2,406 words
Prof. Dugin, the Western mainstream media and established politicians describe the recent situation in Ukraine as a conflict between a pro-European, democratic, and liberal oppositional alliance on the one side and an authoritarian regime with a dictator as president on the other side. Do you agree?
Dugin: I know those stories and I consider this type of analysis totally wrong. We cannot divide the world today in the Cold War style. There is no “democratic world” which stands against an “antidemocratic world,” as many Western media report.
Your country, Russia, is one of the cores of this so called “antidemocratic world” when we believe our mainstream media. And Russia with president Vladimir Putin tries to intervene in Ukrainian domestic politics, we read . . .
Dugin: That’s completely wrong. Russia is a liberal democracy. Take a look at the Russian constitution: We have a democratic electoral system, a functioning parliament, a free market system. The constitution is based on Western pattern. Our president Vladimir Putin rules the country in a democratic way. We are a not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not a soviet communist regime.
Our politicians in Germany call Putin a “dictator”!
Because of his LGBT-laws, his support for Syria, the law suits against Michail Chodorchowski and “Pussy Riot”…
Dugin: So they call him “dictator” because they don’t like the Russian mentality. Every point you mentioned is completely democratically legitimate. There is not just one single “authoritarian” element. So we shouldn’t mix that: Even if you don’t like Russia’s politics you can’t deny that Russia is a liberal democracy. President Vladimir Putin accepts the democratic rules of our system and respects them. He never violated one single law. So Russia is part of the liberal democratic camp and the Cold War pattern doesn’t work to explain the Ukrainian crisis.
So how can we describe this violent and bloody conflict?
Dugin: We need a very clear geopolitical and civilizational analysis. And we have to accept historical facts, even if they are in these days not en vogue!
What do you mean?
Dugin: Today’s Ukraine is a state which never existed in history. It is a newly created entity. This entity has at least two completely different parts. These two parts have a different identity and culture. There is Western Ukraine which is united in its Eastern European identity. The vast majority of the people living in Western Ukraine consider themselves as Eastern Europeans. And this identity is based on the complete rejection of any pan-Slavic idea together with Russia. Russians are regarded as existential enemies. We can say it like that: They hate Russians, Russian culture, and of course Russian politics. This makes an important part of their identity.
You are not upset about this as a Russian?
Dugin: (laughs) Not at all! It is a part of identity. It doesn’t necessarily mean they want to go on war against us, but they don’t like us. We should respect this. Look, the Americans are hated by much more people and they accept it also. So when the Western Ukrainians hate us, it is neither bad nor good – it is a fact. Let’s simply accept this. Not everybody has to love us!
But the Eastern Ukrainians like you Russians more!
Dugin: Not so fast! The majority of people living in the Eastern part of Ukraine share a common identity with Russian people – historical, civilizational, and geopolitical. Eastern Ukraine is an absolute Russian and Eurasian country. So there are two Ukraines. We see this very clear at the elections. The population is split in any important political question. And especially when it comes to the relations with Russia, we witness how dramatic this problem becomes: One part is absolute anti-Russian, the other Part absolute pro-Russian. Two different societies, two different countries and two different national, historical identities live in one entity.
So the question is which society dominates the other?
Dugin: That’s an important part of Ukrainian politics. We have the two parts, and we have the capital Kiev. But in Kiev we have both identities. It is neither the capital of Western Ukraine nor Eastern Ukraine. The capital of the Western part is Lviv, the capital of the Eastern part is Kharkiv. Kiev is the capital of an artificial entity. These are all important facts to understand this conflict.
Western Media as well as Ukrainian “nationalists” would strongly disagree with the term “artificial” for the Ukrainian state.
Dugin: The facts are clear. The creation of the state of Ukraine within the borders of today wasn’t the result of a historical development. It was a bureaucratic and administrative decision by the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was one of the 15 constituent republics of the Soviet Union from its inception in 1922 to its end in 1991. Throughout this 72-year history, the republic’s borders changed many times, with a significant part of what is now Western Ukraine being annexed by the Red Army in 1939 and the addition of formerly Russian Crimea in 1954.
