• 

Al Mayadeen recently aired a “Fi Al-Moadala” (The Equation) interview with Russian theorist Aleksandr Dugin, in an episode entitled “The Post-War World”. This is the text of the interview.

From Special Military Operation to all-out war

The special military operation has today become an all-out war between Russia and the US-led West. How did confrontation snowball into this?

First of all, we need to understand the frame of this conflict. In order to understand this properly, we need to take a look at Putin’s rule and Russia’s new history over the last 30 years.

This period of time is divided into 2 phases; first of all Russia, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the communist system. During this period, the great communist empire entered into a phase of total submission to the West.

We [Russians] have accepted new ideologies: liberalism, capitalist market, democracy, Western human values and rights, progress, liberation… All that was a kind of a new Russian ideology – a total submission to the West and following all of Washington’s orders.

However, step by step, that created a deep feeling of dissatisfaction among the Russian people; and in light of this wave of hatred toward the Western liberal elite, Putin came to power. Here comes the new phase. Putin tried to install sovereignty, or restore sovereignty for Russia, but he accepted all kinds of Western values.

All the demands of Putin’s rule were to ask the global West to grant Russia a kind of independence, sovereignty, and autonomy for Russia within the global system; and that was a crucial condition.

But this idea of the nation’s sovereignty with a general acceptance of Western values led Putin’s system to a critical position, because the West didn’t want to grant Russia’s request. Political conflicts and contradictions rose and rose until we reached direct confrontation between the sovereignty of Russia and the Western domination\globalist agenda.

Precisely one year ago, when Russia was regarded by the West as a kind of challenge to its global hegemony, while Putin in reality only demanded respect for Russia inside the global system, that created internal opposition, and that’s why Putin thought that war would be very easy to win.

Finally, we encountered during this year radical furious opposition from all the West. Russia’s sovereignty issue during this year became a profound and real confrontation of civilizations.

Now, Moscow is in a very awkward position because Putin has already started this conflict (the special military operation) demanding sovereignty. We are now obliged, as Russian people, to defend our civilization. This conflict has changed drastically.

It started as a demand for sovereignty, independence, and respect of Russia within the global Western liberal civilization, and now we are reaching the stage of a confrontation between two different civilizations, the Russian and Western civilizations.

This is not only a technical problem about how to win over Ukraine and the West, but how to win our misunderstanding of our real inner identity. That is how I see the situation after a year of war. 

French philosopher Jean Baudrillard says nuclear weapons were only created for deterrence purposes, and found it unlikely in his writings that this kind of weapon would be used today. Do you believe that the conflict today could lead to nuclear war?

If a nuclear war is ever to happen, then it is now. We are on the cusp of a nuclear war more than ever in history. However, I am almost sure that nowadays, as well as in the past, that this war will not take place, and I can provide arguments that support my position. 

So how can this conflict end on the battlefield?

Concerning how the conflict might end, or where it might end, we have three lines where Russia could theoretically stop the special military operation. The minimum position is the complete liberation of the four new acquired territories: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye.

When the whole of these territories are liberated, we could think about ending the operation, or coming to set some framework for peace.

The second line at which the war might stop is the liberation of three more subjects: Odessa, that will mean the liberation of all northern Russia. Or (the third line) could presume the liberation of all the territory of Ukraine, by not allowing the terrorist Neo-Nazi regime to exist on this land.

Without these steps, we cannot imagine reaching the beginning of peace – nothing less than that for Russians. That is why I think that the war will last for a long time, because it is not easy to overcome the whole West that is currently supporting Ukraine.

A nuclear confrontation is possible, but not probable, and the reason why I think so is that the beginning of a nuclear conflict will mean immediately the extermination of humanity and all civilization.

Russia could use the nuclear weapon only in ultimate situations; Putin could view nuclear weapons as a last resort, when – for example – if Ukrainian troops invade Moscow with Western support; or in the case of throwing the country into domestic turmoil with a “revolution supported by the West. In this case, a self-annihilation or suicidal act for all humanity might be accomplished by Moscow, but I reiterate: This could happen only in ultimate situations.

There won’t be an attack against the West, rather it will be an extermination of humanity accomplished by Russia when Russia is put in a situation with no other exit. This is the only case in which we might use nuclear weapons.

The West cannot use the nuclear weapon in the first place, because of two important considerations: firstly, this will lead to an immediate answer from us, as well as the self-annihilation of humanity, because NATO and the US do not have yet a proper and secure defense against a possible Russian nuclear attack.

