunter Biden, and preparing to attack Donbass and then Crimea.

Russia this time launched a preventive special military operation against the Kiev regime. Its goals were the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine—all of Ukraine, not just Eastern Ukraine.

It was the West that initiated the separation of Ukraine from Russia. Brzezinski said that without Ukraine, Russia would never be able to become an Empire; that is, an independent geopolitical and sovereign power. Putin listened to his words, because Brzezinski was right. But chess is a game for two.

The fate of the world order is now being decided in Ukraine—Russia’s victory and its very entry into a tough phase of confrontation with the West, which stands behind the Kiev regime, will mean the beginning of a multipolar world. China supports Russia precisely because China itself, in a multipolar world automatically, becomes an independent pole. The hegemony of the globalist liberal West will collapse. The change in the architecture of the world is almost always, alas, through military action.
But the blame for this lies with the West and the globalist leadership of the United States. Under Trump, who was already committed to a multipolar world, such a harsh situation probably would not have arisen.

2. Is there a civil war in Ukraine or a clash of civilizations?

AD: Both. First of all, it is the clash of civilizations that Huntington wrote about. The border between Russian and Western civilizations runs through Ukraine, dividing it in two. The West wanted to establish control over all of Ukraine. Putin has not allowed this to happen.

The nature of the civil war has to do with two positions in Ukraine itself, as I explained earlier. Eastern Ukraine was occupied by Russophobe-nationalist politicians for 8 years after Maidan. The civil war was essentially fought during this time; but in its most acute form it was expressed in the regular extermination, by the AFU and Nazi formations, of the civilian population of Donbass.

3. For our readers – can you explain what is a unipolar world and what is multipolar?

AD: Unipolarity is a world order in which there is only one decision-making center (Washington); hegemony belongs to only one military bloc (NATO); only one system of values (liberal democracy, LGBT+, gender politics, cancel culture, Great Reset, etc.) is recognized as universal and obligatory on a planetary scale. This is what liberal elites, and above all the Biden administration, American neocons and globalists like Soros, Schwab, etc. insist on today.

A multipolar world implies the existence of several civilizations—Western, Russian, Chinese (these three poles already exist and brightly declare themselves), as well as Indian, Islamic, Latin American (they are on their way); and in the future African. This means that there will be not one but several centers of decision-making (today it is Washington, Beijing and Moscow, but tomorrow there will be more), several regional hegemonies (large spaces), several ideological systems (liberal, Chinese-Communist-Confucian, Orthodox-Eurasian, as well as Islamic, Hindu, etc.) In a multipolar world, the Western monopoly of military, economic value, which is ideological and cultural will be abolished.

This is what the tense confrontation in Ukraine is all about. This is a military conflict accompanying the change of the world order and the transition to multipolarity.

4. Why do you think Russia represents a traditional society and the modern West the Antichrist?

AD: Because Russia stands for traditional values, conservative values—Church, power, family—while the West stands for the exact opposite—postmodernism, atheism or indifference to religion, abolition of states in favor of a One World Government, gay marriage, transgender people, etc. We know how progressives view traditional society. But we don’t think about how traditional societies see the “progressive” West. And they see it as a “civilization of the Antichrist.”

5. Can the operation in Ukraine lead to a new structuring of the world?

AD: Yes, that is exactly what it is for.

6. Can we assume that 50-60 years from now we will know that Russia had secret treaties with China and India regarding this “special military operation?”

AD: I don’t think we are talking about pacts. Putin discussed the special military operation with Beijing; that’s for sure. But events are unfolding so radically that India and other potential poles of the multipolar world are watching Russia’s successes and the West’s reaction rather than being actively involved in the situation. Once Russia wins, everyone will take advantage of the new opportunities offered by multipolarity. But Russia alone will have to bear all the burden. This has often been the case in history.

7. Regarding the “name” of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, many in Italy wonder why it cannot be called “war” in Russia. On the other side of propaganda and polemics—what is that supposed to mean?

AD: Putin thereby shows that this is not Russia’s war with Ukraine, it is something akin to an anti-terrorist operation, in the vein of what the U.S. and NATO conducted in the Middle East or in Afghanistan. This is a war not with the country and especially not with its people, who are historically the same as us, but with the political pro-Western top brass and neo-Nazi terrorist groups.