Some politicians and analysts say that the easiest solution would be the partition of Ukraine to an Eastern and a Western state.
Dugin: It is not as easy as it might sound because we would get problems with national minorities. In the Western part of Ukraine many people who consider themselves as Russians live today. In the Eastern part lives a part of the population that considers itself as Western Ukrainian. You see: A simple partition of the state wouldn’t really solve the problem but even create a new one. We can imagine the Crimean separation, because that part of Ukraine is purely Russian populated territory.
Why does it seem that the European Union is so much interested in “importing” all those problems to its sphere?
Dugin: It is not in the interest of any European alliance, it is in the interest of the US. It is a political campaign which is led against Russia. The invitation of Brussels to Ukraine to join the West brought immediately the conflict with Moscow and the inner conflict of Ukraine. This is not surprising at all of anybody who knows about the Ukrainian society and history.
Some German politicians said that they were surprised by the civil war scenes in Kiev…
Dugin: This says more about the standards of political and historical education of your politicians than about the crisis in Ukraine…
But the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused the invitation of the West.
Dugin: Of course he did. He was elected by the pro-Russian East and not by the West. Yanukovych can’t act against the interest and the will of his personal electoral base. If he would accept the Western-EU-invitation he would be immediately a traitor in the eyes of his voters. Yanukovych’s supporters want integration with Russia. To say it clearly: Yanukovych simply did what was very logical for him to do. No surprise, no miracle. Simply logical politics.
There is now a very pluralistic and political colorful oppositional alliance against Yanukovych: This alliance includes typical liberals, anarchists, communists, gay right groups and also nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups and hooligans. What keeps these different groups and ideologies together?
Dugin: They are united by their pure hatred against Russia. Yanukovych is in their eyes the proxy of Russia, the friend of Putin, the man of the East. They hate everything what has to do with Russia. This hate keeps them together; this is a block of hatred. To say it clearly: Hate is their political ideology. They don’t love the EU or Brussels.
What are the main groups? Who is dominating the oppositional actions?
Dugin: These are clearly the most violent neo-Nazi groups on the so called Euro-Maidan. They push for violence and provoke a civil war situation in Kiev.
Western Mainstream media claims that the role of those extremist groups is dramatized by the pro-Russian media to defame the whole oppositional alliance.
Dugin: Of course they do. How do they want to justify that the EU and the European governments support extremist, racist, neo-Nazis outside the EU-borders while they do inside the EU melodramatic and expensive actions even against the most moderate right wing groups?
But how can for example the gay right groups and the left wing liberal groups fight alongside the neo-Nazis who are well known to be not really very gay friendly?
Dugin: First of all, all these groups hate Russia and the Russian president. This hate makes them comrades. And the left wing liberal groups are not less extremist than the neo-Nazi groups. We tend to think that they are liberal, but this is horribly wrong. We find especially in Eastern Europe and Russia very often that the Homosexual-Lobby and the ultranationalist and neo-Nazi groups are allies. Also the Homosexual lobby has very extremist ideas about how to deform, re-educate and influence the society. We shouldn´t forget this. The gay and lesbian lobby is not less dangerous for any society than neo-Nazis.
We know such an alliance also from Moscow. The liberal blogger and candidate for the mayoral position in Moscow Alexej Nawalny was supported by such an alliance of gay rights organizations and neo-Nazi groups.
Dugin: Exactly. And this Nawalny-coalition was also supported by the West. The point is, it is not at all about the ideological content of those groups. This is not interesting for the West.
What do you mean?
Dugin: What would happen if a neo-Nazi organization supported Putin in Russia or Yanukovych in Ukraine?
The EU would start a political campaign; all huge western mainstream media would cover this and scandalize that.
