A. Dugin: An interview on Eurasia & M. East

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor and indoor
–” Cold war was the confrontation between two ideological camps. Now there is no more clear distinction in the field of ideology, rather between two versions of the same liberal-democracy ” —

While at Geopolitics & Daily News we are more keen on publishing articles and texts of analysis in Greek language, for our readers in Greece and for Greeks at many other countries around the world, we have now the honor of publishing an interview with Dr. Alexandr Dugin which was in English. We wish also to express our gratitude  Dr. Dugin as many times in the past he favored us with special remarks on Social Media (e.g. Facebook).

Dr. Dugin has many times expressed his great feelings towards Greece and Greek people and he granted our wish for a small interview on most essential matters in Eurasia. In this interview you will find answers on very sensitive issues which, maybe, give a better perception on things. We hope that you will find it as interesting as we did.



Q1. Dr. Dugin, in recent years we have witnessed a rising tension between USA, EU and Russia relations. Some say that this reminds of “cold war era”. Do you share the same opinion or is there something more to it? 

Cold war was the confrontation between two ideological camps. Now there is no more clear distinction in the field of ideology, rather between two versions of the same liberal-democracy – advanced in the case of USA and EU and delayed in the case of Russia. So we would presume that should reduce considerably the tension. But it is not the case. So we have to search the reason of growing tensions in other field than ideology. The most likely the reasons of the “new cold war” are this time geopolitical.

But it is legitimate to ask the question:

That it was not in reality an ideological cold war between capitalism and socialism the moment of much more broader historically context the moment of Great War of Continents.

This GWoC is the very basis of geopolitical understanding of history – Sea Power against Land Power, Eurasia against Atlantica. If we can agree on that everything becomes logical and clear. There is the everlasting battle between two types of civilizations – dynamic (progressive, merchant)  Sea civilization and static (conservative, heroic) Land civilization: Carthage against Rome, Athens against Sparta.

So the new escalation is the result of Russia recovering after the deadly blow it received in 1990-s. It is the return of the Land Power, the new rise of Eurasia that is the main fact that explains this new cold war. It is indeed the old cold war, “eternal” cold war. In 90-s there was a semblance of the irrevocable victory of the Sea Power – hence the globalization and unipolarity. But now we can see that it was just a moment, a chance that could take place. Russia’s recovering of power as well as the resistance of China, Islamic world and the grooving wave of populism in the West prove that this chance is lost. The globalist elites are on the defensive. The dragon is wounded but it is still there.  It tries to fight back and that is the main cause of new hostilities.

Q2. What is your view on recent events taking place at M.East? Do you see any chance of things balancing out or are we to experience an “all out” conflict between all participants there? 

I see Middle East region as the main field where the architecture of future world and the new balance of powers are at stake. It is not a chaotic “all against all” game, it is a decisive episode of GWoC (Great War of Continents). On one side there are Russia, Iran and partly Turkey (distancing more and more from US) with discrete support of China. That is the multipolar camp – Eurasian block. On the other side there is US and its proxies – NATO states, Israel and Arabia Saudi. They represent the globalist pole, the forces of unipolarity. It was not exactly what Trump promised to his voters (he promised rather to stop interventions and to withdraw troops from Middle East), but classical neoconservative agenda. Trump is taken as hostage by neocons. May be that was the price of political deal: Trump gave the foreign politics to neocons and gained some support in his domestic reforms.

But Middle East is the space of greatest importance. If Eurasia wins there will be a multipolar world order and the unipolar moment will be finished once and for all (at least for very long time). If Atlanticists manage to win they will gain additional time, a certain delay in their inevitable fall. This wounded dragon will survive for a bit more time.

But anyway Middle East is crucial. It is where the fate of mankind is decided.

Q3. In these recent months we have seen a “shift of stance” of Russia towards Turkey from a direct confrontation to a full support on all levels. Which, in your opinion, are the features and characteristics of this new situation between the two countries? 

It is the key problem of multipolarity. Turkey is rejected by unipolar system and is doomed to be split. So it can survive only in the Eurasian camp.

Turkey has entered NATO within special historical circumstances when it was a reasonable step in front of eventual Stalin’s aggression. The decision was based on cool calculations. In the 90-s of XX century and especially in 2000 the situation was radically changed. Russia doesn’t represent any more an existential threat to Turkey, but the USA and NATO in general have become the challenge. With US politics in Middle East and its strategy regarding Kurds, Turkey as a national state is doomed.

So Turkey and Russia have all rational arguments in favor to be allies.

It is obvious that in both countries the Atlanticist lobby is very influential. It tries to sabotage this process – and the dawning of Russian plane, the murder of our Ambassador and other provocations were prepared in order to destroy this alliance. When the Atlanticists understood that they can not stop this, they tried to overthrow Erdogan in coup d’etat in July 2016.

In that crucial moment Russia has given to Turkey delicate but decisive support.

Q4. Greece and Russia relations have witnessed a lot of “up & downs” in recent years. Where is that relation now, to your opinion? 

Greece is brotherly Orthodox country. Russians are heirs of Byzantium and Greek culture, we are civilizational descendants of Greeks. The Mount Athos is still the Holy capital of our spirituality. So culturally we are best friends.

Geopolitically, Greece is not a sovereign country as it is now totally controlled by EU and globalists. The left populists of Syriza tried to break this slavery but failed in spite of huge popular support. The right populists are marginalized and repressed by the globalist elite preventing thus its natural growth. So the Greece as a country is taken as hostage by EU, it is not free. It is not a subject of geopolitics, but an object. Russia would help to liberate Greece from Atlanticist occupation but the main task should be done by Greeks themselves.

So the relations between two States is one thing and the relations between their citizens is quite other.

First is conditioned by NATO loyalty and EU control. So they can not be good, because they reflect not Greek will, but consolidated position of Sea Power. The other is on the contrary quite good, because Russian love Greeks and we are in debt for Greek culture for our Christian Orthodox identity, grammar, language and spiritual style. But real Greece for us is the Greece of the people not of the elites. It is Mount Athos Greece – our beloved Holy Mountain – of Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, Saint Paisios of Mount Athos and Geronda Ephraim of Vatopedi .

Q5. Its only a few weeks since V. Putin was re-elected as president of Russia with a significant percentage of positive votes. However there are voices, even within Russia, that point out his failure to take Russia out of isolation and provide to simple Russian citizens a better way of life. What is your view on Russia’s situation within borders and what do you think Russian citizens expect from their country leadership in years to come?

I have written the special book on Putin – Putin against Putin. There I explain the essential duality of Putin. He has double aspect. On one hand he has saved Russia from the decay that seemed to be unavoidable and has restored the sovereignty and independence of Russia State. So he is a hero and our people understands well that for our greatness we are obliged to pay serious price. So there is no critics for Putin for Crimea or sanctions. All that is quite on the contrary the reason to support him more. So he is mainly supported by Russians exactly for the same reasons for what the West (Sea Power, globalists) hate him about.

On the other hand he is surrounded by liberals, (we call them sixth column) who stay loyal to him personally but try to impose to the society suicidal politics. It is the second face of Putin who is bi-front as in the Byzantian and Russia Imperial eagle. The level of social justice in present day Russia is around zero, wild corruption is flourishing, the spiritual life and culture are in the state of deep depression. And that is the concern about the other side of Putin.

So we stand strong and united with Putin in front of his enemies abroad – they hate him precisely for what we love him, but we are not happy with his reliance on liberals in government and elsewhere.



Thank you Dr. Dugin for this interview.

Giota Houliara











Geopolitics & Daily News Copyrights Reserved 2024