8. In a recent interview you used the concepts of “The Great Reset” and “The Great Awakening” as two global parties existing in the world.

AD: Yes. Everything is clear with the “Great Reset”—it is the ideology of globalists and liberals who seek to consolidate their planetary power at any cost, using new means for this purpose—global networks, total control, mind control, medical totalitarianism, destruction of traditional sexes, and in the near future the intermingling of humans with machines, etc. Pandemics, wars, conflicts, etc. will be used for this purpose.

But all people must understand the true goals of the globalist elite, go against the peoples, not only of hostile countries (like Russia or China today), but also against their own peoples. That is why the persecution of “Great Awakening” elites is being carried out by both Americans (as we see in the example of Trump supporters) and Europeans (unprecedented pressure on populists).

The Great Awakening is the realization that it is necessary to confront not each other, not the people against the people, but the ideology and hegemony of world elites. The Great Awakening is a new anti-globalist international, designed to unite all supporters of multipolarity and even the most controversial and extravagant ideologies that oppose liberalism.

9. Military action with weapons in hand makes the side that started it the object of criticism. If Ukraine is a battleground between the two parties questioned above, won’t the image of the side that Russia represents deteriorate?

AD: Yes, further demonization of Russia, a wave of Russophobia, and the media discrediting Putin and Russia is the price we have to pay for a multipolar world—especially when the world press remains unipolar. If globalists had listened to their opponents, it wouldn’t even come to war. But for the West, any conversation is a monologue. The interlocutor, the Other, does not exist for the West. And there is no other way for Russia to insist that there is an Other in this conflict. We have tried everything.

10. You speak Italian, and you have close ties with our country. From your point of view, what is the fate of Italy?

AD: Italy is probably the closest country to us Russians among Western European states. We love it in spite of everything. But Italy is not sovereign; it is part of the West, controlled by the EU and the USA. And because of this, any voice of an Italian, or an Italian with support or understanding of Russia at such a difficult time for us, is so valuable.

We are fighting for a multipolar world where Europe and its countries can regain their sovereignty and their independence. Russia today has started a geopolitical revolution. And sooner or later the other nations will get involved in it and understand its meaning and appreciate its message. And it seems to me that the Italians will be the first to do this.

Featured image: “Battle of Kulikovo, 1380,” by Pavel Ryzhenko; painted in 2005.

The Failed End Of History And Russia’s War Against The Liberal World Order

Fukuyama’s Thesis Of The End Of History

From an ideological point of view, the world still lives in the shadow of the controversy of the 1990s, between Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. No matter how much the theses of both authors have been criticized, their importance has not been diminished, since the dilemma still remains and, moreover, is still the main content of world politics and ideology.

As I recall, in connection with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the USSR, the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama formulated the “end of history” thesis. It boiled down to the fact that in the twentieth century, and especially after the victory over fascism, the logic of history was reduced to the confrontation of two ideologies—Western liberalism and Soviet communism. On the outcome of their confrontation depended the future, and therefore the meaning of history. And now, according to Fukuyama, the future has arrived, and this moment was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the coming to power in Moscow of liberals who recognized the ideological supremacy of the West. Hence the “end of history” thesis. According to Fukuyama, history is a history of wars and confrontations, hot and cold. In the second half of the twentieth century, all the confrontations and wars were reduced to the opposition of the capitalist, liberal West against the communist East. When the East collapsed, the contradictions disappeared. The wars stopped (as it seemed to Fukuyama). And, accordingly, history ended.

The End Of History—Postponed, But Not Rejected

In fact, this theory is the basis of the entire ideology and practice of globalism and globalization. Western liberals are still guided by it. It is the idea advocated by George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, Bernard Henri Levy, Hillary Clinton and… Joe Biden.

