|The leader of the All-Russian Socio-political Movement "Eurasia", Aleksandr Dugin, answers to SMI.RU readers’ questions
The future of Russia depends on our will
Q : Aleksandr Gelevich, I would like to know your forecasts
about the near future. Is there some future in general for Russia? By the
way, the position of EURASIA about radical support for president Putin
is not clear to many of our patriotically oriented citizens. Putin surrenders
our foreign borders, and it looks like soon nothing will remain of Russia.
Where is the reward from your support to Vladimir Vladimirevich [Putin]
? (Aleksey Kochetkov, Kamensk-Ural)
AGD : This is a complex issue. I think that the future
of Russia is now put under question. We have suffered a most severe blow
from the alternative, competing civilization. And this cannot but have
its effects. We have been the loser in the «cold war». No matter how –
by force or ruse, through economic competition or ideological fight our
opponents have won over us. And of course the plans of the winners do not
include any future for Russia. Not that we were won by an «evil people».
The winners are the winners, no matter how good or bad they are. In such
historical moments of despair and sorrow there are always those who choose
the privilege of collaborationism, and those who do not yield. We, EURASIA,
belong to last kind. We realize that in the plans of the winners and
these are serious plans we are deprived of any future. But we are going
to do everything that is in our forces and even more to defend this future.
The future of Russia depends on our will, our determination,
our mind. Thus I want to remark that the frontal strategies opposition,
nostalgia, restoration on which many have counted since the end of the
1980s have finally collapsed. The gravity of the situation was never acknowledged
to its full extent. We have wasted our forces in idle clashes and internal
contentions. We realized that it is necessary to go by a different way.
The present Russian authorities are found in the status of hostages hostages
to the foreign and domestic policy. Before the people and history they
are obliged to fight for the Russian future, but just this is what the
winners the US, the globalists will try not to allow at any cost. This
is the tragedy of the authorities, the personal tragedy of President Putin.
Neither the condition of our society, nor the subjective qualities of the
President are those needed to begin today the revolt against the winner,
the exit towards a new historical trajectory. To this purpose there are
neither material, nor spiritual resources. Therefore it is a very hard
road we have to follow.
The president must be helped, he must be supported
in those directions which are oriented to the revival of Russia. Russian
foreign policy cannot be successful in the present circumstances. Can you
realize what the winners do when the take a city? Perhaps they politely
gather around those they defeated and give away humanitarian help? No.
They plunder, kill and rape. This is the law of war. Remember the Psalter:
«On the rivers of Babylon»... «Blessed be those who will
crush thy babies upon a rock...». Cruel, isn’t it? But such is war.
In the Psalter the reference is to spiritual war. In the material life
images are transformed into bloody flesh. And what made you decide that
the «cold war» is over? What happens in international politics is
the holocaust of Russia, the dismembering of our strategic and geopolitical
body, and it will go on and never stop until the «anaconda spires» will
be tightened around Moscow. The West, the US act according to the logic
of «vae victis». And they are right in their own way. It is their
geopolitics, their imperative. But one cannot blame for this situation
the one who has come to the summit of power in such hardest period.
Q : Why do the eurasist have no regular mass media yet,
even in the Internet? Why one of the best intellectual projects of the
1990s, the review «Elementy», is dead? How it is possible to participate
to the activities of your organization, living abroad of Russia? (Valentin
AGD : We issue the newspaper «Eurasist Review»
we plan to reissue «Elementy» (http://elem2000.virtualave.net/),
one of these days we shall open a daily analytical portal (geopolitika.ru).
It is possible to participate in the activity of EURASIA from any spot
of the world. The Internet allows to coordinate any activity. We have a
lot of materials into foreign languages (especially in English: http://eurasia.com.ru/english.html),
the affiliates of EURASIA are being organized in various countries. There
are in England, Italy, Austria, Spain, Israel, Pakistan, Australia. It
is possible to provide with financial and technical help (translations
into different languages, design of books, magazines, sites, p-r to support
our projects, materials for the newspaper, organization of interviews on
the mass media etc.). We wait for your proposals.
Q : A few days ago at the Baltschug Hotel in Moscow
the Konrad Adenauer Foundation gave a closed reception, to which were also
invited Brzeszinski and Kohl. In front of the audience (and in the corridors)
they openly talked about the strategy adopted by Washington of full subordination
of Russia to the American concerns, concluding that there is no other exit
for the Kremlin. As the press-secretary Sergei Ivanov tried to object something,
Brzeszinski, a connoisseur of Russian psychology, quickly retorted : now
what, are you going against the will of the supreme commander-in-chief?
And Ivanov suddenly stopped. No special objections were raised by anybody
else, we were «put down» the guests agreed nodding their heads. The lack
of will, the spineless and servile nature of our «élite» are striking...
