Eurasia in the Netwar: Eurasian Networks in the Eve of 2015
by Alexander Dugin
The stronger the Eurasian ideas become and the more clearly they are embodied in real political steps, the more they cause the West and its agents to hate Russia.
The reason for writing this text was Vladimir Putin’s appeal to the Federal Assembly and the simultaneous approval of resolution 758 in the North-American Congress, commenting that Hillary Clinton openly declared that “USA started an informational war against Russia”, to what congressman Elliot Engel added: “It is time to recognize that Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership is a threat to the European security and USA’s interests in the region”.
In his message, Putin declared: “To Russia, Crimea, the old Korsun, Chersonesos, Sevastopol have enourmous civilizational and sacred meaning, as much as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to those who profess Islamic or Jewish faith. And this is precisely how we are and will be connected to them, now and ever.” That is, the president proclaimed a hard course on the rebirth of sovereignty and continental power of Russia, and also her sacred Orthodox identity. In response to that, USA openly admitted that “an informational war would begin”, although, actually, it has long been taking place against us. But now this war is going to the next round.
Parallel to this, I have noticed, in recent times, a frontal increasing attack against Eurasianists and myself personally, and also, in the last months, against people in the net that interact with me both in Russia and in the rest of the world. In the last days, the e-mail of a Eurasian Movement collaborator was invaded and a flow of publications followed in the main European media organs about the alleged Russian agents network of influence around the world, baptized, for greater discredit, as “The Black International”. I believe that now is the time to give some explanations and at the same time to outline some ideas of our Eurasian strategy.
Eurasianism as an Anti-Western Ideology
Let me recall the background.
Since the first days of its existence in the beginning of the 20th century, Eurasianism has always taken positions against Western global domination and European universalism and for the distinctiveness of the Russian civilization. Therefore, Eurasianism is, indeed, an anti-Western ideology, denying the Western society the right to impose its criteria of good and evil in the quality of a universal norm. Russia is an independent Orthodox-Eurasian civilization and not the periphery of Europe – insisted Eurasianists, following their ideological Slavophiles predecessors and along with other conservative Russians.
Gradually, Eurasianism became informed by geopolitical methods based on the dualism of the Civilization of the Sea and the Civilization of the Land, whose concepts were conceived in the first half of the 20th century by Englishman Halford Mackinder and developed by North-American strategists – from Nicholas Spykman to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Russia is the nucleus of the Civilization of the Land, the heart of the land of Eurasia and thus she is doomed to lead centuries of conflicts with the Anglo-Saxon world, represented at first by the Great Britain and now, from the second half of the 20th century on, by the USA.
Eurasianists, consequently, oppose Western hegemony, North-American expansionism, being antagonists of liberal values and coping with an independent Russian civilization, religion and tradition. As a matter of fact, Eurasianists are not only adversaries to the West, but also to Russian Westerners and Modernists: above all, they are against liberals!
If the West is the enemy of Eurasianists, so Eurasianists are the enemies of the West and its agents of influence. This is logical. Eurasianists know who their enemy is and with whom they are fighting, as much as the enemy knows who are the Eurasianists. In such a situation, it would only be strange if Atlanticists, North-American imperialists and liberal loved to have Eurasianists and their allies along in the same world. And vice-versa. Hereof, the thesis is clear: we are either on the side of the Civilization of the Land or on the side of the Civilization of the Sea. Land means tradition, faith (for majority of Russians – Orthodox Church), empire, people, sacredness, history, family, ethics. Sea represents modernization, market, technology, liberal democracy, capitalism, parliamentarism, individualism, materialism, gender politics. Two mutually exclusive sets of values.
Neo-Eurasianism in the Post-Soviet Period
All these ideas were restored and developed as a worldview since the end of the 1980s by a group of Neo-eurasianists gathered around me. We improved a significant portion of the ideological heritage of the first Eurasianists, added Geopolitics and Traditionalism to it and applied it to the political realities of a rapidly dismantling USSR. Just like the Eurasianists of the early 20s writing from immigration, we stood for the conversion of the USSR into a Eurasian Empire – keeping all its space under a single strategic control, but changing its ideology to Orthodoxy and Eurasianism.
