February 25, 2014

Aleksandr Dugin and the Great Game

My new column in Taki's magazine considers the rightwing Russian geopolitical theorist Aleksandr Dugin:
Because Ukraine (a word that may mean “borderlands,” although like everything else about the place, the etymology remains in dispute) lacks both natural defenses and an agreed-upon national identity, this wide expanse of Slavic-language-speaking territory has long attracted the attention of the most audacious geopolitical philosophers. They have seen it as the crucial blank slate upon which to inscribe their designs for world domination. In turn, Ukraine’s fundamental vulnerability motivates locals toward extremes of nationalism (although not always in agreement with their neighbors' conceptions of nationalism). 
Ukraine’s perennially precarious geopolitical situation was memorably parodied in a 1995 Seinfeld episode in which Kramer and Newman are playing the board game Risk on the subway. Kramer taunts Newman, “I’ve driven you out of Western Europe, and I’ve left you teetering on the brink of complete annihilation.” 
Newman desperately bluffs, “I’m not beaten yet! I still have armies in the Ukraine.” 
“The Ukraine? You know what the Ukraine is, it’s a sitting duck,” scoffs Kramer. “A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It’s feeble. I think it’s time to put the hurt on the Ukraine….” 
A fellow passenger, a deep-voiced Ukrainian in a fur hat, is naturally outraged. He asks, “Ukraine is game to you?” before smashing the board. 
To the misfortune of the people who live there, Ukraine is a game to the idea men (and women, such as neoconservative insider Victoria Nuland) of numerous surrounding deep states.

Read the whole thing there.
    

87 comments:

Anonymous said...

They say Drake buried his pirate loot up around Marin, north of the Golden Gate. I'm sure it's true. Don't anyone tell the state of California.

Anonymous said...

Dugin is a hack and not a particularly good one either. I mean he couldn't even come up with a good name for his ideas. He just calls it the "fourth political theory".

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NX_UHKvUEY

It's in Russian, but Dugin is member no. 3 of the Steve Sailer club of nationalist admirers of Israel. Tyanibok is no. 2.

Good article. But the GRU was more like the DIA than the NSA. Nobody knows about the DIA since its work isn't as sexy as listening to Frau Merkel's phone calls--it's just boring HUMINT.

Anonymous said...

As this current crisis seems, at bottom, to be a classic example of 19th century or early 20th century empire building, power blocs and 'spheres of influence' type thinking, perhaps a classic Versailles Peace Deal type solution is in order.

Perhaps Ukraine can be renamed as the 'Ukrainian Free State' = and deliberately constituionally set up as a neutral 'buffer state' between the competing power blocs of the EU and Russia, in the same way Belgium was established by the British in the 1830s as a 'natural buffer' between France and Germany.
Both power blocs should make a solmn pact to renounce all claims to suzerainty over Ukraine, a neutral 'League of Nations' type over-administration should be emplaced to preserve Ukrainian neutrality.

Hunsdon said...

As I was, as they say, reading the whole thing over at Taki's, and read the mention of Mahan, I found myself thinking, "But wait, what about, dad gum it, what's his name, the world-island guy?" Sure enough, on the very next page, there was our old friend Halford Mackinder!

I suppose I am more of a Mackinderist than a Mahanite. (Or are there other adjectival forms I'm unaware of?)

Jerry said...

1. Is America's current air superiority really the same as naval advantage? I was always impressed by the way that the B2 bombers are able to take off from American bases, bomb a target anywhere in the world, refuel over neutral waters, and return to base.

2. Putin was in the KGB when Soviet Russia was indeed the "evil empire," as Reagan so memorably said. To praise him as some kind of defender of Western values seems morally insane.

3. Here is a reasonable article from today's press comparing Poland and Ukraine, google translation recommended for those who don't, for whatever reason (!), command the Polish language:

http://forsal.pl/artykuly/780100,historyczne-pkb-per-capita-polski-i-ukrainy-1990-2012-wykres-dnia.html

Anonymous said...

"In compensation, Germany would get back Eastern Prussia, and China would be given the green light to take Australia."