And all this at the time when the world is clearly heading to war. In your
opinion, is a massive call to power of capable patriots possible under
the present president? (Nikolai Volkov, Moscow)
AGD : What you describe is quite natural. It is naive
to expect for any different attitude towards the defeated side. Any objection
in such situation is completely meaningless. The authority of the defeated
country by definition cannot have «partizans». In the present moment there
is no force in the world which would be able to throw a serious challenge
to the winners, to the builders of the «new world order». In order to raise
a revolt in the concentration camp that is what the whole world has now
turned into, under the heavy heel of American-centred globalism one must
think over a plan into details, establish a system of communications, find
points of convergence among the different groups of inmates, among which
too there are a lot of contradictions. And you talk about «objections»,
We live by myths, that monstrous reality which has
fallen upon us is not even approximately acknowledged. Brzeszinski is not
simply an ageing russophobe Pole, he is one of the leaders of the occupation
forces, their ideologist. To «object» to such people is useless, and «patriotism»
does not end with objections. Everything is much more serious. Thank God,
this situation gradually begins to be acknowledged. Thank God, the unrest
gets stronger. You see, not long ago the Russian citizens merrily applauded
each spittle, each blow received by the West. «A massive call to
power of capable patriots» this formula looks not so clear to me.
Even now there are patriots. Another matter is that they have no solid
foundations, strategy and philosophy. By the way, this is exactly the matter
also with those the patriots which for the time being stand outside of
the authority. And this natural disorientation of the patriots is supported
and aggravated by the activity of the provocateurs...
On the other hand, any patriotic agitation in Russia,
no matter how small its dimension, is immediately blocked by the US. We
have been confiscated the right on «agitation», on unfounded and troublesome
patriotism. The American troops are in the CIS, badly looking at the space
of the Russian Federation. Everything is much more serious. Thus neither
openly nor secretly, neither in the power structures, nor in the public
opinion, we are ready to any hard confrontation.
Q : What can your «movement» do for recovering the maritime possession
of Russia? Among these, the Grumant (Spitzbergen), the Bering, Okhotsk,
Barents seas. (Diev, Omsk)
AGD : Today in Russia it is impossible to directly
solve any issue connected to strengthening our power spatial, strategic,
maritime or overland. The movement EURASIA, which is presently being transformed
into the party EURASIA, believes that it is necessary to start from the
main point from the explicit formulation of a National Idea, an eurasist
idea, capable to consolidate the society the élite and the masses
– into a united, lively, political gust towards the revival of our might.
Today not only the northern seas are under question, today the existence
itself of sovereign Russia is under question.
We are doing our best efforts to turn this process
of dissolution backwards. Concretely: we are convinced that nothing can
be done without a clear eurasist domestic and foreign policy development
strategy for Russia in the new world. The external conditions are extremely
unfavourable to us. We fully devised this strategy, it is summarized
in our programmatic materials (for example, here http://eurasia.com.ru/EL_new.pdf
[«The Eurasist Vision», english
version here ]). Our ideas have already gained considerable support
in relevant sectors of the state. The broader and broader diffusion of
ideas happens step-by-step. The same party organism of EURASIA is called
to turn into an instrument for the realization of the eurasist patriotic
ideas. The people with whom we work sometimes hold relevant strategic posts
in the political structure of Russia. But even the convinced patriots –
sincerely wishing to get back seas, forest and rivers, together with our
spirit, dignity, glory and greatness will not achieve anything, if they
will not be united, if they will not act in harmony, if they will not be
armed with a clear and concrete ideology. Today there is simply no place
for easy solutions. Only the resilient, multi-faced model of eurasism is
able to give Russia a chance of revival. In this direction too we must
work. For the Russian seas...
Q : What is the sense of creating a party which,
in your words, is not going to actively participate into the electoral
process? Do you calculate to take part in the Duma elections, and if so,
in a bloc with what forces? What connects you, patriot of Russia, to Mr.
Noukhaev, sponsor of the Chechen gangsters? After the sharp turn of the
presidential policy to the side of the West, your activity if to believe
the media came to near-zero. Do you still remain a supporter of Putin,
or do you think he did not stand up to your geopolitical expectations?
What qualities are needed, in your view, for a successful policy
at the federal level ? And do you think to possess those qualities? (Anton,
student at the MGIMO [Moscow State Institute for International Relations],
AGD : The issue of transforming the Movement
EURASIA into the party EURASIA already means some change of our plans.
The process of political construction within the framework of the Movement
EURASIA proved that the movement has mass features and answers to a real
need. Honestly speaking, its dimension especially at the regional level
– went much beyond our expectations. Moreover, we are disappointed enough
by the federal parties. Therefore we made the decision to actively participate
in the electoral process. But the form of this involvement has not been
finally defined yet. I do not exclude the bloc with other patriotic centrist
forces. The concrete issues will be clear within one year, while the party
must pass registration, that is a complex matter. After registration the
party landscape will change somehow. Then more concrete perspectives of
blocs and alliances will be visible.