As much as the pioneer Eurasianists, we were convinced that liberals and Westerners were the most frightful enemies of the Russian idea (worse than Communists) and that they would break the Great Russia (USSR) apart if they got to the power. Moreover, we were convinced that they were part of an Atlanticist net. Time entirely confirmed that: we were undermined and broke apart. And they have been trying to destroy the Russian Federation after that. Hence, in the 1990s Eurasianists were radically opposed to Boris Yeltsin and all the liberal-democratic pro-Western puppet regime, dominated by thecosmopolite bourgeoisie and Russophobe agents of USA influence. The demonization of Eurasianists in the USA and in the West began in that period – as patriotic opponents inside Russia, as Russian Chauvinists. Western ideologists got involved in the anti-eurasianist hysteria and a number of those figures adhered to patriotic positions out of their ignorance or vanity, some are simply paid by the USA.
Everything changed in the year 2000 with Vladimir Putin’s arrival to power. He began to transform Yelstin’s system in a patriotic spirit, embodying a great part of the ideas issued right from valuable principles and guidelines of the Eurasianists. For that – and for that only – Eurasianists have supported him then and still support him to this day. There is nothing personal here: we fought against Atlanticist-Westerner Yeltsin, we backed patriot Putin. Pure ideological, perfectly transparent choice.
From this, the degree of hatred for Eurasians among Russian and pro-Western liberals in the United States and in the West in general has dramatically heightened.
And as long as in politics Putin is progressively moving towards mainstream Eurasian ideas, adversaries to the Eurasianists in the West, in the liberal Russian media and also those who pragmatically joined a system of liberals around Putin started a direct campaign. The danger in the support of Putin by Eurasianists relied not on their numbers, of course, and not even on their influence, but on the power of the Eurasian ideas based on Geopolitics and its civilizational method, on the accuracy of the historical analysis and on its radically anti-Western and anti-liberal orientation, leaving no room for manipulation, fraud and deceptive maneuvers by Westerners.
For this reason, thorough effort has been made to ensure that in Putin’s side Eurasianists would not have the slightest support, and according to the architects of Atlanticism, there should be, sooner or later, a marginalization of Eurasianism and the consequent removal of its ideologists to the far periphery. For that matter, a colossal drive was forced upon by the West and Russian liberals. There is no need to say that all their blows failed and exactly the reversed result is now obvious: Putin is going steadily towards the building of a Eurasian Union, he is not affraid of challenging the West and its liberal values and refers with full voice to faith and tradition via the conservative foundations of society.
The Eurasianist Net Abroad
Already in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s, Eurasianists began to create a vast and extensive network grounded on the force of those who, like Eurasianists, rejected Atlanticism and North-American hegemony, stood against liberalism and gender politics and were for tradition, the sacred, Christianity and other traditional confessions. Often, the Eurasian network includes conservatives who are usually called “the right” but who are in definitive rivalry to North-American hegemony and “the left.” Part of them was Russophile, but the other would accept Eurasianism for pragmatic reasons – traditional society was in Russia much stronger than in the West and Russia’s strategic potential could become a counterweight to North-American dominance.
Many in Europe and beyond studied Geopolitics and identified with Eurasianism’s defense of the Land Civilization, to which they feel related (speaking of tradition against liberalism). However, the Eurasian network was much more fragile than the Atlanticist one, which is based on:
immense world capital (particularly George Soros);
pro-american liberal elite (which is the ruling class almost everywhere);
USA’s and NATO’s military and intelligence power;
the constant expansion of the young segment through connection with Western networks;
the formationg of a cosmopolitan view of things;
the overcoming of morality and
a complete rupture with religion, tradition, people, family and even sex.
