Sovereignty or the West: It is “irreversible”. Russia stands between a past that has already been completed and a future that has been initiated but not yet acted upon. This is how Alexander Dugin welcomes a new era of Russian supremacy in the world after a voluntary break – and this idea is very important to the Kremlin – with the West. In your latest articleThe Russian philosopher, “guru” and thinker close to power maintains that February 24, 2022 – the beginning of the war in Ukraine, which he, like the regime, calls “OME”. [operação militar especial] – Russia’s rapprochement with the West happened because, for many years, its “sovereignty” was not respected.
Sonia Seneca, a researcher at the Portuguese Institute of International Relations and familiar with Dugin’s work and Russian culture, recalled in a statement to Expresso that Russia’s view of the West and America’s allies is quite different from its self-assessment. through Moscow. Domestically, Russia is “a sovereign democracy, a concept [Vladislav] Surkov represents a strong democracy, with a strong, personalized leadership, with a civil society that not only legitimizes the political leadership, but also supports and sustains it.
“We have irrevocably and radically broken with the West, but this is still not understood,” the political thinker, who has pointed out for years, warns that Russia is establishing itself as “a great power in the world.” The great defender of Russian imperialism divides history into three moments: the 1990s, when Russia “seriously” sought to integrate itself into the Western geopolitical framework, Putin’s leadership, a series of demarcations in the sense of restoring sovereignty, and a turning point. “The indefinitely long period of Russia’s existence, isolated from the West and under its severe and absolutely negative pressure”.
Dukin influenced the foreign policy of the Putin leadership for 22 years
There is a gap between the two poles that begins, but never ends, in the historical narrative, underlines Sonia Seneca. Russia did not understand that it was a Cold War defeat; Understands that the move towards the dissolution of the Soviet Union is an internal decision. Just as Russia did not see World War II as an Allied victory. “Russia sees the conflict as a great patriotic war. Without the Soviet Army, there will be no defeat of Nazism.”
However, the researcher comments, “After the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, there was a turbulent period in political and social terms under the leadership of President Yeltsin.” The 1990s, Russia’s difficulty in restructuring, helps explain the rise to power of a leader like Vladimir Putin, who is “trying to re-invigorate the Russian ego and patriotism”.
Alexander Dugin echoes this appeal: “It is necessary to try to move towards this future. The Soviet people could not believe that the Soviet Union and communism had collapsed, the liberals of the 1990s believed that Putin was temporary and that everything would happen. Come back, it is difficult to believe in the new as it is now.”
However, these are not new ideas. Sonia Seneca sees Dugin’s books, speeches, and public statements as the bull for this moment in history, which embraces paternalism to the detriment of “Western abuse and decline.” “Russia should be respected internationally as a great power, its historical past, its civilization and the values it defends, the last bastion of Orthodox Christianity and the principles of a very conservative society,” Dugin said.
“The ideas and programs proposed by Dugin for this great Russia clearly have an influence on the official Russian narrative and decision-making process of foreign and domestic policy, which has an impact not only historically, but also internationally. An influence that should be respected by his peers”, emphasizes the researcher, who in Dugin’s work “Foreign Policy He found “very clear guidelines”, for example, that the war in Ukraine had been “planned for years”.
Objectives for “OME” means Objectives for War
But Alexander Dugin, nicknamed “Putin’s brain” or “Putin’s Rasputin,” goes further in his speech and explains why it was chosen to trigger the war in Ukraine. According to the philosopher, under the auspices of the government of Donald Trump, tensions between the United States and Russia were calm for a moment. “Trump is not paying much attention to the development of Russian sovereignty,” writes Dugin, who does not see the former US president as “a staunch Atlanticist.” Therefore, Trump judged that “moderate performance of the Russian economy does not pose a serious threat”, not worried about Crimea, but about China.