We are linked to Noukhaev by the eurasiast approach
to the solution of the Caucasian problem. We are convinced that the Chechen
problem must be solved not only by force, but also through a political
solution. This political solution, from a purely theoretical perspective,
can be either the full levelling of the Chechen national features (i.e.
straight genocide), or the political separation of Chechnya (on a democratic
or Islamic-fundamentalist basis), or the eurasist project which supposes
the rejection of autonomous statehood from the part of the Chechens, together
with the preservation of a brightly expressed ethno-cultural autonomy founded
on the values of traditional Islam and eurasist geopolitics.
From our point of view, the first two solutions are
unacceptable. There is a third solution. To this solution are inclined,
from the Russian side, both us (EURASIA), and our adherents within the
authority structures; from the Chechen side, to such third solution are
inclined Kadyrov (Northern Chechnya) and Noukhaev (Southern Chechnya).
So it is absolutely natural that we carry on with them an active political
and ideological dialogue. In the book «Vedeno or Washington?»
Noukhaev proposed an harmonic concept of eurasist evolution in the Caucasian
region. We do not know anything more reasonable and realistic (and at the
same time idealistic, in the positive sense of this term) on the part of
Southern Chechnya. This defines our dialogue. It is logical: the Russian
pro-wahabite circles maintain relations with Khattab, SPS [Soyuz Pravih
Silyh; Union of Right-wing Forces] with the atlantist Maskhadov, the hawks
from the Defence Ministry are inclined towards the first variant, while
the eurasists defend the eurasist project. [see H.A.Noukhaev, address
to the Conference "Islamic Threat or Threat to Islam?" and "Our
future in our distant past"]
As to our activity, on the contrary, it is steadily
growing. Nowadays confusion is dominant in the Russian mass media. There
goes a tormented process of paradigm change. They have not understood yet
what is politically correct and what is not. I can figure that many feel
reassured, wrongly supposing that the clear patriotic position of the eurasists
somehow deviates from the official line in foreign policy. Almost every
day I give a number of interviews, I often enough participate to the recordings
of television programs, but from this mass only miserable fragments get
published. This is not censorship in the true sense of the word, this is
fear of eurasism as a serious pretender to the role of national ideology.
And it is also difficult to shift from foolishly celebrating the West to
broadcasting patriotic information. So it happens that in the Russian media
the percentage of patriots is inversely proportional to their percentage
among our boys fighting in Chechnya. The tactical steps of the President
in foreign policy are presented by the media as the final strategy, not
liable to revision. They simply would like to consider the West as something
good. But so does not happen, it contradicts the fundamental laws of geopolitics.
As soon as it becomes impossible to overlook the true attitude of the US
toward Russia, the eurasist themes in the media become extremely actual.
It is inevitable.
We remain the supporters of Putin. We certainly consider
that the foreign policy after September 11 could have been more adequate,
and we are convinced that the pro-western mood in our society and within
the political élite is still strong. This may be unpleasant, but
once again I want to say that the tactical moves of the Kremlin cannot
be considered as a reject of eurasist geopolitics as such. It is much more
the p-r agony of those political forces for which there will be no place
in the new eurasist Russia.
I think that politics is the continuation of the
spirit. If the spirit is dirty, also politics is dirty, if the spirit is
pure, also politics is pure. We have a false image of the politician as
a showman, charlatan or burocrat. In Russia there is a gap between politics
and ideas; our politicians change their philosophy as one changes his dresses.
This is historically understandable, but such approach is doomed. We need
a politics of ideas and the adequate politicians. I am sure that a new
kind of people must enter the political scene. This is not simple and there
is a huge resistance due to inertia. It is as well a question of know-how.
I taught a course of «Philosophy of Politics», being
familiar with the know-how of this process. Rigorously speaking, I deal
with politics in this or that form since the beginning of the 1980s...
that is, I am one the oldest Russian politicians.... However only now I
have decided to undertake personal liability. I earlier supposed that my
role was limited to generating political ideas. But, as it appeared, already
through the very first step these ideas get distorted up to being unrecognizable.
A 20 years experience in Russian politics finally caused me to appear in
the role of a leader with the support of many convinced collaborators and
followers who gave me their confidence. And it is about one thousand people
Q : Mr. Dugin, You had earlier expressed some enthusiasm
for the "Eurasian" direction of President Putin's Kremlin. But Moscow has
been increasingly pro-Western and pro-American lately. How do you explain
the shift? Do you still view President Putin as someone who can be influenced
by Eurasianist thought? Thank you. (Wayne Allensworth, Fort Worth, Texas,
AGD : I already answered to this question in the previous
observations. I shall only note that between the pro-American and pro-European
policy courses there is an essential difference. A pro-European policy
is part of the eurasist geopolitical strategy. The European Union has a
common culture, but different concerns from the US. Europe has a
different (sometimes antagonist) culture vis-a-vis Russia but similar concerns
(especially in the energy sector). The strategic union of Russia with Europe
is relevant both for Europe and Russia, but is unacceptable for the US.