Liberals admit that not everything has gone smoothly since the 1990s. Liberalism and the West have faced different problems and new challenges (political Islam, the new rise of Russia and China, populism—including in America itself in the form of Trump and Trumpism, etc.). But globalists are convinced that the end of history has been somewhat delayed, but it is inevitable and will come soon enough. Under the slogan of a new effort—to make the end of history a reality and irreversibly consolidate the global triumph of liberalism—the campaign of globalist Joe Biden (Build Back Better, meaning “Back to globalization again—and this time more successfully, more thoroughly rebuilding the rear”) took place, inscribed in the planetary program of Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset.” That is, Fukuyama and his thesis have not been discounted—just the implementation of this plan, ideologically flawless from the point of view of the liberal worldview in general, has been postponed. Nevertheless, over the past 30 years, liberalism has continued to permeate society—technology, social and cultural processes, the spread of gender politics (LGBTQ+), education, science, art, social media, etc. And it has not only been about Western countries, but even of such semi-closed societies as the Islamic countries, China, and Russia.

The New Phenomenon Of Civilizations

Back in the 1990s, another American author, Samuel Huntington, contrasted Fukuyama with an alternative vision of world processes. Fukuyama was a convinced liberal, an advocate of World Government, denationalization and de-sovereignization of traditional states.

Huntington, on the other hand, adhered to the tradition of realism in International Relations; that is, he recognized sovereignty as the highest principle. But unlike other realists who thought in terms of nation-states, Huntington believed that after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR, there would be no end to history, but new actors would compete with each other on a planetary scale. As such, he named the “civilizations” and predicted in his famous work (Clash of Civilizations) their clash with each other.

Huntington proceeded from the following: the capitalist and socialist camps were not created in a void, by abstract ideological designs, but on quite certain cultural and civilizational foundations of different peoples and territories. These foundations were in place long before the New Age and its simplistic ideologies. And when the dispute of modern ideologies ends (and it did with the disappearance of one of them, communism), the underlying contours of ancient cultures, worldviews, religions and civilizations would emerge from beneath surface shapes.

The True And False Enemies Of Global Liberalism

Huntington’s rightness became particularly evident in the 2000s when the West confronted radical Islam. By that time Huntington himself had died before enjoying his theoretical victory, while Fukuyama admitted that he had jumped to conclusions and even put forward the thesis of “Islamo-fascism,” after whose defeat the “end of history” would come, but not before.

Nevertheless, Huntington’s correctness was not limited to political Islam. Moreover, Islam was in practice so heterogeneous that it did not form a unified force against the West. And it was convenient for Western strategists to manipulate the Islamic threat and Islamic fundamentalism factor to justify their interference in the political life of Islamic societies in the Middle East or Central Asia. A much more serious process was the quest for full sovereignty by Russia and China. Again, neither Moscow nor Beijing confronted the liberals and globalists with any particular ideology (especially since Chinese communism recognized economic liberalism after Deng Xiaoping’s reforms). These were two civilizations that had developed long before the New Age. Huntington himself called them Orthodox (Eastern Christian) civilization in the case of Russia and Confucian civilization in the case of China, quite rightly recognizing in Russia and China a connection to deep spiritual cultures. These deep cultures made themselves known precisely when the ideological confrontation between liberalism and communism ended in a formal, but not real (!) victory for the globalists. Communism disappeared, but the East, Eurasia, did not.

Victory In A Virtual World

But the proponents of the end of history have not been complacent. They are so enmeshed in their fanatical models of globalization and liberalism that they do not recognize any other future. And so, they began to increasingly insist on a virtual end to history. As in… if it’s not real, let’s make it look like it is. In essence, the policy of controlling consciousness, through global information resources, network technology, the promotion of new gadgets, and the development of models for merging people with machines, has been bet on. This is the “Great Reset” proclaimed by the creator of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab, and adopted by the U.S. Democratic Party and Joe Biden. The essence of this policy is as follows: while the globalists do not control reality, they completely dominate virtuality. They own all the basic networking technologies, protocols, servers, etc. Therefore, based on a global electronic hallucination and total control over the consciousness, they began to create an image of the world in which history had already ended. It was an image. Nothing more. But the tail seriously decided to wag the dog.

So, Fukuyama retained his importance; no longer as an analyst, but as a global political technologist, trying to impose perceptions stubbornly rejected by much of humanity.

Putin’s War On The Liberal Order

As such, Fukuyama’s assessment of the special military operation in the Ukraine is of some interest. At first glance, it might seem that in this case his analysis becomes altogether irrelevant, as he simply repeats the common clichés of Western anti-Russian propaganda that contain nothing new or convincing (in the style of banal Russophobe journalism). But upon closer examination, the picture changes somewhat, if we ignore what is most striking: the rabid hatred of Russia, Putin, and all those forces that oppose the end of history.