Given this willingness to give Australia away, it is deeply weird how so many White Nationalist types revere Dugin.....

Anonymous said...

As you point out, Steve, it is deeply interesting how Ukraine seems to excite people with a geopolitical bent: The German imperial elite in 1914-18 (Brest-Litovsk), Hitler in 1939-45 (Generalplan Ost), Dugin with his Eurasian fantasies, etc.

It's also interesting how the continental enemies of Anglo power seemed to be obsessed with thalassocracy, said obsession either moving them to imitation (cf the Kaiser's push for a grand navy in the 1890s and the Soviet attempt to build a Russian naval tradition out of the aether in the 60s and 70s)or to deprecation (cf Carl Schmitt's ideas about the sea as the realm of war and Dugin's notions regarding the moral superiority of land-power over sea-power).

Anonymous said...

"Similarly,Cuba helped bankrupt the Soviet Union in the 1980s."

The USSR did not go bankrupt in the 1980s. It was not heavily in debt. There were no signs of economic stress. The idea that there were such signs is a post-facto justification by the looter-oligarchs. "We didn't destroy it, it was going to collapse anyway".

Anonymous said...

Given how legend shapes thought, it is interesting to note how much the Anglo mind has been molded by stirring tales of Anglo triumph at sea: Drake, Hawkins, Gilbert, Raleigh, Stephen Decatur, David Porter, John Paul Jones*, the voyage of the Pilgrims to the New World, James Cook, Charles Wilkes, the settlement of Australia, the voyage of the Arbella, etc.

Russia, in contrast, lacks a legend of the sea. For that matter, there was also the Marxist habit of defining sea power as inherently capitalistic....

* fun fact about Jones; after his service in the Revolution, he went to work for Catherine II of Russia.

SFG said...

"It's in Russian, but Dugin is member no. 3 of the Steve Sailer club of nationalist admirers of Israel. Tyanibok is no. 2."

Is Israel a threat to Russia? Seems to me like they have quite a few enemies in common...

Anonymous said...

Somehow, I'm tempted to imagine Dugin trapped, a la NO EXIT, in a room with Brooks Adams for all eternity...


syon

Anonymous said...

In reality, this grand strategy is largely compensatory bluster. Compared to Uncle
Sam, Russia—like Ukraine—is weak. It’s militarily feeble.


First, this is what Napoleon and Hitler thought. Second, Russia has lots of nuclear weapons. Third, it's fiscally sound, with debt to GDP ratio around 0.12. The US and the EU are heavily in debt. We don't know how this debt situation will be resolved, what long-term implications for the West's military strength it will have.

"By geography, history, and culture, America is a more privileged place than Russia, and thus American conservatives have more and better privileges to conserve than the poor Russians do."

Talk about compensatory bluster. Russians have an ancient, relatively well-defined ethnos and culture to conserve. This includes a national church. Americans have a more recent, less well-defined ethnos and culture, which on top of that constitutes a smaller portion of the country's total population (I'm talking about American-Americans). Ethnic Russians are roughly three quarters of Russia's population.

"The nations that have enjoyed sea power even for a brief period—Athens, Scandinavia, the Netherlands,
England, the United States—are those that have preserved freedom for themselves and have given it to others."


I don't think that the constituent members of the Delian League (aka Athenian Empire) though that Athens had given them freedom. When the Brits and the Dutch conquered countries, they essentially took away those countries' freedom and gave them good government instead. Man, being tribal, always prefers freedom to good government.

FredR said...

Surely the anti-tyrannical benefits of a strong navy vs. a strong army were a long-running theme in English intellectual history, rather than a New England invention...

Anonymous said...

"The fundamental axiom of Russian conservatism can be traced to the time of the monarchy and is known by a simple formula: “Good tsar—bad elites.”

If you watch Russian TV news, you often see Putin chiding or sternly warning government officials as they nod politely or look down. This is very un-Western, but seems completely natural to Russians. Putin did not invent it. People want a good tsar whom the bureaucracy (which is expected to be pettily selfish) would fear. When Russians praise Stalin, it is mostly for instilling fear into the bureaucracy. Nobody stole government money under him - they were too scared to do that.