This composite picture defines the frame of the geopolitical strategy of
Moscow. The eurasist thought is the future of Russia. According to a poll
led by the VCIOM which I often quote 73 percent of the Russians consider
Russia as an autonomous eurasian-orthodox civilization. Putin is a President
of the people. He can not ignore such choice of the Russians. He had to
take a heavy heritage, poorly adequate cadres for the execution of the
historical mission assigned to him. But all this can be overcome. The president
of Russia-Eurasia cannot be but eurasist. It is a geopolitical postulate.
But, given the difficult external situation, we hardly should expect any
formal declaration. And this is also correct from a tactical point of view.
Q : How do you evaluate the concern of the Russian
government about the political course of Georgia? (Beso, Tbilisi)
AGD : The post-Soviet space is the space of
catastrophes. From a geopolitical point of view, here everything is clear:
the weakening of the eurasian strategic pole eurasism automatically
means strengthening the atlantist (American) strategic ring (the «anaconda
ring»). The eastward expansion of NATO, the introduction of American contingents
in the countries of the CIS all these are stages of a uniform strategy.
A strategy directed against Russia-Eurasia. This is nobody’s secret. And
Russia has no direct answer. How to not feel concerned about the next moves
of this cold-blooded python? Yet one cannot put all the blame on Shevardnadze
alone. He contributed to the victory of atlantism also earlier, disorganizing
the USSR. He keeps doing that now. The political course of Shevarnadze
has not sharply changed since the epoch of perestroika. So the concern
is not new. It is a good that concern as such now exists.
Q : Sorry that I have to ask in English. What do
you think of the possibility of the Slavs and the Turks coming together
in an Eurasian Alliance, and preserving their in-most-aspects-identical
cultures and existence against such threats as China? In that sense where
Russian support for Armenia in its war with Azerbaijan can be placed? Specifically,
do you give any chance to Russian-Azerbaijani alliance? Do you think it
is structurally impossible in the face of the geopolitical presence of
Turkey? And is it possible at least to draw a kind of red-line between
Russia and Azerbaijan and create a sort of " controlled alliance "? Russia
will gain much from a superpower of the Caucasus, and Azerbaijan in turn
is ready to give "its all" if Russia abstains supporting Armenia in its
war with Azerbaijan. Thank you. (Elnur, Baku)
AGD : The Slav-Turkish symbiosis is the basis
of the ethnogenesis of the Great-Russians, the basis of the Russian statehood.
It is not only a project, a narrow defensive project, as you seem to consider
it, but the geopolitical axis of eurasism in the past, the present and
the future. The geopolitical role of China in this context is many-sided.
From the point of view of geopolitical complementarity, Russia has not
enough long-term geopolitical interests in common with China. From the
demographic point of view, the ethnic expansion of the Chinese in Siberia
is a quite real and unwelcome danger. The eurasist geopolitics, in which,
of course, the Slav-Turkish axis is dominant, offers China a positive alternative
of southward expansion and cautions against any northward advance of China.
Exactly as in the case of Turkey. We are interested in that Turkey turns
her attention to the South, and leaves the lands laying north of her borders
to our care. Both in cases of China and Turkey we cannot speak about a
straight inclusion in the eurasist project, but also for these regional
powers we have positive scenario. Therefore at the regional level we must
not build absolute alliance against anybody...
The issue of Russian support to Armenia. It is conditioned
by the fact that Azerbaijan held a rather pro-Turkish position in regional
problems, and that Armenia, on the contrary, in every possible way tried
to contribute to developing and reinforcing the Russian-Iranian alliance.
Turkey compliantly followed along the line of the American strategy, directed
against our interests in the Caucasus.
The Russian position in the issue of Karabakh is
based on pan-eurasian principles: we are interested in such status of Karabakh
which would strengthen the Russian positions in the Caucasus and harmonically
encourage a tight Russian-Iranian axis. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have
a positive function in the eurasist project. In this sense Karabakh could
be an example of the accomplishment of the project of the «eurasian regions»,
by analogy with the «euro-regions» which are actively developed in the
framework of the European Union. The eurasist idea consists in abandoning
the obsolete concept of nation-State. Eurasism is oriented to the transformation
of the main spaces of Eurasia into new geopolitical systems, where there
will be no nations-states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia. We must
become the peoples-subjects within the framework of the Eurasian Union
with a uniform strategic control centre and with a multilevel system
of autonomies. For a more detailed discussion, see «The Eurasist
I figure that our task consists in the accomplishment
of the Pax Eurasiatica in the Caucasus. This means that our task
is not supporting someone (Azerbaijan or Armenia) in a war, as establishing
peace under our eurasian seal. It practically means that we must exclude
the US from the negotiation process, and make of Karabakh a matter of contention
between Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran and Turkey. This is of truly
vital importance to us. And we can find an agreement.