Nevertheless, the Eurasian network developed on the basis of the forces who disagreed with the new form of global domination – “the third totalitarianism” – who firmly rejects the right to any other ideologies if they do not recognize the basic principles of liberalism. Any anti-liberal alternative from the left was classified as “stalinist/gulag”, and from the right as “nazism/Auschwitz”. Eurasianism was not communist nor fascist, that is neither “left” nor “right”, for what liberals dubbed it “red-brown international.” Depending on the situation it could be declared either “a network of KGB agents ” (“Stalinism”) or “the Black Internationale” (“Eurasian fascism”). No one was interested in the fact that they were neither one nor the other, as for liberals the truth does not exist outside liberalism. Hence, the planned and deliberate campaign of Western media, starting from as early as the 1990s, under a systematic denigration of Eurasianism and Eurasians.
The influence of Eurasianism and Eurasianists grew little by little also outside Russia (in Europe, in Turkey, in the Post-Soviet space – mainly in Crimea and in the eastern territories of the former Ukraine) and in Russia itself. In recent times, showing the dimension of the Eurasianism influence (almost always imperceptible to the superficial observer), was Putin’s response to the coup d’État in Kiev: reunification of Crimea and the beginning of Novarossia’s liberation.
These scenarios were described by me as inevitable still back in 1990 (A.Dugin “Fundamentals of Geopolitics” M. 1997) and proved to be both a historical inevitability and a geopolitical necessity: according to the logics of Eurasian geopolitics either Ukraine would be with Atlanticists (when East and South would necessarily secede) or with Russia (where the pro-Westerners would raise a rebellion). This is exactly what happened, with Putin leading the complex situation as a Russian patriot and Eurasianist, and not like a liberal and Atlanticist. As a result, in the West and among Russian liberals and their veiled accomplices a new wave of persecution against Eurasianists took place, putting forward endless and sometimes frankly absurd claims, blaming them of all deadly sins. The stronger these Eurasian ideas became and the clearer they were incarnated into real political steps, the more they aroused hatred among representatives of the Civilization of the Sea and their networks.
Network against Network
Yet at the beginning of the Ukrainian drama, I divided the Russian segment of Atlanticists into “fifth” and “sixth” columns. The “fifth” column presented itself openly Atlanticist, against Putin and Russian patriotism – formed by liberals and conductors of USA politics. The “sixth” column is masked under pragmatics and officials, externally supporting Putin, but, as much as the “fifth” column, categorically not accepting Eurasianist ideas and trying to either restrain or sabotage any patriotic endeavors by Putin, giving a blow to the Eurasian network – both in Russia and abroad.
Maidan, in Ukraine, was an Atlanticist move. Crimea became the first Eurasianist answer to Maidan. Novarossia would have been the second, but our offensive was held back by Atlanticists from inside and outside Russia so far. Much has changed in the course of the dramatic events of this past 2014 in Ukraine.
But Eurasian geopolitics remained unchanged: the future of Russia is sovereignty, multipolarity and plain independence from North-American domination. Putin talks about it and acts accordingly. His message in the Federal Assembly leaves no doubt. His words then resounded so like it was impossible to not understand this. Openly declaring Eurasianist platform, Putin said: “If for some European countries national pride is a long-forgotten concept and sovereignty is a luxury, for Russia real sovereignty is a necessary condition for existence. It should be obvious to ourselves. I want to stress it: either we will be sovereign or dissolved, lost in the world. And it should be understood by other powers.”