The government of Joe Biden, “a confident Atlanticist and globalist”, changed everything, asserts Alexander Dugin. Biden, analyzing the thinker, “is well aware that any Russian success in expanding its influence challenges globalisation, a unipolar world and US hegemony”.
Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections “casts a shadow over the Trump administration,” admits researcher Sonia Seneca. This is one of the factors that helps explain why the two leaderships were so different in the eyes of the Kremlin. During Donald Trump’s administration, “Moscow’s biggest international adversary has a pro-Russian leadership,” along with Joe Biden, Russia was under more pressure. “Even before the international campaign, Biden saw Russia as the biggest threat and had already called Putin a murderer before the invasion,” says Sonia Seneca, who attended the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy in Moscow in 2003.
Sonia Seneca argues that Dugin’s theories apply to foreign policy decisions. Indeed, in his words, Alexander Dugin is authoritative. First, he makes accusations: “From the summer of 2021, the United States and NATO began planning a military operation to seize Donbass and attack Crimea. Thus, Donbass was turned into a powerful center for future military aggression against Russia with foreign instructors and mercenaries.” Later, he justifies the regime’s move: “Putin didn’t wait until early March when the move was planned, he struck first.” And, like the Kremlin, it considers the first phase of the war a success, meaning it was decided “favorably” for Russia.
“Putinism”, the Eurasian axis and the “absolutely necessary” purge
With more “sovereignty” and contempt for international norms, Russia is beginning to move down the path of formal authoritarianism. This, at least, sums up Dugin in these lines about undeniable power: “It [este momento] That would require institutionalization of Putin’s doctrine, not just loyalty to him personally. This would mean the establishment of a new ideology, a kind of “Putinism”, in which the basic principles of unified sovereignty would be enshrined, and then other political and administrative mechanisms would have to be incorporated.” The need for “ideology” therefore, hypothesized: “Without a completely original ideology, we will not survive the conflict with the West. Russia’s ideologization is inevitable, it cannot be avoided.”
The Russian thinker puts arbitrary detention in the service of the regime and the identity of the state, warns that “the place of traitors and liberals is predetermined by war and emergency laws”, so the purge is “inevitable and absolutely necessary.”. They have not yet begun, “but they will certainly begin, they are the first No, not even secondary”, Dugin rejects, while regretting that the Russian elite is worried about dismissals and arrests. “Anyone who disagrees with sovereignty and Eurasianism is already dead. It is undeniable.”
Dukin insists that Russia has moved away from the West, not the other way around “as the West would like.” As Sonia Seneca points out, this “Eurasian call” and “Russian exceptionalism” are not limited to Putin’s rhetoric. The Russian president will drink from the words of theoretical inspiration for “the challenge of the international order, North American hegemony and the expansion of NATO and EU institutions”.
The Portuguese researcher agrees with Dugin on this point: the Western isolationist effort is not working. “There is a clear attempt to isolate Russia through this dual strategy, economic and concerted battery reinforcement, but Russia is doing the same thing. This is something that has already been considered in Moscow.”
Already the target of sanctions, Russia, anticipating its strengthening, signed an “unlimited partnership with China” and organized “Lavrov’s trips to Africa and the Middle East,” assures Sonia Seneca. “India is the most important partner of the United States in the Indo-Pacific issue, but it is also one of the main trading partners of the Russian Federation. It does not condemn Russia and does not associate itself with economic sanctions.”
Alexander Dugin, who expects allies to list Russia, writes: “Today it all depends on how we build relations with China, India, Turkey, Iran, Middle Eastern countries, African countries or Latin America.”
Vladimir Putin’s ideological roots are essential to understanding Russian foreign policy. Sonia Seneca refers to Dukin’s words as “conflicting views defended by Putin and influential academics like Karaganov in the Kremlin”. Dukin’s warning also began: “We must start with the main thing, ideology. Everything else is secondary. Something tells me that those in power and those who are truly responsible for the destiny of the country and the people are thinking right. The same way.”