I wholeheartedly support a Russian-Azeri alliance
on an eurasist basis, and I am convinced that there is every favourable
outlook for this in the future. But this is not only an issue of bipartite
Russian-Azeri relations. It is the issue of the full restructuring of the
whole massive Geopolitics of the Caucasus, of a new strategy in this region,
of new juridical and world-view principles. We (EURASIA, which by then
should have become a true party) shall organize in June with the management
of the YuFO [Southern Federal District] a conference on «The Geopolitics
of the Caucasus». Here all these problems will be raised and
comprehensively analysed. I am sure that the meeting will be enriched by
the presence of experts and geopoliticians from the Caucasian republics.
Q : What is the geopolitical role of Leonid Kuchma?
And who can replace him in the as the president of Ukraine? (Igor, Donetsk)
AGD : I think that Kuchma has no special geopolitical
role. He is but a temporary figure. I am convinced that the successor of
Kuchma should be politician of firm eurasist attitude, who must realize
that the conservation of Ukraine as a sovereign geopolitical and cultural
formation is possible only by means of a fine-tuned balance between
the principle of Malorussian [i.e. Ukrainian] originality and the imperative
strategic and economic integration in the Eurasian bloc. Neither an open
pro-Moscow (pro-Russian) policy, nor an extremist autonomist policy, nor,
of course, radical atlantism will grant Ukraine not only harmony, but even
the preservation of its territorial integrity. Only a fine-tuned proportional
balance between sovereignty and integration on a new basis will yield positive
results and save the country. I think that much depends today on the Ukrainian
elections not just her own destiny, but to a significant extent
the destiny of the whole continent.
Q : When will Russia be resigned to the loss of Pribaltika [the Baltic
republics]? (Valdis Berzinsh, Riga)
AGD : Russia today is losing all the rest,
not just Pribaltika.So for the time being our priorities are other than
Pribaltika. In a sense, one might say that the latter is a pending
issue in a short-term perspective. While in a long-term perspective Russia
will never be resigned to this. The eurasian construction supposes a new
status for Pribaltika either friendly to Moscow, or neutral. Russia will
never find any mutual understanding with an atlantist Pribaltika.
Q : Dear Aleksandr Dugin! What should be in your
opinion the policy of Russia concerning Ukraine, in order to counter the
US policy formulated in the so-called «Brzeszinski plan»? Could you please
comment on the development of the political situation in Crimea (general
acutization of the situation, cancellation of the registration of Leonid
Grach as deputy candidate Supreme Rada [Parliament] of Crimea, and so on)?
What do you think Russia could do in such situation? (Rodion Mikhailov,
AGD : It is necessary to find Ukraine a worthy place
the Eurasian Project. I do not think that a straight pro-Moscow attitude
can become the main lever of rapprochement, no less than economic and energy
blackmail on the part of Russia. I figure that Ukraine should mature a
rigorous and balanced eurasist policy, where the strategic, cultural, ethnic,
linguistic, regional and economic concerns of all Ukrainians should be
adequately taken into account. In Crimea the situation is very tight, as
nobody can imagine any general paradigm of political outlook for Ukraine
herself; and Crimea is the most vulnerable place. Grach, in my view, is
the optimal candidate, loyal to Kiev and having good contacts in Moscow,
which for the Russian population is also a relevant factor. Crimea where,
by the way, the movement EURASIA is officially registered should become
a bridge between Russia and Ukraine, a creative lab for eurasism in action.
The atlantist and nationalist circles in Ukraine do not like this. From
here also come all the problems. Russia and Ukraine must jointly work out
the foundations of a common eurasist strategy, and in a long-term, instead
of temporary, tactical perspective. On the whole the solution to this problem
will be the transition to a new language in our relations the transfer
of the problems into the context of the eurasist operating system. Then
there will be no unsolved problems.
Q : Aleksandr Gelevich, as the movement you lead,
EURASIA, must register as a political party (according to the resolution
taken at the recent enlarged session of the Political and Central Council),
I would like to raise the issue of the people you are engaging in the party.
At the roots of EURASIA there lays a finely elaborated ideology; but today,
in my view, our society is extremely depoliticized, people have got tired
of the many never-ending elections in the different organs of power, and
one more party will be a surprise to nobody. People may choose to work
for a party on a concrete material basis, while the efficiency coefficient
of the «ideological boiler», as far as one can be sure, is close to zero.
Where will you turn to in order to entice people? (Sergei Budimorov, Ekaterinburg)
AGD : We now face a very serious task: the
translation of the founding provisions of eurasism from the philosophical,
ideological tongue into Russian, intelligible and understandable by everyone.
