Although the pan-Slavs rejected what they saw as Western influence, many of their ideas were of Western origin. Pan-Slavic ideas were largely created by Russian émigrés in Europe, and nationalism was a European product. With a national idea largely based on Orthodox Christianity, Russia saw itself as the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, whose torch was passed to Russia after Byzantium fell to Muslim invaders, which is where the supposed Messianic element of the Russian soul derives from. Russia as an empire was created along European lines, with all power centered in the city of Moscow, and then St. Petersburg, with Russian as the official language and dominated by Russians. The great Russians pushed east and south to subdue other nations and incorporate them into the empire. In this respect, the Russian empire wasn’t unlike other European empires.
The Russian people, however, due to their geography have been influenced by the East as well as the West. Although some might not enjoy hearing it, the fact is that Russia was dominated by the Mongol Yoke and its Golden Horde for nearly 300 years, which did leave its marks and helped to create what we now call the “Slavic” mentality, soul, and appearance. The Russian ethnographer and proponent of Eurasian ideas Nikolai Trubetskoi said, “It is usually forgotten that our ‘brothers’ (if not in language or faith, then in blood, character, and culture) are not only the Slavs but the Turanians...,” and that “Turkic blood mingles in Russian veins with that of the Ugro-Finns and the Slavs.”1 The Russians are a unique people. The idea that the Russian people make up a special ethnos situated in the heart of Eurasia is widely held among the Russian population. A recent poll showed that 71% of Russians citizens believe that Russia belongs to a peculiar “Eurasian” or Orthodox civilization, which must follow its own path of development, while 13% consider Russia to be a Western civilization.2
Germany and Russia: Two European Brothers
Russian intellectuals haven’t been alone in advocating Eurasian ideas. During the Conservative Revolution in Germany, some German writers saw Russia as Germany’s natural ally, such as Oswald Spengler, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Ernst Junger. The Russian and German royal families often intermarried. A monument in Leipzig, Germany testifies to the historic battle of 1812 when Prussian and Russian soldiers defeated one of the greatest military leaders of all time, Napoleon. When D.H. Lawrence visited Germany in 1924, he commented that “the great leaning of the Germanic spirit is once again more Eastwards, toward Russia.”3 Among the German National Socialists, their was a wing of the party that advocated friendship with Russia. Joseph Goebbels himself initially favored closer ties with Russia. He praised the Soviet Union as “an ally which nature has given us against the devilish temptation and corruption of the West.”
Under the Versailles-imposed restrictions on Germany, the Prussian military elite concluded that cooperation between capitalist Germany and communist Russia was in the natural interests of both countries, both of which were treated poorly by the victorious Allies. The secret German-Russian partnership was codified in the April 1922 Rapallo Pact. General Hans von Seeckt, chief of the German High Command negotiated a deal for German officers to travel to the Soviet Union to test newly developed weapons and train German soldiers while sharing their expertise with the Red Army. The Soviet Union received military assistance and help rebuilding its post-war economy, while the German military took advantage of Russia’s open spaces, which were used to conduct joint war games. German industrialists stuck deals with the Soviet government to establish factories in Russia to produce poison gas, tanks, airplanes, heavy weapons, and explosives in violation of the Versailles Treaty. One might think that ideological differences would have prevented such cooperation; however, natural geopolitical factors proved more important, which is usually the case in politics.
Post-War Politics and the European New Right
After the defeat of the Axis powers in WWII and the emergence of two superpowers situated on both sides of Europe, Eurasian ideas found a new lease on life due to those who saw “neutralism” as the only way to save Europe and those who considered American cultural domination a much more serious threat than Soviet Russia, which many thought was a much more natural ally. Although relatively unknown to Americans, Alain de Benoist, a French intellectual, did a lot to restructure the European Right and advocated certain Eurasian ideas. At the time, most European nationalists were of the conservative stripe and were hostile towards Soviet Russia. An opponent of liberal democracy, he started out in the nationalist Jeune Nation movement, which was later banned by the French government. He then became the secretary of the editorial board of Europe-Action, the successor movement to Jeune Nation. In the 1960’s, de Benoist supported American intervention in Vietnam and apartheid in South Africa. Basically, he was a right-wing conservative nationalist. However, in 1984, de Benoist showed how far he traveled ideologically when he cast his ballot for the French Communist Party in the European parliamentary elections to show his disgust for the entire French political process.
De Benoist made a transformation from a traditional right-wing conservative to one of the leading intellectuals of the so-called “New Right.” His ideological shift was “the beginning of a ‘long march,’ an intellectual evolution.“4 De Benoist and his colleagues held up the importance of waging a war of ideas on the cultural battlefield, which they saw as necessary for any real political change.