Dugin: Exactly that´s the case. So it is only about on which side such a group stands. If the group is against Putin, against Yanukovych, against Russia, the ideology of that group is not a problem. If that group supports Putin, Russia or Yanukovych, the ideology immediately becomes a huge problem. It is all about the geopolitical side the group takes. It is nothing but geopolitics. It is a very good lesson what is going on in Ukraine. The lesson tells us: Geopolitics is dominating those conflicts and nothing else. We witness this also with other conflicts for example in Syria, Libya, Egypt, in Caucasian region, Iraq, Iran . . .
Any group taking side in favor of the West is a “good” group with no respect if it is extremist?
Dugin: Yes and any group taking side against the West – even if this group is secular and moderate – will be called “extremist” by the Western propaganda. This approach exactly dominates the geopolitical battlefields today. You can be the most radical and brutal Salafi fighter, you can hate Jews and eat human organs in front of a camera, as long as you fight for the Western interest against the Syrian government you are a respected and supported ally of the West. When you defend a multi-religious, secular and moderate society, all ideals of the West by the way, but you take position against the Western interest like the Syrian government, you are the enemy. Nobody is interested in what you believe in, it is only about the geopolitical side you chose if you are right or wrong in the eyes of the Western hegemon.
Prof. Dugin, especially Ukrainian opposition groups calling themselves “nationalists” would strongly disagree with you. They claim: “We are against Russia and against the EU, we take a third position!” The same thing ironically also the salafi fighter in Syria would say: “We hate Americans as much as the Syrian government!” Is there something like a possible third position in this geopolitical war of today?
Dugin: The idea to take a third and independent position between the two dominating blocks is very common. I had some interesting interviews and talks with a leading figure of the Chechen separatist guerrilla. He confessed to me that he really believed in the possibility of an independent and free Islamic Chechnya. But later he understood that there is no “third position,” no possibility of that. He understood that he fights against Russia on the side of the West. He was a geopolitical instrument of the West, a NATO proxy on the Caucasian battlefield. The same ugly truth hits the Ukrainian “nationalist” and the Arab salafi fighter: They are Western proxies. It is hard to accept for them because nobody likes the idea to be the useful idiot of Washington.
To say it clearly: The “third position” is absolutely impossible?
Dugin: No way for that today. There is land power and sea power in geopolitics. Land power is represented today by Russia, sea power by Washington. During World War II Germany tried to impose a third position. This attempt was based precisely on those political errors we talk about right now. Germany went on war against the sea power represented by the British Empire, and against the land power represented by Russia. Berlin fought against the main global forces and lost that war. The end was the complete destruction of Germany. So when even the strong and powerful Germany of that time wasn’t strong enough to impose the third position how the much smaller and weaker groups want to do this today? It is impossible, it is a ridiculous illusion.
Anybody who claims today to fight for an independent “third position” is in reality a proxy of the West?
Dugin: In most of the cases, yes.
Moscow seems to be very passive. Russia doesn’t support any proxies for example in the EU countries. Why?
Dugin: Russia doesn’t have an imperialist agenda. Moscow respects sovereignty and wouldn’t interfere in the domestic politics of any other country. And it is an honest and good politics. We witness this even in Ukraine. We see much more EU-politicians and even US-politicians and diplomats travelling to Kiev to support the opposition than we see Russian politicians supporting Yanukovych in Ukraine. We shouldn’t forget that Russia doesn’t have any hegemonial interests in Europe, but the Americans have. Frankly speaking, the European Union is not a genuine European entity – it is an imperialist transatlantic project. It doesn’t serve the interests of the Europeans but the interests of the Washington administration. The “European Union” is in reality anti-European. And the “Euro-Maidan” is in reality “anti-Euro-Maidan.” The violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine are neither “nationalist” nor “patriotic” nor “European” — they are purely American proxies. The same for the homosexual rights groups and organizations like FEMEN or left wing liberal protest groups.