Humanity will be destroyed if the West takes the initiative. It would not be a victory for the West, but a global destruction of humanity. At the same time, the West is not in the same radical position as Russia, because Russia is now in a very critical state.

We have shown our weakness, and weren’t prepared to lead a full-scale confrontation with the West, and we cannot stop what we began, so we cannot come to peace talks before acquiring the minimal demands. We are in an almost desperate situation. On the contrary, the West is not… at all. For example, losing Ukraine will not mean losing everything for them.

The West has totally demonized Russia, with a great part of the population in radical opposition to the regime and very difficult economic and energy situations. If the West loses Ukraine, it could consider this loss as the price for global victory for demonizing and marginalizing Russia, weakened by drastic sanctions and totally cut from new technologies.

The loss of Ukraine can be easily regarded and presented as a victory by the West, because Russia will be in a total mess trying to integrate itself in this part of the world. However, it will be a very hard victory for Russia.

It will be a victory, but not a radical one, rather a small success for Russians in defending themselves, whereas for the West, in a strategic dimension, the loss of Ukraine will be a much more important victory. Ukraine will be lost in any case. In the future, there is no case in which we could imagine the existence of Ukraine.

Ukraine will be doomed; all humanity can be doomed as well, or only the nation-state that will be integrated at any price with Russia. Russia is in a very difficult situation, now we are balancing on the edge of the abyss.

In your book “Postmodern Geopolitics”, you say that the greatest danger threatening Russia is the geopolitical treason of the pro-globalization Russian elite. Where is that danger at now with the commencement of the conflict with the West?

Exactly, that is the main problem now. We simply cannot win with the current elite. Our elite was established during the 90s; it is pro-West, oligarchic, totally corrupt and bends to Western authority.

A ruling class as such has lost almost everything it gained during the previous period, after the beginning of the special operation. Putin has taken this elite as hostages because the West immediately cut their access to the stolen money put in Western banks.

The elite immediately lost everything. Now, they desperately fight to stop the war and reach peace but the existence of Russia is not compatible with their claims.

That is the real panic among the elite class. They cannot overthrow Putin because he’s strong, and supported by the absolute majority of the population; Putin’s position is out of question. This elite is in a very awkward situation.

They try to stop the war, but are unable of doing so. We cannot win with such elites because they are traitors. They are as Russia-phobic as Ukrainian Western globalist elites. We sure are in a very difficult situation. Putin doesn’t want to change or destroy or sacrifice them, but they are already really doomed. Their existence is incompatible with the future; they will be destroyed in any case.

If Russia is defeated, they will be destroyed as well because they supported Putin. If Russia takes the war seriously as it should, they will be destroyed by the new elite that will manifest itself during this special military operation, dubbed the Big European war. They cannot fight. They are traitors, thieves, globalists, and agents of the liberal network, and they should be put aside.

They refuse to be put aside, so their position is very particular now, and we consider them a real obstacle to victory. They are incompatible with Russia now, but they still take a strong hold on their position in society. This hinders our progress in war, and if this dilemma isn’t solved, something very unusual will happen.      

The Future of the international system, alliances

You discussed the future of the world in your writings and on more than one occasion, and discussed possible prospects by the year 2050, including the collapse of international organizations like NATO, which could take place after a failed attempt by the United States in establishing a global government ruled by the West. Do you really see that we are treading in this direction?

I think now we are at a crossroads. We have two possible futures; two “2050s”. This is very interesting. The world structure is hesitating between two possible issues.

The first scenario of 2050 could witness a complete irreversible victory of unipolarity and globalization, the installation of a global government, the coming of the era of post-humanism, destruction of the human species by post-human species (artificial intelligence, cyber, biological engineering, new genomes and all kinds of post-human creatures), and united post-human society.

If we Russians lose this war in Ukraine, the West will immediately grab the opportunity to accomplish the globalist dreams of Soros, Schwab, Open Society… If they win, one unipolar globalist world will be secured from the serious challenges we are facing nowadays. The second future is that of Russia’s victory… This would change everything.

Russia wins Ukraine, and a multipolar world will be secured. Outside the Western sphere of domination, two other poles will appear: Russia and China. India will emerge as a third pole. A fourth Islamic pole will arise, a fifth in Latin America, and a sixth in Africa.

This is not the automatic solution to all problems, but this means the end of the global hegemony of unipolarity, of post-modernity, technical progress, individualism and AI… we will have humanity separated in islands of civilizations. This would be the image of an archipelago mosaic living in perfect coexistence.