De Benoist then opposed the capitalist free-market system, which he criticized as the product of liberalism, an ideology of a consumer society that was totalitarian because of its tendency to reduce everything into the realm of economics and utility. Like many other post-war nationalist leaders de Benoist believed that America was more of a threat to Europe than the Soviet Union due to its cultural imperialism. In 1982, he wrote, “Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn.” He went on to say that mass consumer society was a kind of “soft totalitarianism” that “‘air-conditions’ hell and kills the soul.”5
Ideas of the New Right and New Left converged when de Benoist began to advocate a neutralist Europe and opposed U.S. global intervention. When the leftist student-worker Sorbonne uprising took place in 1968, de Benoist was establishing his think-tank.
Although some French conservative nationalists saw him as a turncoat for adopting left-wing ideas, he was ahead of his time. Already in 1986 he was using the very same language that the Eurasianists use today in Russia: “Already on the international level the major contradiction is no longer between right and Left, liberalism and socialism, fascism and communism, ‘totalitarianism’ and ‘democracy.” It is between those who want the world to be one-dimensional and those who support a plural world grounded in the diversity of cultures.” By using the language of ethno-pluralism vs. multiculturalism, de Benoist demonstrated how European and American nationalists can argue that it is they who are fighting for the cultural integrity of each unique ethnos while their enemies are the ones who are truly trying to destroy diversity by blending whole peoples together to work on a global plantation and and destroying the environment. Opposition to globalism goes hand in hand with the fight for cultural preservation and a people’s right to exist.
A Post-Soviet Political Playground
After the fall of the Soviet Union, like many European Nationalists, de Benoist was interested in the political post-Soviet Russian landscape, which seemed to offer many opportunities. In March 1992, he traveled to Russia and participated in several public meetings with Russian politicians. De Benoist’s Russian hosts liked what the French philosopher had to say and enjoyed his criticism of globalism and the idea that the United States was the supreme enemy to Europe and Russia. Other New-Right intellectuals such as Jean-Francois Thiriart paid visits to Russia in the early 1990’s. In August 1992, Thiriart led a delegation of National Communists to Russia, meeting with leading politicians such as Yegor Ligachev, the leading conservative in the soviet Politburo and deputy of the Communist Party until Gorbachev got rid of him in 1990. Thiriart suggested a continental partnership to unite Europe and Russia as a counterweight to the United States. “Eurasia contra America” was the theme of Thiriart’s talks with the Russians, which included a young thirty-year-old journalist named Alexander Dugin, who would later become one of the most influential figures in Russian nationalist politics and the leading proponent of the Eurasian idea in Russia. It is here that the European New Right reached a Russian who understood how take some of their ideas and make them Russian.
Alexander Dugin and the Russian Neo-Eurasian Movement
Alexander Dugin can arguably be called the leading nationalist figure in Russia, although I think he might reject the label “nationalist.” Always ahead of his contemporaries, Dugin is a rising star in Russia. During Perestroika and in the early 1990’s Dugin was involved with the Pamyat (memory) monarchist movement. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Dugin helped write the platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and immediately began to inject his Eurasian ideas into Russian politics. Under Dugin’s influence, Communist Party Leader Gennadi Zyuganov spoke of Russia as the “dreamer nation” and said that “we are the last power on this planet that is capable of mounting a challenge to the New World Order--the global cosmopolitan dictatorship.”6 Eduard Limonov, the famous Russian writer, co-founder of the National Bolshevik Party, and one-time associate of Dugin described Dugin as ‘a paradoxical man who can support ten points of view at the same time.7
Dugin is now associated with the Eurasian movement in Russia, which transformed itself into an officially recognized political party: Political Social Movement EURASIA. Sometimes Dugin’s form of Eurasianism is called neo-Eurasianism because it differs from traditional Eurasianism, which is much closer to Slavic nationalism or pan-Slavic, Orthodox ideas. Dugin’s form of Eurasianism is much more of a geopolitical doctrine. Unlike traditional parties, Dugin’s movement does not attempt to win power by participating in the democratic process. Instead, Dugin is leading a school of thought to exert influence over Russian military and political leaders, similar to think tanks in the U.S., and it appears to be somewhat successful. “We do not struggle for power, as for influencing power” is how Dugin stated it.8
Dugin and the Eurasians support Russian President Vladimir Putin as long as he continues to move in a direction they feel is in Russia’s long-term interests. It can be said that they are “fellow travelers.” While Putin might speak about his concern caused by the so-called rogue states before the international media, the Eurasians will keep quiet as long as he continues to strengthen ties with these very same states. According to the Eurasian movement, “In our eyes Putin is a supporter of statist power policy, a patriot strengthening the vertical line of authority, an Orthodox Christian, true to the Russian spiritual roots but loyal to the other Eurasian traditional confessions. Putin is for us the one who saves the country from separatism and disruption, and encourages the integration process within the frameworks of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU and the CIS, one of the pioneers of the creation of the EEU.”9 To Dugin, President Putin is currently traveling the same path as he is.