The guy at the top is seen as at least having the potential to represent the public good, the country as a whole. Yeltsin clearly failed at that role. Ministers, governors, mayors are expected to care about themselves. A good tsar should discipline them frequently, should talk tough with them, like a father with bratty kids. That's the psychology.

Anonymous said...

Mahanian.

Steve Sailer said...

I mentioned the part about letting the Chinese take Australia because that's where I said, "Nope." As a Southern Californian, Australia is off limits. Brothers in surfing and all that.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"The USSR did not go bankrupt in the 1980s. It was not heavily in debt. There were no signs of economic stress. The idea that there were such signs is a post-facto justification by the looter-oligarchs. "We didn't destroy it, it was going to collapse anyway"."

There were a lot of signs of economic stress, dear boy. Your failure to see them indicates that you are as poor an analyst as the 80s CIA. Of course, the CIA did not enjoy the highly useful advantage of hindsight....

Anonymous said...

Jerry said:

"Putin was in the KGB when Soviet Russia was indeed the "evil empire," as Reagan so memorably said. To praise him as some kind of defender of Western values seems morally insane."

Putin is most hated by Russia's most committed enemies - the neocons, Poles. That's one more proof (as if more were needed) that he truly is a Russian patriot. If he wasn't, the people who wish Russia ill would be less exercised about him. Caring about Russia's interests is in his job description, and he's good at his job.

Anonymous said...

Australia is an Atlanticist outpost: first as a part of the British Empire and after WWII as a part of the American Empire. So it's not so much a matter of Dugin and Russia, a Eurasian land power, "giving away" Australia, since they never had it in the first place. Just as Hitler and Nazi Germany, that other European land power, allied with Japan which tried to take over Australia.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"First, this is what Napoleon and Hitler thought."

Somehow, I don't think that the US is planning on invading the Russian mainland, dear boy.


Anonymous:" Second, Russia has lots of nuclear weapons."

Yes, dear boy. Another reason why there will never be a great power confrontation.


Anonymous:" Third, it's fiscally sound, with debt to GDP ratio around 0.12."

This "soundness" being heavily reliant on resource extraction (e.g., oil, etc). Russia's economic profile looks quite third world, not like an industrial superpower.

Anonumois:" The US and the EU are heavily in debt. We don't know how this debt situation will be resolved, what long-term implications for the West's military strength it will have."

Probably not enough to allow Russian tanks to roll up 5th avenues, dear boy.



Anonymous:"Talk about compensatory bluster. Russians have an ancient, relatively well-defined ethnos and culture to conserve."

Ancient? Compared to whom? Italy?


Anonymous:" This includes a national church."

MMMMM, guess Jefferson and Co. should have tried to set up something that could have bridged the gap among Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc

Anonymous:" Americans have a more recent, less well-defined ethnos and culture, which on top of that constitutes a smaller portion of the country's total population (I'm talking about American-Americans). Ethnic Russians are roughly three quarters of Russia's population."

Odd, then, how the USA managed to avoid a Marxian inspired revolution....unlike some nations I could mention.



Anonymous said...

FredR:"Surely the anti-tyrannical benefits of a strong navy vs. a strong army were a long-running theme in English intellectual history, rather than a New England invention..."

Absolutely. This just another case of America observing a hallowed Anglo tradition.

Anonymous said...

As to why Putin joined the KGB, he's explained that in interviews. He watched a lot of WWII-themed movies as a kid. Everyone in the USSR did of course. He said he was particularly impressed by the impact that an intelligence officer could have on the war and on the course of history in general. By getting some piece of information one man could help his country more than entire divisions. So, while still a kid, he decided that he would try to become an intelligence officer. And did. He actually served in that capacity in Germany. Knows German to this day because of that.

Anonymous said...



Note how Sea-based Empires (Britain, The Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, etc)earn most of leftist academia's enmity, while land-based empires (China, the Ottomans, Imperial Russia*, etc) go relatively unnoticed.