In an article published in the Financial Times, Fukuyama in the very title expresses the main idea of his claims about Russia: “Putin’s war on the liberal order.” And this thesis in itself is absolutely correct. The special military operation in the Ukraine is a decisive chord in the assertion of Russia as a civilization, as a sovereign pole of a multipolar world. This fits perfectly with Huntington’s theory; but it completely contradicts Fukuyama’s “end of history” (or the Popper/Soros open society).

Yes, that’s exactly it—the “war on the liberal order.”

The Ukraine’s Key Role In Global Geopolitics

The importance of the Ukraine for the rebirth of Russia as a fully independent world power has been clearly recognized by all generations of Anglo-Saxon geopoliticians—from the founder of this science, Halford Mackinder to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Earlier it was formulated as follows: “Without the Ukraine, Russia is not the Empire, but with Ukraine it is the Empire.” If we put the term “civilization” or “multipolar world pole” instead of “Empire,” the meaning becomes even more transparent.

The global West staked on the Ukraine as the Anti-Russia, and for this purpose instrumentally gave the green light to Ukrainian Nazism and extreme Russophobia. To fight against the Orthodox civilization and multipolar world any means were good. Putin, however, did not accept this turn and entered the battle; but not with the Ukraine, but with globalism, with the world oligarchy, with the Great Reset, with liberalism and the end of history.

And here is where the most important thing came out. The special military operation is directed not only against Nazism (denazification—along with demilitarization—is its main goal), but even more against liberalism and globalism. After all, it was Western liberals who made Ukrainian Nazism possible, supported it, armed it, and pitted it against Russia—as the new pole of the multipolar world. Even Mackinder called the lands of Russia “the geographical pivot of history”—that was the title of his famous article.

For history to end (a globalist thesis, the goal of the “Great Reset”), the pivot of history must be broken, destroyed. Russia as a pole, as a sovereign actor, as a civilization simply must not exist. And the diabolical plan of the globalists was to undermine Russia in the most painful area, to pit the same eastern Slavs (that is, in fact, the same Russians), and even the Orthodox. To do this, Ukrainians needed to be placed inside the globalist matrix, to gain control over the consciousness of society with the help of information propaganda, social networks, and a giant operation to control the psyche and consciousness, which millions of Ukrainians have fallen victim to in recent decades. Ukrainians have been persistently inculcated with the idea that they are part of the Western (global) world, and that the Russians are not brothers, but bitter enemies. And Ukrainian Nazism, in this strategy, coexisted perfectly with liberalism, which it instrumentally served.

The War For A Multipolar World Order

This is exactly what Putin has engaged in a decisive struggle with. Not against the Ukraine, but for the Ukraine. Fukuyama is completely right in this case. What is happening today in the Ukraine is “Putin’s war on the liberal order.” It is a war with Fukuyama himself, with Soros and Schwab, with the “end of history” and globalism, with real and virtual hegemony, with the Great Reset.

Dramatic events—and this is a universal dilemma—they decide the fate of what the coming world order will be. Will the world become truly multipolar, that is democratic and polycentric, where different civilizations will be given a voice (and we hope that this is exactly what will happen—this is the meaning of our future victory)? Or (God forbid!) it will finally sink into the abyss of globalism, but in a franker form, where liberalism will now not oppose Nazism and racism, but merge inseparably with it. Modern liberalism, ready to use Nazism and ignore it when it comes to the interests of nations, is the true evil. Absolute evil. It is this, and it is this, that the war is being waged about right now.

Fukuyama’s 12 Theses Based On One False Premise

Another recent text by Fukuyama, “Preparing for Defeat” in American Purpose, a publication of the American “neocons” (neoconservatives), as vocal representatives of liberal Nazism, deserves some attention. In it, Fukuyama offers 12 theses of how, in his view, events will unfold during the conflict in the Ukraine. Let us cite them in their entirety. Let’s say right away that we are talking about complete disinformation and enemy propaganda, and it is in this capacity—fake news—that we cite this text:

“Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion. Russian soldiers were evidently carrying dress uniforms for their victory parade in Kyiv rather than extra ammo and rations. Putin at this point has committed the bulk of his entire military to this operation—there are no vast reserves of forces he can call up to add to the battle. Russian troops are stuck outside various Ukrainian cities where they face huge supply problems and constant Ukrainian attacks.”