Source: http://manuelochsenreiter.com
16 Comments
It may be very “nice” and all of Russia not to engage in European politics, but for how long can they afford to play the role of the passive bystander? When people like Berlusconi with their pro-Russian tendencies get denunciated and ousted, the Russians can do nothing but watch. Basically, only being on the defensive won’t do any good in the long run, other countries before tried to play the waiting game with America and its always brooding tension, and still fell before her.
With every passing year, Russia’s main foe – the United States, becomes (relatively) weaker, whilst her main ally, China, grows in strength. (China already surpasses the USA in steel and electricity production: indeed, it is now the world’s foremost industrial power). Thus, Moscow senses that time is on its side, and hence, the waiting game.
I’m impressed by Professor Dugin’s ability to clearly and concisely articulate his points. His insight into the centrality of geopolitics, as evinced by the following statement, is well worth remembering:
‘Yes and any group taking side against the West – even if this group is secular and moderate – will be called “extremist” by the Western propaganda. This approach exactly dominates the geopolitical battlefields today. You can be the most radical and brutal Salafi fighter, you can hate Jews and eat human organs in front of a camera, as long as you fight for the Western interest against the Syrian government you are a respected and supported ally of the West. When you defend a multi-religious, secular and moderate society, all ideals of the West by the way, but you take position against the Western interest like the Syrian government, you are the enemy. Nobody is interested in what you believe in, it is only about the geopolitical side you chose if you are right or wrong in the eyes of the Western hegemon.’
People tend to forget the massive resources that still lie untapped on American soil. America can sustain herself independently for years, maybe even decades, untill the demographic bomb finally explodes. I would also be careful to consider China an ally of Russia. That has never been the case. Russia now, as the Soviet Union did in the past, keeps India as an associate rather than China, which is if anything a long term partner of America since Nixon. Kerry Bolton wrote a few pieces on this topic.
Concerning Berlusconi, where his sympathies lie has ultimately very little bearing, what matters is that he advocated mutual trade with Russia and those energy pipe lines.
Slightly OT but Berlusconi wan’t pro-‘Russia’ as much as he was pro-Putin. Those two men, self-made, virile and ambitious, probably developed an affinity for each other (and later a business relationship) among the sea of bureaucratic weasels that are now considered ‘leaders of Nations.’
I’m guessing that most of the support for Putin (outside of Russia) is based entirely on his masculine character – something of an anathema in other Western Nations.
Dugin: “The violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine are neither “nationalist” nor “patriotic” nor “European” — they are purely American proxies.”
Bullshit.
Those neo-Nazis might indeed be unwittingly proxies for US geopolitical purposes just like the various Jihadist groups are. Some of such groups are infiltrated and consequently coopted, some are even especially created by the CIA.
Wrong. Unless there is a translation issue here, Dugin is abusing the word “proxy” in way that can only be described as misleading. A proxy is a party who knowingly acts on behalf of another party. The US is a proxy for Israel in the UN. The Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran, and so on. There is no credible evidence that I know of that these Ukrainian nationalists are acting as “proxies” for the US government. Notice how Dugin doesn’t provide any. They don’t support the US or the Russian position. And that, most likely, is real reason Dugin labels them “proxies.” They’re undermining the Russian position which is all he cares about.
Indeed, any political group may find themselves unwitting proxies for another group but Dugin described these groups as “purely American proxies”, in his trademark categorical rejection of ethnic nationalism, i.e. “neo-nazism”. This guy always seems to be throwing up dust, like Putin. The two seem similar, at least from the distant perspective of someone who only reads English. It is hard telling exactly what their game is, and probably that is the idea. Dugin and Putin will likely never come down as explicit champions of their own people’s genetic survival. Instead their rhetoric will be wrapped-up in some other mealy-mouthed agenda. Why not just come out and say the destruction of the ethnic Russian people is not an option?
NS Russians or Ukrainians cannot escape geopolitical reality. They have to recognize that siding against their regime while sympathizing against Washington is not a third position. They could easily become pro-Putin and not serve a traitorous purpose.
crusader,
No, Dugin’s framing is dishonest. Rejecting Putin and the Russian government’s position does not translate into the support for the United States.