Perhaps Dugin's hydrophobia might help him square the circle and make allies among the multiculti brigade.

*Interesting side-note, but Lenin censored his discussion of Russian Imperialism in his IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM ("In order to show the reader, in a guise acceptable to the censors, how shamelessly the capitalists and the social-chauvinists who have deserted to their side (and whom Kautsky opposes with so much inconsistency) lie on the question of annexations, in order to show how shamelessly they screen the annexations of their capitalists, I was forced to quote as an example--Japan! The careful reader will easily substitute Russia for Japan, and Finland, Poland, Courland, the Ukraine, Khiva, Bokhara, Estonia or other regions peopled by non-Great Russians, for Korea."}

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"Australia is an Atlanticist outpost: first as a part of the British Empire and after WWII as a part of the American Empire."

In other words, its part of the Anglo hegemony, the target for Continental malice since, oh, the late 18th century.


Anonymous:" So it's not so much a matter of Dugin and Russia, a Eurasian land power, "giving away" Australia, since they never had it in the first place."

I think that we are meant to see this as Dugin's RISK wet dream. Eurasian Superpower Russia, on a power high after crushing those perfidious Anglos, agrees to allow China to take a free hand in Australia.


Anonymous:" Just as Hitler and Nazi Germany, that other European land power, allied with Japan which tried to take over Australia."

Well, yes. Dugin does seem quite keen on establishing an aetiology for his fantasies-from the Kaiser to Putin in 4 easy steps.

AmericanGoy said...

"To the misfortune of the people who live there, Ukraine is a game to the idea men (and women, such as neoconservative insider Victoria Nuland) of numerous surrounding deep states.".

True dat Steve-o, Ukraina is just a plaything for the elites who rule us.

But then again, so is Hungary. Romania. UK. USA...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"As to why Putin joined the KGB, he's explained that in interviews. He watched a lot of WWII-themed movies as a kid. Everyone in the USSR did of course. He said he was particularly impressed by the impact that an intelligence officer could have on the war and on the course of history in general. By getting some piece of information one man could help his country more than entire divisions. So, while still a kid, he decided that he would try to become an intelligence officer. And did. He actually served in that capacity in Germany. Knows German to this day because of that."

Given the monstrous deeds of the Cheka/NKVD/KGB complex, one must assume one of two things:

1. Putin is lying, and he joined the KGB because he wanted to be a part of such a powerful organization.

2. Putin is telling the truth. In which case he is frighteningly naive.

Given Putin's track record, I'm betting on 1.

Anonymous said...

Somehow, I'm tempted to imagine Dugin trapped, a la NO EXIT, in a room with Brooks Adams for all eternity...

I'm tempted to imagine Syon trapped in a room with Michael Sheen in full Twilight mode for all eternity...

Anonymous said...

Man, being tribal, always prefers freedom to good government.

Unless he's Canadian.

Anonymous said...

I think that we are meant to see this as Dugin's RISK wet dream. Eurasian Superpower Russia, on a power high after crushing those perfidious Anglos, agrees to allow China to take a free hand in Australia.

That's not really what Dugin says. Steve sort of misrepresents him to make him look more sinister than he is.

What Dugin says is that Russian foreign policy should steer China away from Central Asia and Siberia/NE Asia, which are traditionally Russian spheres of influence, and towards SE Asia and Australasia.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"I'm tempted to imagine Syon trapped in a room with Michael Sheen in full Twilight mode for all eternity..."

Don't tempt me, dear boy.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"That's not really what Dugin says. Steve sort of misrepresents him to make him look more sinister than he is.

What Dugin says is that Russian foreign policy should steer China away from Central Asia and Siberia/NE Asia, which are traditionally Russian spheres of influence, and towards SE Asia and Australasia."

That's not helping Dugin's case. If anything, it makes it sound even more sinister to Anglo ears.

Whiskey said...

Steve, the book by Nick Lloyd covering the Allied Hundred Days Campaign shows how poorly Hitler understood military matters.