The first sentence is the most important. ” Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine.” Everything else builds on the fact that it represents absolute truth and is not questioned. If we were dealing with analytics, it would start with a dilemma: if the Russians win, then…, if the Russians lose, then…. But there is no such thing here. “The Russians will lose because the Russians can’t help but lose, which means the Russians have already lost. And no other options are considered, because that would be Russian propaganda.” What is this? This is what liberal Nazism is all about. Pure ideological, globalist propaganda, placing the reader instantly from the beginning in a virtual world where “history is already over.”

Then everything becomes predictable; only adding to the hallucination. We are dealing with an example of a “psy-op,” a “psychological operation.

“The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. The army in the field will reach a point where it can neither be supplied nor withdrawn, and morale will vaporize. This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses.”

No proof. Pure wishful thinking. The Russians must be losers because they are losers. And this we hear from the model loser Fukuyama, whose predictions have all been demonstrably disproved.

On the whole, everything is built on the assumption that Moscow was preparing for an operation that was to take two or three days and culminate in a victorious greeting with flowers from the liberated population. As if the Russians were such idiots that they did not notice the thirty years of Russophobic propaganda, the West’s coaching of neo-Nazi units, and a huge, by European standards, not badly armed (by the same West) and trained in Soviet times (and the training was serious back then) army, which was going to start a war in Donbass and then in the Crimea. And if a special operation by the Russians in such a situation was not completed in two weeks, it is a “failure.” Another hallucination.

The West Sacrificed The Ukrainians

And then Fukuyama says a rather important thing:

“There is no diplomatic solution to the war possible prior to this happening. There is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine given the losses they have taken at this point.”

This means that the West continues to believe its own virtual propaganda and is not going to compromise with Russia and implement a reality check. If the West waits until Russia is defeated to begin negotiations, they will never begin.

“The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. The only helpful thing was the General Assembly vote, which helps to identify the world’s bad or prevaricating actors.”

In this thesis, Fukuyama is referring to the need to dissolve the UN and create in its place the League of Democracies; that is, fully subordinate to Washington, states that are willing to live under the illusion of “the end of history.” This project was formulated by another liberal Nazi Russophobe McCain and has begun to be implemented by Joe Biden. Everything is going according to the “Great Reset” plan.

“The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they’ve kept their heads during a very emotional time. It is much better to have the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own, depriving Moscow of the excuse that NATO attacked them, as well as avoiding all the obvious escalatory possibilities. The Polish MiGs in particular would not add much to Ukrainian capabilities. Much more important is a continuing supply of Javelins, Stingers, TB2s, medical supplies, comms equipment, and intel sharing. I assume that Ukrainian forces are already being vectored by NATO intelligence operating from outside Ukraine.”

With the first sentence, however, one can agree with Fukuyama. Biden is not prepared to launch a nuclear duel that would immediately follow the announcement of a no-drone zone and other direct steps for NATO to intervene in the conflict. And “the Ukrainians defeat[ing] the Russians on their own” sounds cynical and cruel, but the author does not understand what he is saying: the West first pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians and then allowed the Ukrainians to be left alone with the Russians by refraining from effective assistance. The Ukrainians win virtually only in a world where history is over. And they should, in Fukuyama’s thought, be happy about it. It’s just a question of defeating the Russians.

“The cost that Ukraine is paying is enormous, of course. But the greatest damage is being done by rockets and artillery, which neither MiGs nor a no-fly zone can do much about. The only thing that will stop the slaughter is defeat of the Russian army on the ground.”

When Fukuyama utters the words “the cost” is “enormous,” it is clear from his nonchalant expression that he does not know what he is talking about.

Putin And The New Beginning Of Populism

Next, Fukuyama reflects on the fate of President Putin. All in the same vein of daydreaming about the end of history. In no uncertain terms, he declares:

“Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?”

Another thesis built entirely on the first premise. The defeat of the Russians is inevitable, which means that Putin is finished. And if the Russians win, then Putin is just beginning. This is what matters, no longer for the delusional Fukuyama, but for us.

“The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.”