Whenever one studies politics, Russian politics in particular, it is very important to take into consideration that things are often not what they might first seem. It is rather like a game of chess with people frequently saying and doing completely different things. At first glance, it appears that Alexander Dugin is much less radical than he once was, which could very well be the case; however, it is much more likely that he has chosen long-term influence to achieve strategic goals over the brand of fiery politics that he once embraced. For instance, the Eurasian movement does not use the flamboyant language of parties like the National Bolshevik Party and appears to be geared towards intellectuals. This is one advantage of not having to participate in elections and concentrating efforts on influencing current and future leaders. Instead of proposing a bloody revolution, Dugin favors a gradual transformation of Russia using existing power structures. His supports the Russian government as long as it serves as a “radical center” that seeks the long-term interests of Russia over political convenience. This is somewhat like a revolution from the top down. Most “revolutions” have little to do with the masses, so it makes complete sense to skip the theatrics.
Like his New-Right comrades, Dugin uses a different language when referring to the subjects of race, religion, and ethnicity. He calls for the preservation of “the great Russian people” by restoring traditional family values, which is basically the same as saying that Russians need to be concerned with their shrinking population and have larger families. Dugin has abandoned the Communist Party, but the Eurasian movement advocates a mixed economy with small-scale capitalism and strategic vital sectors under control of the state.
Although the Eurasian movement doesn’t focus strictly on the unity of the Slavic peoples or a greater Russia, it does share aspects with other forms of pan-Europeanism and stresses the importance of ethnic self-determination vs. globalism, another trait shared with the New Right.
While Dugin’s movement can’t be immediately identified as a form of neo- or post-Fascism, judging from the alarmist coverage given to him by certain Jewish political groups, he is considered to be a threat by some.10 This is a good indication that Dugin is on to something and his enemies fear him and his growing influence. Dugin is indeed a player in Russian politics.
Foundations of the Modern Eurasian Movement
Considering recent world events, Eurasianism seems increasingly likely to be the form of nationalism that will prevail in Russia and become Russia’s new national idea. In addition, Eurasianism might be a new banner under which various nations can form alliances to serve their own self interests. Eurasianism could replace communism as an ideology to counter American dominance in the world. Recent American-led wars have caused many to come to the conclusion that the world’s lone superpower, or hyperpower, is out of control and will stop at nothing, regardless of world opinion, which will likely accelerate the creation of shifting political alliances to rival America.
What exactly is the Eurasian movement? The best short description of Eurasianism is a geopolitical movement that has it's roots in the historical question of what Russia's destiny and role in the world are combined with opposition to globalization and American dominance. Russian leaders have always debated whether or not Russia was part of the West, East, or something uniquely Russian. As noted earlier, the Slavophiles vs. reformers was an early example of this. Eurasianists hold the geopolitical viewpoint that Russia's role is that of a integrative core of a continental bloc, the Eurasian heartland.11 The Eurasian goal is to create a Russia-dominated bloc stretching from the Levant to the Asia-Pacific. Reflecting Slavophile ideas, Dugin writes that "the originality of Russia, its difference from both West and East, is a positive value. It must be saved, developed, and taken care of."12
To these geopoliticians, the world is divided into land and sea, with continental and oceanic civilizations. Historic examples are Carthage and Rome, Sparta and Athens, and England and Germany. Traditionally, Russia, Germany, and France have competed for domination of the Eurasian landmass, which benefited England. When British geostrategists looked at their maps in the 18th and 19th centuries, the noticed that Eurasia was by far the world’s largest continent and to establish a globe-spanning empire, they would first have to establish footholds throughout the continent, which resulted in conflict with Russia. Russia controlled Eurasia, and Eurasia was the key to world empire. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, conflicts between Russia and Britain were fought on the Indian frontier, notably in Afghanistan.
If the continental powers were to form a unified bloc, America and England would be drastically reduced in geopolitical significance. This can be seen by the efforts of the American administration to use Russia as a counterbalance against the European Union. Due to its unique geography, the Eurasians envision a Eurasian union situated between the European Union and an East Asian union. Dugin would like to see Japan as the regional power in Asia, but realizes that, strategically, China is much more likely to form an alliance with Russia in the near future and will be in a position to challenge the U.S. militarily before any other Asian nations. Strengthening of military and political ties between Russia and China can now be seen.