The Ludendorf Offensive was doomed for two factors, the first that the Prussian/German military was formed in short/sharp wars against lackluster opponents on Germany's borders: Austria in 1860, Denmark in 1866, France in 1870. Lacking totally was logistics, as German troops in the Ludendorf offensive just ran out of bullets, food, water, artillery shells, etc. as Rommel ran out of gas repeatedly just on the verge of decisively destroying the British in North Africa or the Germans on the Eastern Front.

The second was the massive Ludendorf buildup could not be concealed and created defense in depth by the Allies, which cost the Germans dearly.

The Allied Counter-Offensive by contrast used coordinated (if poorly) artillery, PLUS AIR, PLUS TANKS, which the Germans lacked (for the latter two in support) during the Ludendorf Offensive.

Steve Sailer said...

Like I said, I'm pretty low-key about listening to other people's Risk fantasies, but as a Southern Californian of a certain age, Australia is on the fighting side of me.

Anonymous said...

Reading Dugin, I'm strongly tempted to see how far back we can take this East vs West dance. Certainly back to Rome vs Byzantium. That's easy. But how much further? Can we see in an Asiatic* power like Russia a continuation of Persia? Is Russia just the latest face of all that is non-Western?

*It's interesting to read the accounts of the Red Army pouring into Germany. The language (Russian troops as Mongol hordes, etc) explicitly invokes the close association between Russia and Asia.

Whiskey said...

Let me add, the World-Island strategy has been tried repeatedly by the Persian Empire; by Rome; by the Byzantines, by Napoleon, by Hitler, by Stalin, and by the Ottomans. All failed.

And they failed for a reason: dependence on slave/serf/subordinate nations/peoples who did not like them and fought poorly and were constantly making side-deals.

The Persian Empire was mighty but when confronted by Alexander the first few defeats left few die hards as every subjected nation/people sought to seek their own advantage. Hitler's armies in the East were mighty, but almost half his manpower were the suspect and inept Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, etc.

By contrast, naval forces rely mostly on (mostly) free people of their own free will (again, "mostly") who have skill and above all mobility.

Look at the Vikings. They were never seriously challenged and only fell away as a threat as they got absorbed into the wider Christian culture.

Mobility matters. Choosing the time and place where to come ashore gives even much smaller forces the decisive advantage over much bigger World-Island forces.

Which brings us to the issue of sea power. What Mahan understood and Libertarians don't, Steve is that the Ocean is a highway. If the US does not control it someone else will to our detriment.

Anonymous said...

Steve:"Like I said, I'm pretty low-key about listening to other people's Risk fantasies, but as a Southern Californian of a certain age, Australia is on the fighting side of me."

Me too. Growing up in California during the 80s, I always saw Australia as a cooler, bigger version of SoCal.I would definitely be willing to sign up to defend Australia from the Chinese/Russian condiminium.

Steve Sailer said...

"Can we see in an Asiatic* power like Russia a continuation of Persia?"

A French journal of geopolitics is entitled Herodotus for the Greek historian (of what's now Bodrum in Turkey) who publicized the Europe v. Asia, sea v. land notion 2500 years ago (see "300" for a recent version of Herodotus).

Anonymous said...

That's not helping Dugin's case. If anything, it makes it sound even more sinister to Anglo ears.

There's nothing sinister about pursuing your national interests, especially where it comes your own borders and neighborhood. Central Asia and Siberia/NE Asia are in Russia's neighborhood.

It's no different from the US pushing the European powers out of the Western Hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine.

There's nothing "sinister" about any of this.

Anonymous said...

RE: the Asiatic nature of the Russians,

It's interesting to see the PC reaction to this kind of language. Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, was doing one of his "this is what I am learning now, so lets talk about it" postings recently (before he fell into a deep abysm of despair over the endless wave of White Men mowing down Black Kids for fun), and the topic was the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe. TNC and his PC followers got truly righteously riled up over Western observers likening it to Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. How dare they use "othering" tropes, etc.

Anonymous said...

Reading Dugin, I'm strongly tempted to see how far back we can take this East vs West dance. Certainly back to Rome vs Byzantium. That's easy. But how much further? Can we see in an Asiatic* power like Russia a continuation of Persia? Is Russia just the latest face of all that is non-Western?