Some could be in conflict, some could be in peace, we can define some common rules. We could establish a new multipolar system platform, and learn how to solve inter-civilizational conflicts. This will come in a new world where not only one set of values wins, but when we have so many sets of values for several civilizations.

For example, Islamic law and tradition will be recognized as sources of political, economic, metaphysical, social, and anthropological systems for one part of the world population, Orthodox Christianity for us, Confucianism and Maoist values for the Chinese, Indian traditions for Indians, Western liberal post-gender LGBT civilization for some parts of the West.

There will be no more global metropolis or one capital of the world. All countries will be as provinces. We’ll have a Western province, Eurasian province, Chinese province… with no capital or unique type of universalist set of values as in “future number 1”. The two futures are separated now, and the two scenarios are being decided now. 

The war revealed the reality of the world’s alliances. I want to talk about Russia’s Chinese ally. In its steps, China has held on to its age-old motto “Dripping water hollows out stone”. However, this is somewhat in contrast to Russia’s more hot-headed approach. How can these two approaches gain additional proximity in the confrontation against Western hegemony?

I think that it is completely clear now who’s the ally and who’s the enemy. The enemy is the globalist Western elite and NATO. And for Russia, they are the main and unique real enemy.

This doesn’t mean that the West per se is an enemy. Trump’s United States and populist Europe cannot be considered enemies. If the West concedes the multipolar system among others, there will be no more animosity.

Our menacing enemy is rather the globalist elite, the ruling class of the modern globalist liberal West. Biden and the democrats, and the liberal elites in the European Union are the real enemies.

China, who clearly defends its position as an independent pole against the globalist West, is an ally of Russia. The Chinese strategy corresponds to Chinese identity and political strategy, and I think it’s perfect. It suits China very well. China can wait and prepare for the confrontation, step-by-step. We are completely different; we have a totally different temperament, and we are much more hysterical and maniacal.

We followed the West for too long, and then came the moment to tell them: “We hate you, you have betrayed us, and we’re going to fight after accepting your commands and wishes”. The Chinese are much more careful, but they’re heading toward the exact same confrontation we are having now.

Taiwan, or some other border problem in the Pacific Ocean, will sooner or later lead China to a direct confrontation with the West, but the Chinese start when they think it’s time to do so.

They count, they prepare, and they wait – and they can wait long – but once they strike, and maybe their strike will be much more successful than ours (maybe not), they will be obliged to enter a direct confrontation with the globalist elite.

If we don’t win before that, we can pave the way for them to achieve the goal, because we’ve already taken responsibility ourselves. This is how we proceeded throughout history. We save humanity from some global enemy, from the devil, and nobody is grateful.

We are now fighting against the real Satan – Joe Biden, Soros, Schwab, and global maniacs of the West – but we’ve done that historically, and the Chinese did the same but very carefully.

We are real heroes of humanity but nobody recognizes that. Nevertheless, we are the real heroes fighting the real global evil. The Chinese follow our steps, trying to secure better conditions in their fight, but they are on our side.

I am sure that Indians are on our side too, the Islamic civilizations as well; Latin America and Africa will surely understand as well our true fight and will benefit from the multipolar future. But I think that once more in history, we are still obliged to perform this tragic task ourselves and accept the martyrdom of our children.

Do you not believe that globalization, through the weaving of its webs, has made it difficult to return to the traditional concept of a nation-state?

To think in terms of empires is the same as to think in terms of continents and great spaces in the German concepts. We need to overcome the borders of the nation-states because nation-states belong to Western modernity.

Nation-states belong to the past, not because of globalization but because of multipolarity. I think that Iran is a pole of Shia civilization. Turkey is one of the poles, along with the Arab World and Pakistan, of Sunni civilization.

But it is important to leave the imperial tradition behind, because if we reject, as we do now, the global liberal democratic empire, we cannot return to nation-statehood.

States are too small to grant us real sovereignty. We need to recreate a kind of a new empire or restore the older one, and the latter is much easier. The two are different things. Starting from what’s left of the previous empire, we could unite the civilization by a set of values, behaviors, and religious beliefs and attitudes common to all.

We should realistically deal with this observation, and try to restore the independence of the Islamic world for example, based on the historical precedent of the empires that existed in that area. Concerning this geopolitical tendency, that is more or less an old vision. I think now we need to distribute Eurasia according to the new geopolitical subject.