One of the key components of the Eurasian movement is mutipolarism, a term heard more frequently used by opponents of American dominance of the world. The goal of this multipolarism is to offset globalism and to replace the US-dominated unipolar world. Multipolarism, according to the Eurasians, will struggle against the New World Order. Dugin argues that "the strategic interests of the Russian people must be oriented in an anti-Western fashion (deriving from the imperative to preserve the identity of Russia's civilization)."13 Whenever one hears a Russian politician use the term “multipolarism,” he is hearing a person who has most likely been influenced by modern Eurasian ideas. Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, himself a former spymaster and defender of Islamic countries in the Middle East, often espoused Eurasian ideas and spoke of “multipolarity” in the world.
Some Western nationalists might be tempted to conclude that the Eurasian movement advocates the mixing of European and Asian races and cultures. I must point out here that Dugin is not advocating the merging of cultures and peoples. He is not an internationalist or a multiculturalist. To be sure, he thinks that ethnic questions are best left in the hands of autonomous ethnic communities;14 however, geopolitical interests should be controlled by geopolitical elites. Each sphere of influence will have its own natural center. From Eurasian writings, it is clear that this school of thought considers globalism and American-exported consumerist culture to be major threats to cultural preservation. These fears are shared by most nationalist groups in Europe and third-world countries. This language allows nationalists to present themselves as liberators and defenders of the oppressed. Dugin recognizes that different regions of the world are made up of distinct, autonomous, and incommensurable civilizations.15 The Eurasian movement claims that every people and ethnic group in the world is valuable in its own way and has the right to self-preservation.16 They consider physical extinction, loss of language, assimilation, and loss of traditional culture to be irreparable losses for mankind. According to Dugin, “Nobody has the right to force any people to lose its uniqueness into the ‘global melting pot.’”17
Eurasianism in Practice
It apears that the Eurasian movement is making significant headway among Russia's political leadership. Dugin serves as an international affairs adviser to several senior Duma leaders, including Communist Deputy speaker Gennady Seleznev; a former foreign affairs adviser to President Yeltsin and current Russian ambassador to Uzbekistan; as well as General Nikolai Klokotov, former head of the General Staff's military training academy, are affiliates of the Eurasian movement. Dugin himself is a professor of strategy at the Russian Military Staff Academy. Experts from the Council of Foreign and Defense Policy officially concluded that, in order to reestablish Russia as a world power, Eurasianism should be adopted.18 His major work, Russia's Geopolitical Future, Thinking According to Space,19 is required reading at Russian military academies.
Dugin's influence can even be seen in some of the foreign policy moves of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Unlike former Russian President Yeltsin, who was widely seen as a stooge for American interests and a man who caused so much misery in Russia, from the Eurasian viewpoint, Putin has been making some very intelligent geopolitical moves. Russia has used its supply of natural gas to bring Ukraine back into its sphere of influence and has hinted that it may stop providing inexpensive gas to the Baltic nations if they continue to gravitate towards Western Europe. The Russian government also uses fuel supplies as a weapon when dealing with Georgia and other former Soviet republics. Like it or not, such countries have little choice but to trade with their giant neighbor, because an embargo on any one of these countries would simply destroy its economy. The creation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the strengthening of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) are two examples of Russian strengthening its position. Almost as if his statement were written by Dugin himself, Putin stated that "Russia has always seen itself as a Euro-Asiatic nation."20 In Central Asia, Putin's Russia has regained some of its Soviet-era influence by creating a regional rapid reaction force under Russian command, which gives Russia the leading role in forming security policies for the region. The creation of the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) gives Moscow a new sphere of economic influence.
The fall of the Soviet Union has created an ideological crisis in Russia and the rest of the world. Although considered by many to have just been a pipe dream, many oppressed people in third-world countries saw the Soviet Union and communism as their protector and gave them hope for a better future and something to fight for. In Russia, the post-Soviet political scene has lacked a coherent national idea to unify Russians and give them something to believe in other than personal survival. To help pave the path for a new national idea, Russia's recent restoration of the Soviet hymn and the use of the Soviet flag by the Russian Army seem to indicate that Putin is trying to create a new ideology for Russia using some powerful symbols of the Soviet Union, which has delighted the communists. For Russians, they are powerful reminders of what once was, of the power of the Soviet Union. Such symbolic gestures help pave the way for a transitional period and show that the current government is not openly hostile to the ideas that so many people spent their whole lives believing in. It is similar to the way that the Communist Party uses communist language and symbols, but in reality is a Russian nationalist party. Many in the West don’t like the use of Soviet symbols in Russia.The hysterical cries of the Western media brought smiles to the faces of many Russians.