*It's interesting to read the accounts of the Red Army pouring into Germany. The language (Russian troops as Mongol hordes, etc) explicitly invokes the close association between Russia and Asia.


And the Germans were called "Huns" by the Brits/US in the World Wars.

But obviously neither Russia nor Germany were/are "Asiatic" powers. They were/are land powers, which is what this is about geopolitically.

Steve Sailer said...

When General MacArthur abandoned Bataan and Corregidor near Manila fell in early 1942, the Australian government thought they were doomed to Japanese invasion. They made plans to let the Japanese fall upon the north of their continent and retrench in the rainy Southeast. MacArthur talked the Aussies out of their panic and into a forward strategy of keeping the Japanese out of Port Moresby on the south coast of New Guinea. If they couldn't get a port on the south coast of New Guinea, they couldn't attack Australia with anything other than a hit and run carrier attack like at Darwin.

That's what the first carrier vs. carrier battle, in the Coral Sea in May 1942, was about -- an American-Australian fleet took a beating but turned the Japanese back from landing troops at Port Moresby. Then the Japanese army tried to march over the mountains from the north coast of New Guinea but were stopped by American and Australian soldiers.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"And the Germans were called "Huns" by the Brits/US in the World Wars."

Well, we can blame the Kaiser for starting that one.

Anonymous:"But obviously neither Russia nor Germany were/are "Asiatic" powers. They were/are land powers, which is what this is about geopolitically."

Don't know about that. Germany, of course, is a Western country (it received the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages), but Russia is just so Eastern, both in terms of geography (look how far into Asia it extends) and of culture (the Byzantine inheritance overlaid with the Tartar yoke).

Anonymous said...

Let me add, the World-Island strategy has been tried repeatedly by the Persian Empire; by Rome; by the Byzantines, by Napoleon, by Hitler, by Stalin, and by the Ottomans. All failed.

You're confused. None of these powers represent the "World-Island strategy". If there is anything like a "World-Island strategy", it's the strategy of the UK and the US over the past 150 years to prevent a single power or bloc of powers from dominating the "World-Island".

None of the powers you list ever single handedly dominated the World-Island. The closest has been the USSR, which fell short because of the NATO bridgehead in Europe and China in the East, especially after the Sino-Soviet split.

Steve Sailer said...

The point of all this is that Dugin has a lot of continental cafe conspirator theorist about him, like Lenin and Trotsky, where it's all a big Risk game. If he had been more worldly in 1997, he'd have realized that Australia is an emotional tripwire for a lot of Americans -- it's like Canada except without any petty annoyances of being next door -- so he could have just left Australia off his list of Grand Strategizing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"There's nothing sinister about pursuing your national interests, especially where it comes your own borders and neighborhood. Central Asia and Siberia/NE Asia are in Russia's neighborhood.

It's no different from the US pushing the European powers out of the Western Hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine.

There's nothing "sinister" about any of this."

To a Russian, no. But to a true blue Anglo like myself, anything that would blithely condemn Australia (a fellow Anglo nation)to Chinese rule is the height of evil.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"None of the powers you list ever single handedly dominated the World-Island."

Probably because dominating Eurasia is easier said (cf Steve's line about Continental cafe theorizing) than done.


Anonymous:" The closest has been the USSR, which fell short because of the NATO bridgehead in Europe and China in the East, especially after the Sino-Soviet split."

But that tantalizing closeness! You can just see Dugin imagining how things might have gone differently.

Anonymous said...

If he had been more worldly in 1997, he'd have realized that Australia is an emotional tripwire for a lot of Americans -- it's like Canada except without any petty annoyances of being next door -- so he could have just left Australia off his list of Grand Strategizing.

He's made his opposition to the Atlanticist powers pretty clear though. And he'd prefer China and the Atlanticists bogged down in SE Asia/Australasia to either of them messing around in Russia's neighborhood.