It is not so easy, but we are just working at it. We shall be transformed
into a new kind of party. Certainly, we shall also have coordinators, managers,
indispensable for any party structure, but we put the main thrust on the
convinced people, on the «passionaries». From them, from the idea, from
the new live energy everything must start. I categorically disagree that
the efficiency coefficient of the «ideological boiler» is now close to
zero. This only means you are talking about «pseudo-ideologies».
The party must become a real organism, within whose
framework both businessmen and officials, workers and intellectuals will
find their application, interest and convenience. The eurasist patriotically
oriented businessmen should acknowledge their organic interest in eurasism.
They must be the structural support of the party, its own skeleton. The
alliance between businessmen, intelligentsia and administrative resources
will create (and is already creating) the growth pole of the party EURASIA.
From them the irradiation shall reach the mass, the collectives, the broad
social strata. And still the most valuable and most important element for
us is the idea. The know-how of party management is known. But we do not
mean to artfully entice anybody. We must explain, demonstrate, convince,
show the perspectives... give the people hopes and facts, remind them of
their national, civil and human dignity. We want to awake Russia... This
is something different than «to entice». In our case it is the party for
the people and the country, not the people and the country for the party.
Q : Aleksandr Gelevich, when shall we take power at last?
AGD : We shall give you notice of the concrete
date, stay tuned.
Q : What is the eurasists’ attitude towards Poland?
AGD : It’s caution. Poland traditionally discharged
a geopolitical function of «sanitary cordon» of Russia, i.e. her role in
the «great game» is to separate and sow discord between Russia and Germany
earlier, between Russia and the European Union today. As Toynbee said,
the Polish-Lithuanian civilization proved abortive, and, alas, this feeling
of ressentiment is indelible in the national psychology of the Poles. I
think that Poland should overcome herself, look for a new self-identification
beyond that of «sanitary cordon» and «outpost of Catholicism». An eurasist
project for Poland exists, but it is so bizarre that I’d rather disclose
at the right time....
Q : Dear Aleksandr! What is the outlook for the
existence of Zhirinovsky’s party in the political map of the Russian Federation?
It seems to me that his joke-like outburst mixed with pseudo-Russian nationalism
are taken seriously by nobody except for dead drop-outs. (Ben, Boston)
AGD : Zhirinovsky is a great politician
of the Yeltsin epoch. Then he was opportune, sharp, fool, unpolite and
cynic, turning serious things, about which the «aligned» party were bashfully
silent, into jokes; he played the role of a «trickster» from ancient mythologies.
A trickster is an ambivalent figure, as Loge for the ancient Germans. He
introduces correct ideas, but in false proportions, he speaks the truth,
but then he covers it with ridiculous, like staging as a grotesque cartoon.
His time has run out. I think that he was the brightest, more cheerful
and corrupting among the Russian politicians of the past period. No humorist
was more ridiculous than him. He’s got talent, undoubtedly. But his epoch
is over. He is like a mausoleum or a symbol of our recent and unpleasant
past (like the «financial pyramids»). Nobody really takes him seriously,
apart from drop-outs. And his function for ensuring support to the authority
from the side of the «nationalists» and «lumpen» also are over. Let him
rest in peace...
Q : Since 1989 (after the appointment of Boris
Nikolaevich Yeltsin) there has been a systematic partition of the USSR,
Russia, Yugoslavia (see S. Sulashkin, «Treason», 1998). How is your
movement taking part in this process? (Diev, Omsk)
AGD : Our movement and myself personally since
1989 with all our forces countered this process down to the most extreme
forms of resistance and protest which until now, alas, influenced our
reputation not in the best way. The eurasists were the radical opponents
of the partition of the USSR, pressing for the USSR to smoothly evolve
into a different social and political model with conservative-traditional
national and spiritual values, an efficient economy and social guarantees.
However, we consider that with the coming of Putin to power the time of
hard opposition and straight confrontation with the authority is over,
having exhausted its potential. Today we must help the President to save
what is left and to regain what is lost. It is a very uneasy task, and
as against meaningless dissent it demands constructive and creative skills.
Our movement is most seriously engaged to revive our geopolitical greatness.
In Yugoslavia I have been on the front, my books and texts
are translated and published there. The eurasists were always solidary
with the Serb brothers in words and deeds.
Q : Dear Aleksandr Gelevich, in your address at
the Political Conference of the Movement EURASIA you mentioned that «the
party EURASIA is officially registered in Latvia». I would be
very grateful if you could give more detailed information on this subject
(if possible, links and coordinates); I also ask for some comments about
the movement’s outlook in Pribaltika. (Vitaly, Riga)
AGD : The party EURASIA is officially registered
in Latvia. The details will be soon published on our website. (http://eurasia.com.ru)
Q : Dear Aleksandr Gelevich! My name is Sergei,
two years ago I accepted Islam. What do you think about those people who
fuel enmity between faiths? For example, Mr Tadzhuddin, one of your assistants
in the movement, called Alexis II as the spiritual leader also of the Muslims
and publicly kisses his hand, thus degrading us. This does not serve to
reinforcing friendship and mutual understanding between us. Thanks. (Sergei,
AGD : The Sheikh-ul-Islam Talgat Tadzhuddin, head
of the Centre of Spiritual Management of the Muslims (CSMM), is not «my
assistant», but one of the legitimate leaders of the movement EURASIA.