Since Putin became president, relations with China have continued to warm, both militarily and economically. The multi-decade "friendship and cooperation" accord with China demonstrates Russian efforts to create a counter-balance to America. On May 27, 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed an agreement to create a $2.5 billion pipeline to carry Russia oil over the Siberian Taiga and into China. The pipeline will stretch 2,400 kilometers to the northern Chinese city of Daqing. To go online by 2005, the pipeline will be able to carry 30 million tons of crude each year. Recently, Putin stated to the media that “Relations between Russia and China have reached their highest level ever.”21 According to the agreement, which is peppered with
Eurasian ideas, “Russia and China stand for a multipolar, just and democratic world order on the commonly recognized principles of international law.” Both Russia and China, members of the U.N. Security Council, stood against the recent war on Iraq. Speaking at a news conference with Hu, Putin said that the world “can and should be multipolar.”22 It appears that the Chinese president is willing to embrace aspects of the Eurasian idea, as it gives China the status of regional power in Asia and equal power in the world. The Chinese government often advocates the creation of a multipolar world.
Along the lines of Dugin's geopolitical plan, Moscow has placed much emphasis on strengthening the Russo-Iranian strategic partnership. In March of 2001, Russian President Putin and Mohammed Khatami signed a cooperation agreement worth $7 billion. Dugin would like to see Iran become the regional power in the Middle East, to which other governments in the region gravitate, which obviously pits Russia against Israel and its protector. Dugin's hand can also be seen in the strengthening of ties between Russia and Germany. Himself a former KGB officer stationed in East Germany, Putin is well liked in Germany. After addressing the Bundestag in fluent German, Putin received a standing ovation. Germany is currently the largest investor in Russia. During the recent war against Iraq, Russia joined Germany and France in opposition. While seeking German diplomatic support and trade, Moscow is also promoting European dependence on Russian-controlled Central Asian energy resources.
Russian political leaders are more and more often using Eurasian ideas and words in their speeches. The multipolar idea is especially attractive and is the Eurasian concept most often heard in the Russian media. The multipolar world is to replace the unipolar world under American dominance, which will combat globalism. To do this, Dugin advocates a series of strategic alliances to shift the balance of power away from the United States. He proposes that Russia should no longer seek assistance from the U.S., which was the case under Yeltsin, and should conclude treaties with Western Europe instead. With the recent strengthening of ties between Russia, France, and Germany, this could be exactly what is happening. Comparing Eurasianism to gobalism, Dugin write: “ It might be said that Eurasism is the philosophy of multipolar globalization, calling to the union of all societies and peoples on earth to build an original and authentic world, every component of which organically derives from historical traditions and local cultures.”23
It is important to point out that, although highly critical of America’s foreign policies, the Eurasian movement doesn’t call for the destruction of the United States and sees America as having a future regional role in a multipolar world. According to the Eurasian geopolitical plan, the world will be divided into four geo-economic belts. The Euro-African belt will be a European-dominated sphere of influence including the European Union, Islamic-Arab Africa, and sub-tropical Africa. The Asian-Pacific belt will include the countries of South-eastern Asia, Indochina, Australia, and New Zealand. The Eurasian continental belt will include Russia, the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, some Islamic countries, India, and China. The American belt will include North America, Central America, and South America. Within each of these economic belts, Dugin envisions spheres of influence, or what he calls “great spaces.” For instance, he sees China, India, and Russia as three different “great spaces” with different cultural and historical traditions. Under this new multipolar world, America will play a constructive role in the Western hemisphere and Russia will establish relations with the Euro-African and Asia-Pacific belts.
According to Dugin, one can support the concepts of the Eurasian movement without being Russian or even European. Even Americans who wish to see a multipolar world and agree with the Eurasian vision of self-determination and ethnic pluralism are comrades:
In this highest and widest meaning, Eurasism acquires a new extraordinary significance. Now it is not only the form of the national idea for the post-communist Russia (as it was considered by the founding fathers of the movement and the contermporary neo-Eurasists in the first stage), as a vast program of planetary universal relevance by far exceeding the borders of Russia of the same Eurasian continent in the same way as the concept of “Americanism” today can be applied to geographical regions found beyond the borders of the same American continent. “Eurasism” means a peculiar civilizational, cultural, philosophical, strategical choice, which can be made by any representativee of the human kind, whatever the spot on the planet where he lives, or the national and spiritural culture to which he belongs.