I think that now we need to declare the existence of many civilizations, not only Russian and Eurasian. We need to affirm the existence of totally independent Chinese…Indian…Islamic…black African…Latin American…European…and North American. This is how I conceive the future architecture of the world, and there will be no more dominance of the North over the South.

We need to create totally balanced and equal distribution of powers between the two poles: the South should not feel that it’s a secondary set of power. We need to destroy all the traces of colonialist thinking and recognize the full dignity and equity of all civilizations. 

Europe’s position on Russia seems somewhat different from its position on China. The Europeans were eager to support Washington against Russia, particularly at the onset of the war, but we find no such eagerness in following Washington’s footsteps against China, what do you think?

I think that Europe had the chance after the fall of the Soviet Union to affirm itself as a pole independent of the US. Europe had the chance to create a new construction of a common security system with Russia in order to secure its position in front of the US, but Europe has absolutely lost this chance.

The US managed to change the old European elite class: it put pro-liberal and pro-Atlanticist (totally controlled) puppets by Soros and all these kinds of global governments, deep into the heart of main European countries. They have replaced the independent Shröder by the dependent Merkel, and independent French president by Sarkozy and Macron.

They have totally changed the ruling elite; the European elite is no more European. They have no freedom. Europe for now can only exist after if it is devastated by a big turmoil. European countries cannot in the normal pacific way choose their leaders because of the pro-American groups and totalitarian liberals who destroyed any political penance.

We knew fascist and Soviet communist totalitarianism, and now we have a third totalitarianism: liberal totalitarianism. The liberal totalitarian rule of the global Atlantist elite destroyed any opposition, so Europe is out of the equation.

Theoretically, the possibility of Europe becoming a pole independent of the US is still there, but nothing proves that this possibility is going to be used by the European society that is too submitted to AI (America Intelligence) and total cultural deprivation.

Unfortunately, the European people have no strength to start real riots against these global liberal dictators put by America. Russia should naturally be an ally of an independent Europe, but now European politicians do not dare to praise Russia, because they fear physical destruction.

China is the unique pole where the confrontation now is not so evident; the European elite can differ for the time being from the American masters. But when the confrontation erupts, Europe will fall under the US power as sheep. There are no more European people, there are European slaves.

They are totally enslaved by globalists and transhumanists and the liberal elite that hate European traditions and culture… and want to destroy European society. This is exactly what they are doing by imposing anti-European values and behaviors, and filling Europe with immigrants from different cultures to destroy the European identity.

How is Russia’s step in this conflict, which began with the special military operation, different from steps taken in the past years, such as Georgia in 2008, or Crimea in 2014?

We won easily in the first round without any change in our political or civilizational system. We considered ourselves part of the Western world that has solved a technical regional problem with Georgia, and Medvedev was ready to pursue dialogue with the West despite the 2008 episode.

The West didn’t focus on Russia, thinking that Medvedev could be re-elected for a second term in office, and he seemed to be liberal. The second round was much more difficult. We won the election and in return, we’ve received as well huge sanctions and real hatred from the West.

However, we stopped the Russian Spring and Putin thought we can solve the situation more or less peacefully as in the first round in Georgia. That was not the case. And despite all the Western countries' promises, the Minsk agreements were disrespected by Ukraine.

Then, NATO proceeded in offering Ukraine weapons and political support, promoting Nazi Russia-phobic ideology on a full scale, and training terrorist groups in Ukraine.

The first victory was technical, almost without consequences; Russia declared itself part of the Western world and considered the Ukrainian conflict as a technical regional problem.

The second round was won partly because we stopped when we shouldn’t have, and that was partly a loss and partly a victory.

Now, in the third round, we reached a full-scale confrontation with the West, which sees us as a revolt of an alternative civilization, but in the mind of our rulers, it’s a technical regional problem that went wrong at some point. We need no reposition of our standing because we are in a full-scale third world war of civilizations.

A huge part of our elite still considers that to resolve a technical problem on the regional scale, we do not need any serious change in the political system, but this change is inevitable. We cannot dream about victory without a deep transformation of our political, cultural, and economic system. 

You devote much of your analysis to the cultural peculiarities of different civilizations, and the importance of preserving and protecting them. Today, the world is witnessing an incredible and increasingly rapid technological development, one that is unprecedented in history. At the same time, this development (AI, cyborgs, biohacking, etc…) may further reinforce globalization and Western discourse, which would further highlight the peculiarities of the identities you refer to. In other words, today’s technology may veer toward the destruction of identities, not their preservation, what is your take?