Most likely he being invested with spiritual dignity is entitled to
decide what the Muslims must do and say and what they must not. I am a
convinced Orthodox believer, and have an extremely negative attitude to
the one who betrays the faith of the fathers and then rushes to teach the
spiritual authorities of the new belief. Faith is a matter of a choice
for everyone, but I shall not entrust the betrayers. If a man changes its
faith, I would advise him to refrain for some years as a minimum, and maybe
decades, from criticizing that belief which he betraid. The CSMM and EURASIA
are doing their best to the mutual understanding of the representatives
of traditional faiths. Only extremists from both sides can affirm the contrary.
For them there is no place in our society. Extremism (wahabism) will not
Q : Did you participate in the redaction of the
text of the Social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church? (Yura,
AGD : Alas, no, and it seems this has had an
effect on its quality, if you see what I mean.
Q : Dear Aleksandr Gelevich! Do you consider the
State Duma chairman N. Seleznev as a communist or rather a social-democrat?
Whom, among the present leaders of the KPRF [Communist Party of the Russian
Federation] do you consider as the most probable candidate as the President
of the Russian Federation in 2004 Melnikov, Kuvaev, Reshulsky, Ilyukin,
Seleznev? (Oleg Vorobev)
AGD : I think there are almost no communists,
in the ideological Marxist sense, in the KPRF. The main theses of the KPRF
platform and main ideas of Zyuganov have been borrowed from me: it is simple
a left-wing version of eurasism. For some time such plagiarism yielded
positive effects; I think that if Zyuganov had remained within the framework
of the Chernenko-Breznevian late-Soviet dogmatics «à-la-Ligachev»,
he would be now but a marginal figure, and even his presence at the Duma
would be problematic. In the necessary moment alas, without any quotation
or reference Zyuganov in his works and texts copied the eurasist ideas,
directly, with some rare stupid corrections and omissions. So this may
be anything you like, just nor communism neither social-democracy at all.
G.N. Seleznev is a serious politician, correct, adequate,
capable of leading rational policies. His inclination is rather centre-left.
Since the same status of Centre in nowadays’ Russia is not very clear,
so the concept of «centre-left» has no ideological content. It is a question
of «social orientation». I consider that Seleznev has strong chances
as a perspective statesman. Concerning his party’s positions I cannot say
anything definite. I see him as a politician of all-Russian, beyond-the-parties
I do not know Melnikov, Reshulsky and Kuvaev,
the names of these people say nothing to me.
Ilyukin together with Djemal once wrote ominous groundless
pieces of information against me on the newspaper «Zavtra» [Tomorrow],
and this is my only contact with him. But Ilyukin in my view belongs to
the ominous anti-semite movement SDP, not to the KPRF, though I may be
wrong. Any forms of xenophobia, and especially anti-semitism, are anathema
to me, I think that such figures do not have any perspective.
Q : Dear Aleksandr Gelevich, I have seen your outstanding
analysis of the American presence in Central Asia (now also in the Caucasus)?
How do you think that Russia could effectively counter (or help) this presence?
(Sergei Nechaev, Moscow)
AGD : Russia could, can and should counteract.
But not by the words, as by facts. I am convinced that after September
11 some severe mistakes have been made in foreign policy, mistakes which,
in particular, also complicated the situation. I am sure that this must
be corrected. And I am sure that if we search them in the right way, the
resources and logistics will be found. It’s just a question of will.
Q : In the philosophy of the movement EURASIA a
lot of place is dedicated to the role of the North (both as a geopolitical
and metaphysical constant) in the destiny of Russia-Eurasia. One question:
do you have any concrete ideas and advices about the revival of the quietly
dying Russian North? (Dmitry, Kargopol)
AGD : The North is for us a symbol, the axis,
the pole. The northern wildlife, the wideness of the North forms strong
and well-tried people appreciating brotherhood, straightness and purity.
The landscapes and the climate of the North have had a huge effect on our
eurasian ethnogenesis. In my works I formulated a whole series of programs
for the revival of the North, and in particular a model of «arctic tourism».
We are closely following some projects in the Krasnoyarsk
region, and we prepare a congress of the «Small peoples of the North».
Q : Is the movement EURASIA a purely Russian formation,
or is there a chance in the long run to build an «Eurasist International»?
(Vadim Blyum, Bishkek)
AGD : As an Pan-Russian Social Political Movement
and as a future Party, EURASIA is a Russian legal entity. But our integration
tasks and the scale of our world-view already today put on the agenda the
issue of building the «Eurasist International». This idea is found in our
programmatic documents and is actively developed in practice.