First, not all populists are so directly influenced by Russia. Matteo Salvini, under the influence of the liberal Nazis and Atlanticists in his inner circle, has changed his previously friendly attitude toward Russia. One should not exaggerate the pro-Russian sympathies of the others either. But here again there is a curious point. Even if we accept Fukuyama’s position that the populists are Putin-oriented, they only lose if the Russians are defeated. And in the case of victory? After all, this is “Putin’s war with the liberal order.” And if he wins it, then all the populists win along with Moscow? And then the end of the global oligarchy and the “Great Reset” elites.

A Lesson For China And The End Of The Unipolar World

“The war to this point has been a good lesson for China. Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations. We may hope that the Chinese leadership will not delude itself as to its own capabilities the way the Russians did when contemplating a future move against Taiwan.”

Again, this is all true if “the Russians have already lost.” And if they have won? Then the meaning of this lesson for China would be just the opposite. That is, Taiwan will return to its native harbor faster than one might assume.

“Hopefully Taiwan itself will wake up as to the need to prepare to fight as the Ukrainians have done, and restore conscription. Let’s not be prematurely defeatist.”

It would be better to be realistic, and view things as they are, taking all factors into account. But maybe the fact that the West has ideologues like Fukuyama, hypnotized by their own delusions, is good for us?

“Turkish drones will become bestsellers.”

Now fragments of these “bestsellers” are being collected by bums and looters in the dumps of the Ukraine.

“A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.”

Here’s the brilliant great conclusion: Fukuyama already knows about “the defeat of Russia,” as he knew about “the end of history.” And then, globalism will be saved. And if not? Then there will be no more globalism.

And then—”welcome” back to the real world, to the world of peoples and civilizations, cultures and religions, to the world of reality and freedom from the totalitarian liberal concentration camp.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Aeneas fleeing from Troy,” by Pompeo Batoni; painted in 1753.

Wartime Remarks

Towards the Union Of Eastern Slavs

President Putin has outlined the goals of the military operation in the Ukraine: demilitarization and denazification. This is quite a concrete program. For forced demilitarization (and all methods other than direct coercion have been exhausted and have had no effect), full military-strategic control of the entire territory is required. Denazification requires complete political and administrative control of the entire country. This is not a request or a wish. This is an order. And in order to enforce it, it is necessary to have a direct and clear form of hierarchy.

Of course, while military action is underway, it is too early to talk about the implementation of the goals, but it would be irresponsible not to think about it at all. The cost of this operation is enormous. People are dying and will die, alas, more and more, until a complete and crushing (irreversible) victory is achieved. And here begins, perhaps, the most important thing of all. In order not to lose the victory, it is necessary to have a clear plan of action.

Obviously, it would not be wise to be satisfied with bringing a pro-Russian group into power in the Ukraine. Moreover, I would simply call this a “betrayal.

Putin is absolutely correct in calling the Ukraine, we are now liberating from the junta, the Anti-Russia. But there simply cannot be another Ukraine. The Ukraine as both a project and a reality was, is, and can only be Anti-Russia. Otherwise, why have an independent statehood at all?

Consequently, defeating the Ukraine and preserving the Ukraine is a logical and geopolitical contradiction. Of course, it is possible to repeatedly weaken the military potential and insist on punishing the criminals among the nationalists and retributionaists. But after a while, if we just leave the Ukraine to be—albeit under the control of pro-Moscow forces, everything will go back to normal. There is a logic to the Ukraine’s political processes. And it is not about the elites, but about statehood itself. It reproduces the same pattern, dating back to the times of the Galicia-Volhynia Duchy. The Ukraine can only be an oligarchy. This means that it is doomed to be the Anti-Imperia (according to the logic perfectly described in Konstantin Malofeev’s book, Imperiya [Empire]).

However, military operations, such as the one being deployed now, can only be a one-time thing. Therefore, Moscow has only one attempt to solve the Ukrainian question. The last one. And no, Yanukovych 2.0 we cannot afford.