We should think in depth about what technological progress is. Advanced technology is not only a tool, it is destiny. The destiny of technology is the annihilation of any static and permanent identity of any society.

Technology means the change of the essence of humans. The essence as a concept is discredited in modern technological philosophy, so technology is precisely the demise of identity.

You are absolutely right when you say that technology is on the side of those who fight against collective identity. It is not an awkward attitude of those who defend their identity vs. of those who try to destroy their identity.

It is not a casual distribution of roles. We are losing the fight for technology because it is on their side; it is not neutral. It is ideological, and the ideology of technology destroys any stable identity.

How to win purely technological weapons used against us requires re-appropriating them and using them in favor of the identity. We need to borrow or imitate their technologies without letting them destroy the main core of our struggle.

It’s like modernization without Westernization. We need to filter and build a barrier in order to avoid negative repercussions.

This is precisely what the Chinese are doing; they sort out what to take from the West and reject what’s useless, because what’s taken from the West necessarily fits only the West.

We need to concentrate on the metaphysical frontiers as my daughter used to say in order to take some things from the West without letting it destroy our identity.

This is the only way to defend our identity and stand against Western attacks with the full range of technological weapons.

The war of ideas picks up pace

In a debate you had with Bernard-Henri Levy, you brought up French philosopher Guy Debord, the author of “The Society of the Spectacle”, which described European as having become spectators of life, passive identifiers of it, rather than being genuinely active in life. Has Europe reached such a stage?

I agree. I think that for many years, Guy Debord presented a very accurate image of Western society, and Jean Baudrillard has developed his social theory and has given the correct picture of Western society living in no-reality backgrounds, in a purely virtual space with nothing to do with facts.

Everything is a spectacle, a kind of drama related to publicity and entertainment; this virtuality took over reality. Baudrillard saw the involution of Western society and foresaw its degradation because it lost any connection with reality. The West is turning into a post-real society, and Baudrillard… was the first one to remark that and describe it correctly.

What reasons would drive someone to adopt the opinions of Aleksandr Dugin on civilizations, their peculiarities and the bridges between them, instead of, say, Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, of Fukuyama’s End of History?

When I discussed with Bernard his book “Empire and the five Kings,” I emphasized one point. According to him, the empire is absolute globalism, and the Western liberal globalist rules over humanity.

He openly recognizes himself as a knight and defender of this global liberal capitalist empire. There are five kings: Russian, Iranian, Chinese, Turkish, and Arab Islamic kings, fighting against the empire.

I said during a discussion in Amsterdam that I represent not only one king, but I represent all five of them, because I’m in favor of all identities, even those of the kings not mentioned in the book.

If you choose to sustain your identity, you choose your independence from global hegemony, and your future and freedom. You don’t exchange American hegemony for Russian or Chinese hegemony.

You reject hegemony in the name of your own freedom. In some way, I am an ambassador of multipolarity against unipolarity and this is why I am paying such a price for that.

My daughter was assassinated and there was an attempt to assassinate me because I’m an ambassador of Lebanon, Shias, Sunnis, and China… of humanity.

That is why you choose me; because choosing me is choosing yourself.

What would trigger the global collapse of the world order, in its current form?

I think we are coming to the global collapse of liberalism. The main trigger will be the growth of contradictions inside the global system, and one of these crises is what we have in Ukraine.

The West was totally sure of winning easily, but that wasn’t the case. Russia revolted against the West and will fight till the end, and this is a trigger to stop globalization.

The West has cut Russia out of the global system, so we have a huge space of the world in order to neutralize it. If we are excluded, we should exclude them too.

We need to create a new free network system out of Western control. That’s what our president said precisely. We need to maintain international relations in the winning system of global trade, but without Western hegemony. We need to isolate the West, and all the rest can easily develop new kinds of interconnections.

The world is not confined to the West, and globality is not limited to Western identity. We should create an alternative globalization, globalization as a network system between those who recognize the other as totally equal partners. The system should be based on justice, equity and equality.

We can continue in multipolar relations in the future. At the same time, I don’t think globalization has sustainable horizons, however, political theory does, because it promotes thinking outside the box. Globalization is on the brink of collapse, and to overcome this we need to imagine another thing.

That’s why our system belongs to the future and globalization belongs to the ending present. To make multi-polarization irreversible, we need to win in Ukraine.

I call for the support of Russia because this is a war for justice and prosperity and cultural and national interests.

Read more: From special operation to full-scale war