I know I’m probably wasting my time here, because Dugin’s supporters always seem to be missing in action when it comes to getting below the level of glittering generalities such as “the world should oppose globalism and support tradition.” But where is the evidence these Ukrainian-NS (who Dugin smears as violent nazis) support the United States?
There are so many misleading and problematic statements in this article it is hard to know where to begin.
First, Dugin’s comments about “neo-nazis” are insulting to informed people’s intelligence. He complains about the distorting effects of Western media narratives before promoting a Western media narrative about the nazi menace.
Also, I thought Dugin was in favor of autonomy and sovereignty for all peoples based on the principles of his fourth political theory? Clearly, he does not mean it. I doubt there are many regions in the world that are better candidates for applying this idea than the Eastern and Western Ukraine. They are the ideal candidates for a Velvet Divorce. The Kremlin doesn’t want a velvet divorce, however, so suddenly Dugin’s own pet theory doesn’t apply.
And notice Dugin’s complete dishonesty in eliding that point. First, he claims a peaceful split or a “third position” solution for Ukraine isn’t feasible because of geopolitics. Even if this is true, and it will take more than assertions from him to convince me, there is nothing stopping Dugin from endorsing the idea in principle or as an ideal. But, again, to endorse this idea in principle would require going against the Russian position on Ukraine which is something Dugin never does.
The notion the Western Ukrainians are dupes for the United States is absurd and insulting to the Western Ukrainians. Dugin’s implication is their is no rational basis for their desires. This is not true. Culturally, I believe they were part of central Europe until WW1. And economically, what rational person could possibly blame them for wanting to link their fate to the West and the EU rather than to Putin and Russia where damn near everyone outside Moscow and St. Petersberg live in poverty? For anyone who wants more information, see The Russia Left Behind: a Journey Through a Heartland on the Sow Road to Ruin,.
So, if Western Ukraine’s only choice in practice is vassal status under EU plutocrats or Russian plutocrats, that’s an easy choice. While Ukraine has stagnated since the end of the Cold War, Slovakia and Poland have developed into “high income” economies.
I think Dugin is a form of White nationalist! Fundamentally, he is a genius thinker but some of his major influences are major figures of the nationalist movement. For instance, his idea about eternal traditionalism comes from Julius Evola, so does his idea about the spiritual differences between different peoples.
Dugin’s meta-political language has entered into the Russian political mainstream. His concept of the unipolar–multipolar struggle are the metaphysics of anti-NWO order discourse that Lavrov, Mendevev and Putin use.
I think the problem is his high IQ. When you score in the 160-170 range, you can see patterns that other people can’t see (I should imagine) so it is difficult to see the long-term consequences of his career.
We should be grateful for people like Dugin. My God, he’s a Russian who cares about the future of us Western Europeans — how many people think the opposite way around?
I think you’re way off base.
1. White Nationalists put the race above the nation. Russian nationalists put the Russian people above the Russian state and its multicultural, multiracial empire. Dugin puts the Russian empire first, over the preservation of the Russian people or the white race. Read my “North-Americanism: A Cautionary Tale” for my take on what Dugin is about: https://counter-currents.com/2013/11/north-americanism-a-cautionary-tale/
2. Why wouldn’t Dugin’s language enter the mainstream, considering that it is perfectly crafted to give an appearance of propriety to the existing elite’s actions in a country in which the vast majority is receptive to anti-modernist ideas?
3. Nobody questions that Dugin is smart. The relevant questions are: Is he honest? Coherent? On our side?
4. Dugin and Putin should be grateful for all the silly Western White Nationalists who mistake them for friends of our cause (as opposed to enemies of our enemies) and care passionately about what is going on in Russia, indeed, even more passionately than they do about what can be done to advance their actual values in their own countries. It is just another version of the Ron Paul/Rand Paul/Tea Party delusion.