Q : Do art and literature in the countries of Eurasia
have are any special features? Is it correct to speak about Eurasian and
Atlantic aesthetics in art? (Tamara Viktorovna)
AGD : An excellent question. Eurasism and atlantism
are essentially absolute paradigms which influence everything geopolitics,
strategy, economics, psychology, civilization, culture. According to Karl
Schmitt, the paradigmatic literary monument of atlantism is «Moby
Dick». The eurasian literature is Dostoevsky, A. Platonov. The
aesthetics of atlantism is about the autonomous individual and its peripetias
in an alien, hostile world. It is the loneliness of the «minimal humanism»,
the Sartrian «prison with no walls». Eurasism in culture even in the
western culture, as you can find eurasism also in the European writers
– is being rooted in ontology, the «maximal humanism», where man experiences
the drama of participating to supra-individual realities national, mythological,
natural, animal, class. Atlantism is hypertrophied rationalism, while eurasism,
on the contrary, considers reason as only one of the multifaceted developments
of life. The core of art and culture is irrational, therefore they are
already intrinsically a somehow Eurasian phenomenon. So one of the most
serious atlantists, Daniel Bell, is convinced that culture is an obstacle
on the road to technical progress and is subject to some gradual withering
away. Which is also happening today. Therefore the man of culture is already
an eurasist, in some way. And the other way round our movement EURASIA
– is as well the front of Culture against the merely technical, utilitarian,
monetary civilization. In this we are the followers of Wagner’s «aristocracy».
Q : Are Catholicism and Protestantism absolutely
alien to the eurasian mentality, and in this sense the unambiguous vehicles
of atlantism? Or do they also include currents which could fall into the
"polychromatic" complexity of eurasism? How do you evaluate, in this sense,
the Russian Protestants (Russian Baptists)? (Sergey)
AGD : Alas, yes, they are though they are
natural and logical in their own original context. A relatively positive
assessment is possible only in the event that they do not claim for universality
and behave as the shepherds of their own traditional herd (in cultural,
ethnic and spatial terms). Thus the existence of Catholics and Protestants
in Russia is quite normal; what is abnormal is their proselitism and aggressive
missionary activity. Our orthodox identity was forged over the centuries
in the polemics against the western civilization, against Catholicism and
Protestantism. If we value this identity with a positive sign and this
is exactly what the eurasists do then the western versions of Christianity
(more exactly speaking: the Papist and Lutherian heresies) do not contain
anything positive for us.
Among the Russian sects there are national kinds,
including the Protestant one. Being a product of the spiritual catastrophe
of the Russian Church in the XVII century (and later), some of these originally
Russian sects such as the molokan and dukhoborov raise
some interest as the bearers of ancient popular and national traditions.
But they are strongly subject to new foreign influences, and as a whole
they are a rather marginal phenomenon. A different matter is the Russian
[Old Believers]. This is a radically eurasian phenomenon which deserves
the utmost interest in all its features.
Q : In connection with the disastrous state of
Russian fundamental science a large number of highly qualified Russian
scientists are compelled to work abroad. Questions: a) How do you relate
to the different aspects of this phenomenon? b) Does your movement have
a point of view / a program of measures aimed at reviving domestic fundamental
science as a whole, and stopping / reverting the brain drain? (Fedorov,
Ph.D. Professor, London)
AGD : This is a sad fact, but has its historical
reasons. In this phenomenon there is, however, one positive side. In the
USSR many Soviet teachers believed that one would find paradise in the
West. Today the best of them work there, and clearly perceive how big was
their mistake. I maintain the most close relations with the élite
of our scientists today living in the West. The degree of their patriotism
and eurasism much more exceeds that of those who remained to work in our
country and live a miserable existence. When Russia will rise again and
will be able to offer the scientists a worthy standard of existence, just
these scientists who saved their qualification will be the core of the
revived science. You know, this may look strange, but I do not believe
in the absolute power of money, nor that man is like Pavlov’s dog, slave
to material conditions. History and man are moved by spirit. From time
to time some degenerate money makers have success «what are you doing
for living?» but there comes the fire or the deluge, and a new rainbow
shines on us... «Let down all your riches...» Therefore I
believe in the Russian scientists, I know that they will return.
Our movement has a program for rescuing our Homeland.
It also supposes the revival of science. I am convinced that in fundamental
physics, for instance the theory of superstrings there are directions
which can change the course of our civilization. They must be in eurasist
hands. In order to stop / revert the brain drain it is necessary to deal
not only with the financing of science in particular this is impossible,
there must come a sharp turn of the social mood in the direction of the
Homeland. This is exactly what we are doing. And I am absolutely sure that
we shall succeed on this path.
Published on SMI.RU web-site since 07.03.2002
© SMI.RU, 2000.
Trans. M. Conserva