I am convinced that the solution lies in the direction of creating an East Slavic Union, which would include Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus. If the Ukrainians and partly the Belarusians refuse to call themselves “Russians,” believing that this name refers only to the Velikorussians (“Moskals“); that is, the people who created Vladimir (Moscow) Russia and then built the Russian Empire on a world scale, we can hardly impose a wider interpretation of this term on them. This must be reckoned with. But the Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians (and, incidentally, Rusyns) consider themselves to be Eastern Slavs, without any reservations. So let us unite the East Slavs in one political Union. And let’s create a common leadership, which will consist of Eastern Slavs, regardless of how they define themselves at a lower level of ethnic taxonomy. The main thing is to get away from nations and nation-states. After all, it is the nations that cause fratricidal wars—such as the one now going on in the Ukraine.

The Union of Eastern Slavs will preserve the peoples, but will abolish the nations as fictitious and provocative artificial entities.

Who lives in Russia? Who wants to? All citizens of the Eastern Slavic Union. Who lives in the Ukraine or Belarus? They do. Is it a state of Great Russians? No. This is—the state of the Eastern Slavs and other peoples who have tied their fate to the Eastern Slavs.

We are not at war with the Ukraine.

This is not a war with the Ukraine. It’s a confrontation with globalism as a whole planetary phenomenon.

Confrontation at all levels—geopolitical and ideological. Russia rejects everything in globalism—unipolarity, Atlantism, on the one hand, and liberalism, anti-tradition, technocracy, in a word, the Great Reset, on the other. It is clear that all European leaders are part of the Atlanticist liberal elite. And we are at war with it. Hence their legitimate reaction.

Russia is now excluded from the globalist networks. It no longer has a choice: either it must build their world or disappear. Russia has set a course to build its own world, its own civilization. And now the first step is being taken. But sovereign in the face of globalism can only be a large space, the state-continent, the state-civilization. No country can withstand complete disconnection for a long time. Russia is now creating a field of global resistance.

Its victory would be a victory for all alternative forces, both right-wing and left-wing, and all nations. As always, we are beginning the most difficult and dangerous processes. But when we win, everyone takes advantage of them. That’s the way it’s meant to be. We are now setting the stage for real multipolarity. And those who are ready to kill us now will be the first to take advantage of our feat tomorrow.

I almost always write things that later come true. This will come true, too.

Breaking With The West—Salvation

What does it mean for Russia to break with the West? It is salvation. The modern West—where the Rothschilds, Soros, the Schwabs, Bill Gates and the Zuckerbergs triumph—is the most disgusting phenomenon in world history. It is no longer the West of Greco-Roman Mediterranean culture, the Christian Middle Ages, or even the violent and contradictory twentieth century. This is the graveyard of toxic waste of civilization—it is anti-civilization. And the faster and fuller Russia is disconnected from it, the sooner it returns to its roots. To what? Christian, Greco-Roman, Mediterranean—European—nm that is, to the roots common with the real West. These roots—their very own!—the modern West has cut them off. And in Russia they have remained intact.

Only now is Eurasia rearing its head. Only now is liberalism in Russia itself completely losing ground beneath its feet.

Russia is not Western Europe. Russia followed the Greeks, Byzantium and Eastern Christianity. And it is still following this very road. Yes, with zigzags and deviations. Sometimes in dead ends. But on it goes.

Russia stood up for the values of Tradition against the modern world. This is the same “rebellion against the modern world.” Don’t you recognize it?

And Europe must break with the West, and even the United States must follow those who reject globalism. And then everyone will understand the meaning of the modern war in the Ukraine.

Many people in the Ukraine used to understand this. But the terrible, rabid, liberal-Nazi propaganda left no stone unturned in the minds of the Ukrainians. They will come to their senses and fight with us for the kingdom of light, for tradition and a true Christian European identity. The Ukrainians are our brothers. They were, they are and they will be.

The break with the West is not a break with Europe. It is a break with death, degeneration and self-murder. It is the key to recovery. And Europe itself—the people of Europe—must follow our example: overthrow the antinational globalist junta. And build a real European House, a European Palace, a European Cathedral.

Stop The Hate

I think the most important thing right now is to stay calm. The swiftness of the military operation took not only our enemies but also our friends by surprise. No one expected it. Hence the surge of hysteria on all sides. But it is important to understand that it cannot be a matter of one week to take control of a huge, well-armed country that had been preparing for a war with us for eight years, and morally for much longer. After the rapid first day, events could not develop as quickly, even under the most favorable circumstances. This requires restraint and a clear conscience on everyone’s part.