We all pity the cuckold who is tricked into feeding another man’s brood. But what are we to think of people who delude themselves into ideological cuckoldry?
Mr. Johnson, YOU SAID:
I think you’re way off base.
1. White Nationalists put the race above the nation. Russian nationalists put the Russian people above the Russian state and its multicultural, multiracial empire. Dugin puts the Russian empire first, over the preservation of the Russian people or the white race. Read my “North-Americanism: A Cautionary Tale” for my take on what Dugin is about: https://counter-currents.com/2013/11/north-americanism-a-cautionary-tale/
I THINK:
I read the article and can see where you are coming from. I have always thought, however, that Dugin has attended many, many nationalist events in Europe and that suggested he had concern for the future of our race.
If the Russian agenda is empire at any costs then I may be wrong about my belief in Putin thinking in racial terms, but he has said, as far as I know, two things that suggests he is aware of our people’s current existential crisis: (1) he said that Europe is going to become the colony of their colonies; and (2) he mentioned that White people are dying out last year. Again, I could be seeing what I want to see.
YOU SAID:
2. Why wouldn’t Dugin’s language enter the mainstream, considering that it is perfectly crafted to give an appearance of propriety to the existing elite’s actions in a country in which the vast majority is receptive to anti-modernist ideas?
I THINK:
If Dugin has developed a duplicitous form of language that deceives the Russian people then he isn’t the White race’s friend — I totally agree. Nevertheless, the fact that this meta-political language is the antithesis of monoultural globalism does suggest the Russian state values their independence.
Consequently, Dugin’s central idea about Russia’s role in international affairs (to oppose the West) seems to be borrowed by Francis Parkey Yockey. If he has taken time to read Yockey he may be ethnocentric.
YOU SAID:
3. Nobody questions that Dugin is smart. The relevant questions are: Is he honest? Coherent? On our side?
I THINK:
I think his intelligence is a factor in how he sees the world. He seems to have a huge problem with Zio-globalist culture (without saying it); and he sees strong regional poltical structures as a defense against it.
In a sense, I reckon he would favour ANY poltical system that divorced itself from the Zio-global order — the fact that the Front National have met up with leading Russian officals also suggests the Russian state has no problem with White nationalist politics.
YOU SAID:
4. Dugin and Putin should be grateful for all the silly Western White Nationalists who mistake them for friends of our cause (as opposed to enemies of our enemies) and care passionately about what is going on in Russia, indeed, even more passionately than they do about what can be done to advance their actual values in their own countries. It is just another version of the Ron Paul/Rand Paul/Tea Party delusion.
I THINK:
I’m English and the Russian Government fund a daily news channel — Russia Today — that exposes Zio-media control, the banking system, the Israel lobby — a lot of good information. That could suggest they might be trying to wake us up. I hope that’s the case, but I don’t know.
Buchanan condemns American meddling and hypocrisy here. He suggests the US government is at it again, clandestinely fomenting a “color” revolution. Inexplicably however given what he says are his principles, he backs Putin’s position and implicitly Dugin’s too. Instead of mentioning that the west/east split justifies a breakup based on ethno-nationalist principles, he accepts the binary US/EU v. Russia framing. He also notes:
Putin is incensed, but inhibited by the need to keep a friendly face for the Sochi Olympics. Yet he makes a valid point. How would Europeans have reacted if, in the bailout crisis, he, Putin, had flown to Athens and goaded rioters demanding that Greece default and pull out of the eurozone?
How would the EU react if Putin were to hail the United Kingdom Independence Party, which wants out of the EU, or the Scottish National Party, which wants to secede from Great Britain?
They probably wouldn’t have reacted very well. But from the standpoint of impact on white global interests, if Putin/Dugin really are against globalism, as opposed to against it only when Russian interests are at issue, why aren’t they or their proxies doing those things? The evidence they oppose globalism in principle everywhere as a counter to America seems threadbare to non-existent. And cuckoldry though harsh seems like an appropriate word here.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/will-mobs-rule-in-ukraine/