In the Ukrainian situation, the Eurasian network in Europe demonstrated its full worth. Almost all pro-Russian action, group of observers and even the French volunteers in the Novarossia were somehow connected with Eurasian networks, or close, parallel to the movement. This is quite natural. Eurasians in Europe and in other countries are well aware of Geopolitics and that Ukraine was not facing two different Slavic nations – Ukrainian and Russian – but the Sea and Land, the US hegemony/unilateralism and multilateralism represented by Russia. Therefore, the Eurasian network does not act in the interests of Russia, but in the interests of Europe, in the interest of the idea of multipolarity. Again, nothing personal: there are those who agree with liberalism and the North-American agenda, and there are those who disagree. Conservative circles in Europe do not agree. Consequently, they are turning their eyes to where the alternative may come from. And what do they see? Putin’s Russia and the Eurasian ideology. And they deduce, one from the other, the result is always the same – the order doesn’t matter
This logic is visible to friends and, as well, it is evident to enemies. Putin is the number one enemy of the modern liberal Western Civilization of the Sea once he consistently defends the interests of the Land Civilization. Any successful ruler who intended to make Russia great and independent would be, to the eyes of the West, a “villain”, whoever he really was. Therefore, Putin simply can not become a hero for the US and the Atlanticist world because to do so he must destroy Russia, as did Gorbachev to the Soviet Union, for which he was much applauded.
And the same applies for Eurasianism: whatever this ideology may be, if it defies North-American hegemony and, moreover, relies also on a powerful nuclear and energy power, it can not be treated with indifference or considered in an abstractly neutral manner; all enemies understand this well and use every effort to demonize Eurasianism by any means: via denigration, defamation, slander, insults, name calling, identification with “stalinism” or “fascism” (depending on the context), paid trials and so on.
To be Under Attack. Preparing the Offensive
At some point, Putin – as the leader of a great country – and the Eurasian ideology – as a conceptual apparatus that accurately describes the challenges and goals of the current geopolitical situation, where the old ideologies (left and right) no longer work – merged as the overall object of total hatred in the eyes of the whole Atlanticist network. Anyone who endorses Russia or even simply criticizes the West becomes simultanously a “Putin’s agent”, a “Russian spy” and a “Eurasianist”. Thus, when in Russia we talk about the fifth column and the network of Atlanticist agents of influence, we are instantly accused of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
But look at the headlines of the central Western media: all searches of “Putin’s fifth column” publish lists of Russian spies based on the dissections of CIA hackers pretending to be “Ukrainians”; or this e-mail of a member of the “Eurasian Movement” launched an overt campaign to identify all those who are sympathetic to Russia. What is our little network of heroic opponents of modern liberal world order compared to the trillions of the Federal Reserve System, liberal universities, the latest technology, global media, tens of thousands of NGOs and agents of influence on the very top of any country in Europe and Asia… But it raises rage and infuriates the enemy. Russia is behind us. At the head of Russia is Putin. With him, the people and our history. Therefore, not so pathetic seems a handful of enthusiasts coming out with flags of Novarossia and portraits of Putin to the streets of European cities. This is the waking from sleep of an alternative civilization – Land, heartland. Wakes up and will wake up until you wake up.
Now there is calm before the storm. The situation in Novarossia reached an impasse. Pressure on Russia is growing by the minute. We are under onslaught. Anyone who actively supports Putin is included in the Eurasian network defying the American Beast and is today under attack, under heavy fire. Fire grows. Pressure is becoming increasingly strong. The most unpleasant in this situation is betrayal. It is very bad when the enemy is well aware of how much you are dangerous to them and on the other hand a friend, as far as you are helpful, cannot guess about this danger а друг о том, насколько ты полезен, и не догадывается. But this a test. It endures only thanks to the idea – contrarily to the psychology of complex online games, where our opponents are clearly trying to strangle us.
We did and will keep on doing the Eurasian world network. We worked and will continue to work against North-American hegemony, bringing it to its demolition. We supported and will support all alternative activities in Europe and Asia who stand for tradition (which for us is primarily Orthodox), justice, freedom and the multipolar world. In opposition to the West: there is not one, but many civilizations; there is not one (liberal), but many ideologies; there is not one humanity, but a rich diversity of cultures, who do not accept globalization and will fight against it to the bitter end.
God is with us; understand, oh, infidels, and submit; God is with us!
Translation by F. Virginia