There are several points that seem to me to be central:

  1. Patriots fear that we may, under certain conditions (for example, after the mopping up of the DNR and LNR territories), stop. This fear is unfounded. Such a large-scale operation could only be launched by Moscow with clear and non-negotiable goals that do not depend on almost anything—up to nuclear blackmail. That is why everything will be brought to its final goal. At any cost and in any format.
  2. Liberals (conscious enemies of Russia) and emotional pacifists (people who ignore geopolitics, political science, and international relations) have the illusion that protests and online petitions can change something (they can’t change anything).
  3. All Western moves against Russia under these conditions will only strengthen the patriotic wing and finally weaken the liberal wing. The lives of ordinary people will not be particularly affected. After all, only ideologically fanatical monetarists believe that the currency board is the only currency model. They do not even want to hear about financial sovereignty. Well, they shouldn’t. The government can issue as much money as it needs. To tame inflation, you can resort to a two-track economy (according to the plan of Alexander Galushka). The West did not give us high-tech in any way. The energy market in Asia is potentially endless for us. So, we will endure and become stronger.
  4. Many patriotic resources have been agonizing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who are trying in desperation to hack websites and social media accounts. For those who have to be logically mobilized to physically fight back against ourselves, where does the time and energy for such activities come from? The answer is, it’s not from the Ukraine attacks. The Ukraine, as such after Maidan, is only a cover for NATO’s larger geopolitical strategy against us. That is why we are eliminating that cover.
  5. The Ukrainians have been, and always will be, our brothers and sisters. Let them say what they want. We are Orthodox Eastern Slavs with common roots, different turns of history and a common future. And no one can do anything about it. We have repeatedly diverged and then reconnected. In different circumstances and in different ways. The Ukrainians are not enemies—they are ours. We Velikorussians are no joke. And they aren’t a joke either. But we have to respect them. We’ll soon live in one state with them. And they will only benefit from that. And we have to make them benefit from it. But only from unity, not from fratricide.

Georgia And Its Neutrality

Georgia, by not joining the sanctions against Russia, is acting very sensibly and correctly. It may just be due to cold calculations and the desire to preserve statehood. But it is also a sensible move. The brotherly Orthodox Georgian people went through the same temptation of Bernard-Henri Levy and globalism, and suffered terrible losses. But the Ukraine is just about to cease to exist. And everyone who understands anything understands that. And no country would wish that.

If Georgia continues to act adequately, this will definitely cause a corresponding—positive—reaction from Moscow. In a critical situation, any gesture takes on tremendous significance, even if it means neutrality. Otherwise, it would be unnoticeable.

On The Passivity Of Good People

I have long noticed that people who are bright and upright are focused and ashamed, which sometimes leads to passivity. Scum is active, aggressive, and shameless. Without becoming like scum, let us nevertheless engage in the course of the historic war of Light against Darkness. Right now, our support—on all levels—in prayers, thoughts, posts, words, texts, even reprints of important and properly organized information (not just anything) is very important.

The system, (according to Luhmann) in the flow of information, first of all discards the unnecessary, irrelevant or infected (coded). Thus, information becomes meaningful and turns into a message. One well-chosen news bulletin, separated from the stream, can induce a correct orientation in the reader, create an adequate picture of what is happening. And any bright person can do this. It only seems that we don’t influence anything. We do, when we are active, focused, and awakened.

Plan “B” Of The West

It is becoming obvious that the West has surrendered the Ukraine.

But there is also a “Plan B.” It is not difficult to lay it out. The bet is made for the period when the war is over. At that time, there will be centers of terrorist activity on a single permeable Russian-Ukrainian territory. They will act in the Ukraine, against the official authorities and the Russian military, but they will also spill over into Russian territory. The capital’s liberal intelligentsia will be politely asked to shelter some Nazis with land mines so that they can organize a terrorist attack. The idea is to create chaos and prerequisites for a regime change operation. This is what the foreign instructors are trained to do.

Something similar was planned with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan—a bet that the Taliban, banned in Russia, will open a southern front against Russia in Central Asia.

This plan should be taken into account. And then go about your business.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitica.

Featured image: “Allegory of triune Russia [Great, Little and White],” poster from 1905.