Therefore, the Eurasian idea can be supported by non-Russians, even we Americans, as well as Russians.
One aspect of the Eurasian idea that many nationalists might not like is the acceptance of the end of the modern nation state. I understand that this is very difficult for many; however, in terms of pure survival, it is better to adapt and overcome than to go down fighting to turn the clock back. In this day and age, globalism can only be stopped by an equally powerful movement. Independent nationalist movements can do a lot to upset the current trend towards a New World Order, but very few countries have the resources and power to resist globalization. It is somewhat like the difference between a conservative and a revolutionary. A good example might be the European Union. The reason why many people oppose the European Union is the harmful effects it has on member nations. However, if the European Union were controlled by leaders with the best interests of their people at heart, it isn’t a bad idea at all. The right people could transform the European Union into a pan-European body that thinks of itself as European and conducts itself accordingly. The Eurasians believe that the destruction of the nation state as we know it cannot be prevented under modern conditions and the threat of globalization will not allow simply defending the status quo. They believe that the future will see new political formations combining the strategical unification of spheres of influence with a complex multi-dimensional system of national, cultural, and economic autonomies inside each sphere. Dugin gives the following examples: The Roman empire, the empire of Alexander the Great, the European Union, and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
In response to the threat of globalization, Dugin believes that nation states have three options to choose from: 1, self-liquidation and integration into globalized New World Order under U.S. domination; 2, to try to oppose globalization and preserve current administrative structures; or 3, creating supra-state formations on the basis of historical civilizational and strategic communities. Dugin believes that the best option for survival is the third.
The Eurasians suggest the following division of powers: local and strategic. At the local level, governments will rule according to autonomies, which will be chosen based on tradition and the will of the “organic collectivities,” societies, ethnic groups, and religious organizations. These local governments will have control over civil and administrative issues, the social sphere, education and medicine, and the local economy. According the the Eurasians, under such local governments, the level of freedom will be very high, and a creative development will be seen like none before. Within each sphere of influence, such as a Eurasian Union, issues of strategic security and international activities, as well as control over strategic resources, will be controlled by a strategic center. One can only guess that Russia will naturally be the strategic center in the Eurasian Union.
It may seem that the Eurasians concentrate on Russian foreign policy and write little about domestic policy. While political parties such as the NBP and the Communist Party are more focussed on domestic problems than the Eurasians, Dugin's movement does offer suggested priorities for Russian domestic policy, a mixed economy being one and maximum cultural autonomy being another.
Is the Eurasian movement simply a geopolitical plan or is it a real ideology under which people can be united? By combining ideas that most people agree with and repackaging older ideas under new names, the Eurasian movement is turning itself into a state ideology under which the majority of Russians can be united and foreign patriots can support. Eurasianism rejects many of the things that the communists and nationalists reject. It upholds the slavophile idea that Russia must follow its own unique destiny. It rejects world-capitalism, consumerism, and liberal democracy. It aims to create a strong, centralized Russian state and increase Moscow's sphere of influence. It seeks to oppose American political dominance. In his essay, "Why We Dislike Them," Dugin notes that "nothing is as popular in Russia today as disliking America." He writes that the Russian right hates the United States for its liberalism and globalist values, while the Russian left hates America for being the bulwark of international capitalism and market economics, which is a result of the reforms imposed on Russia during the 1990s, heavily pushed by the United States. In his essay, Dugin concludes that "anti-Americanism could be a reliable platform for the consolidation of the entire Russian society."
The Eurasian movement also calls for a crackdown on Yeltsin-era oligarchs, something Putin is indeed attempting to do (even after Jewish oligarch Boris Berezovsky helped to finance his first election campaign, Putin had no problem launching criminal proceedings against him). It advocates the right to ethnic self-determination, a trait it shares with the "New Right" in Europe with its "ethnic pluralism." It also seems to place an emphasis on Orthodox Christianity as the traditional Russian religion, which is essential for any mainstream political movement in Russia. Even Communist Party leader Zyuganov claims to be Orthodox.
At present, the Eurasian movement seems to be the most likely nationalist movement to gain power in Russia. Due to the fact that it is short-circuiting the electoral process by influencing the actual people who make foreign policy gives it an advantage over any of the monarchist, communist, or other nationalist movements that seek to gain power through democracy. It does remain to be seen whether this is simply a phase or if Russia will actually attempt to put into place Dugin's geopolitical plan.
If Putin is reelected for a second term, which almost certainly will be the case, he will have a free hand to make bolder decisions and to install more of his own people in the power hierarchy of the Russian government. He will be able to completely deal with the oligarchs without fear, which will make him and his government extremely popular. Since the Russian government is adopting much of the political rhetoric of nationalist groups and addressing many of their concerns, it is not likely that a grass-roots organization will gain enough popular support to win enough seats in the State Duma to make a difference. The Communist Party might become more radical in an attempt to outflank the government, but it has no hope of defeating President Putin, who is extremely popular, in the next election. At present, the Communist Party is simply useful opposition for the Kremlin. It can only hope to force the Russian government to adopt some of its ideas. It will simply serve as a token party.
The recent success of the Rodina (motherland) bloc, led by ex-members of the Communist Party, has demonstrated a shift in the Russian political landscape. Rodina captured 9% of the vote in the 2004 State Duma elections, which is more than the two Western-backed "liberal" political parties, Yabloka and SPS. There is much speculation surrounding this new political force. Some consider Rodina to be a creation of the Kremlin to draw votes from the Communist Party. Others view Rodina as a means to allow the Kremlin to appear "moderate" by having a more extreme voice, although Kremlin-friendly, propose radical measures. Rodina has proposed that the State confiscate property stolen by the oligarchs. Also, after the recent metro bombing, members of Rodina have voiced support for measures to crack down on illegal ethnic minorities. While not much is known about Rodina, it does appear to be a serious political force. In a way, it allows the Russian people to support a party that proposes many of the same things the Communist Party proposes while not being "communist." It also, so far, has a much more serious image than that of Zhirinovsky and his LDPR.
The growing threat of American dominance and aggression in the world will allow Russia to assert itself in world affairs and allow Russia to fulfill its role as the “savior” that Russian nationalists have long believed in. The so-called "old Europe" will be more willing to reach agreements with Moscow in order to counteract the hyperpower. Nations like Iran, Syria, and North Korea will become increasingly concerned with their security and will seek Russian assistance in strengthening their defenses. Now that the American military machine has destroyed Iraq and has bases within striking distance of Iran and Syria, Israel is the dominant power in the Middle East, which will force other regional countries to seek protection and increase defense spending.
It is evident that major geopolitical change will come soon, possibly sooner than expected. American politics might become more isolationist in the coming years once the American people realize how overstreched the American military is and America’s economy continues to worsen, due in part to the billions of dollars that will be needed to rebuild Iraq and continue the current American foreign policy direction in the Middle East. It is highly likely that resentment will grow and more terrorist attacks will be carried out against American targets. American soldiers will continue to die at a steady rate in long wars of attrition in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The United States will be forced to take a step back, and this will allow a new balance of power and a multipolar world, which Russia will help create.
Predicting the future is very difficult. By the next presidential election we in America could be hearing politicians promising to “bring our boys home.” Americans might begin to question why so much money is needed for America’s crusade and whether or not that money might be better used rebuilding America. Turns of events can change the political climate 180 degrees. One thing is certain: a form of Russian nationalism will come to be, and it is likely to officially be called a democracy. To my mind, there is no question that the future Russia will be a strong, autocratic, pro-Russian state and, at least, a regional power. Russia is currently the most resource-rich nation in the world and has the potential to become very wealthy. At this point, it is simply a matter of will.
End of the American Empire = Begining of a New World
For American patriots, the fall of the American empire may or may not be good news. It is natural for a patriot to want to support his government, especially when young men are sent in harm’s way, but ask yourself for whose interests our people are dying. Is it really worth the blood of patriots to protect free markets, a steady supply of oil, multiculturalism, military supremecy, and the pariah state called Israel? Others might like the idea of an American-dominated world, complete with free trade and a cosmopolitan, universal, materialist culture. We must remember that the American empire is far from “American” and our current culture and foreign policies have little to do with what is traditionally thought of as American and actually work against the best interests of the American people. Many so-called “Americans” might like to install Israel-friendly puppet regimes in all of the Middle Eastern states and are perfectly willing to sacrifice your sons and daughters to that end. However, for those Americans who dream of a patriotic America that looks after its own interests first and isn't hated by nearly the entire world, the sooner the American empire ends, the better. A new balance of power would truly be good news.
It could very well come to be that Mother Russia's destiny as the "Third Rome" will indeed save the West and the world will become multipolar. All empires come to an end, and the American empire is simply waiting for its turn. Dollar diplomacy and raw military power might be effective in the short term; however, in the long run, America will overextend itself, and many nations, such as Russia, will be waiting for their chance to reassert themselves in world affairs. Of course, this may all simply be wishful thinking, and the world might go through a period of much more painful and bloody times before the situation takes a turn for the better. For example, certain countries in the world might be willing to use nuclear weapons before allowing the current status quo to be changed. This is something we must take into careful consideration and act accordingly. However, one must hope for the best and believe that there might one day be a better world.
Although the Eurasian idea might be simply another utopian dream, dreams are what motivate people and give them the courage to fight rather than simply commit a slow, comfortable suicide, which is the situation we currently find ourselves in. Because I recognize the Eurasian idea as an alternative to the soulless New World Order where culture is pre-packaged and we are rootless slaves living on the global international capitalist plantation that the enemies of our people dream of, given the choice of adapting and overtaking or simply pretending that things can possibly remain the same, any and all new ideas to combat the current situation and create a different order in the world are welcome. I can only wish the Eurasian movement the best. It appears to be a glimmer of hope in this black, confused, depressing, ever-changing world. If the Russians are able to pull this off, it will most certainly be better than the alternative. The time to fight is long overdue. Eurasia arise!
No one can doubt that the idea of a multi-polar world offers hope for the peoples of the world to escape encroaching globalism, loss of identity and genetic integrity, and domination by the parasitic self-styled Jewish elite which currently dominates the United States. But Dugin's relative dismissal of biological race is troubling, as is his desire to emphasize the minuscule non-European element in one of the greatest White nations on Earth. More disturbing still is his apparent willingness, in 2001, to at least theoretically ally his 'Eurasia' with Israel. Nevertheless, politics is the art of the possible. And for the moment the influence of Dugin's ideas upon the Russian elite seems to be moving them away from absorption into the pathological anti-White power structure that, paradoxically, is still called 'the West' in popular parlance. - K.A.S.
1. N.S. Trubetzkoy, “The Upper and Lower Stories of Russian Culture,” in his The Legacy of Ghengis Khan and other Essays on Russia’s Identity, pp. 96, 99.
2. Survey by the VCIOM, PanRussian Center for the Study of the Public Opinion, 2-5 November 2001.
3. “The Lure of the East,” Wiener Library Bulletin, April 1962.
4. Three Interviews with Alain de Benoist, Telos, winter 1993-spring 1994, p. 189.
5. Pierre-Andre Taguieff, “The New Right’s View of European Identity,” Telos, winter 1993-spring 1994, p. 108.
6. Zyuganov quoted in Spotlight, May 20 1996.
7. Martin Lee. The Beast Reawakensi, p. 320. I highly recommend this book for those interested in post-WWII nationalist movements in Europe and America. Although written from a very critical point-of-view, this book is a splendid source of information.
8. Alexander Dugin, “The Eurasia Movement at a Difficult Stage.”
9. Alexander Dugin “The outcome of the political conference of the movement EURASIA,” March 1, 2002.
11. I remember watching an American WWII-era propaganda film that claimed German geopoliticians had a secret plan to dominate the world by first dominating the Eurasian heartland. It appears that America’s post-WWII policy has largely been to divide Europe. Many have said that the real purposeof NATO is to keep America in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. Now, we hear the terms “New” and “Old” Europe used to describe those countries that support or oppose Washington’s policies.
12. Address by Dugin to the Constituent Congress of the Party EURASIA on March 1, 2002.
13. Alexander Dugin, Osnovi Geopolitiki: Geopoliticheskoyo Budushiye Rossii, p. 190.
14. History has proven that, when left alone, most peoples tend to group according to similarity. People naturally identify with larger groups and don’t naturally think of themselves as simply indivdual economic consumers.
15. Alexander Dugin, "Program and Statutes of the Political Party Eurasia."
16. The obvious problem here is when two groups are in conflict over the same resources and geographic area, it is very hard to find a solution that doesn’t involve violence or the assimilation of one of the groups. Still, in theory, this is a very good ideal to strive for and it shows that the Eurasianists at least consider the right to self-determination fundamental.
17. Alexander Dugin, “Basic Principles of the Eurasist Doctrinal Platform” http://www.eurasia.com.ru/eurasist_vision.html
18. RFE/Rl Security Watch, Vol. 2, No. 25, 28 June 2001.
19. As far as I know, this work has not been translated into English; however, this is a project I am currently considering.
20. Clover, Charles, "Dreams of the Eurasian Heartland," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 2, March April 1999, pp. 10-11.
21. Valeria Korchagina and Simon Saradzhyan, “Putin, Hu Sign Off on Oil Pipeline” the Moscow Times, may 28, 2003. China and Russia have had a historically uneasy relationship and have often been opposed to each other. This has been exploited by the United States, i.e., Richard Nixon.
23. Alexander Dugin, “Basic Principles of the Eurasist (Eurasianism) Doctrinal Platform” http://www.eurasia.com.ru/eurasist_vision.html