In WWII, the Japanese Army wanted Japan to try to be a major land power in Siberia/Far Eastern Russia, while the Navy thought that Japan should try to be major sea power in the Pacific. After the Japanese got beat real bad at Khalkin Gol by the Soviets, the Navy won out and they sort of ditched the land power idea and fought the Anglo-Americans in the Pacific. Dugin probably has similar thoughts in mind regarding China.

Steve Sailer said...

Yeah, Dugin's 1997 book was about how awesome the Hitler-Stalin pact would have been if things could have just stayed that way and there hadn't been the unfortunate incident of June 22, 1941.

Anonymous said...

What Dugin advocates for the US is interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content

"The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America."

Anonymous said...

Probably because dominating Eurasia is easier said (cf Steve's line about Continental cafe theorizing) than done.

But that tantalizing closeness! You can just see Dugin imagining how things might have gone differently.


Yes but also note that it's partly because of sea power and its modern incarnation in the Atlanticists that dominating Eurasia is difficult. Sea power will always have an incentive to ally with weaker Eurasian land powers to prevent a single Eurasian power or bloc from dominating.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"He's made his opposition to the Atlanticist powers"

You mean the Anglo powers, dear boy.


Anonymous:" pretty clear though. And he'd prefer China and the Atlanticists bogged down in SE Asia/Australasia to either of them messing around in Russia's neighborhood."

Of course, dear boy. The grand Russian dream of seeing the West go down for the count. An old grudge.

Anonymous:"In WWII, the Japanese Army wanted Japan to try to be a major land power in Siberia/Far Eastern Russia, while the Navy thought that Japan should try to be major sea power in the Pacific. After the Japanese got beat real bad at Khalkin Gol by the Soviets, the Navy won out and they sort of ditched the land power idea and fought the Anglo-Americans in the Pacific. Dugin probably has similar thoughts in mind regarding China."

Except that I'm sure that he imagines the Chinese winning and pouring Chinese settlers into Australia....

Anonymous said...

If you look at WWII, what's interesting is how the Nazis didn't really conceive of their war aims as "taking over the world", but Allied propaganda portrayed it as such. And in this, the Allied propaganda was sort of correct even if the Nazis didn't consciously conceive of their war aims as such, since if the Axis powers had won, Germany would have dominated Eurasia and effectively the world. Italy and Japan would have been minor regional powers in the Med and Pacific.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"Yes but also note that it's partly because of sea power"

Everything is partly because of something, dear boy.

Anonymous:" and its modern incarnation in the Atlanticists"

By which turn of phrase you mean the Anglos.

Anonymous:" that dominating Eurasia is difficult. Sea power will always have an incentive to ally with weaker Eurasian land powers to prevent a single Eurasian power or bloc from dominating."

Well yes, dear boy. the game of great powers and all that.Still, I'm trying to think of when a single power really did dominate Eurasia. The problem, of course, is that Eurasia is so bloody big. Even if you rule one end plus the center, there's still the damn other side of the landmass. The Mongols came closest, I suppose, but even they failed to truly rule from one end to the other, Western Europe being ever so slightly beyond their grasp...

Anonymous said...

Except that I'm sure that he imagines the Chinese winning and pouring Chinese settlers into Australia....

I'm sure he's aware of the present immigration policies of Anglo countries. If all he cared about was foreigners flooding into Anglo countries, he wouldn't really have to advocate anything for the Anglo countries.

jody said...

what? no link to the video? steve you are slipping.

Ukraine is game to you?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"What Dugin advocates for the US is interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content

"The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America."

MMMM, the dear fellow is starting to remind me of Jose Vasconcelos, of "Cosmic Race" fame. He was fond of imagining the Anglo vs Latino feud as encompassing Napoleon's Empire. Hence, Trafalgar was a loss for "us" (the Latinos).

Perhaps Dugin could extend a paw to La Raza. You know, apologize for that bloody retreat from Moscow business and offer to back them in an irredentist crusade...

Of course, the Kaiser tried that, and it didn't turn out well, but it doesn't mean that the fundamental strategy is unsound.At least not to a Continental Cafe Theorist like Dugin.

Anonymous said...

Stone the crows, but all this armchair geopolitics is stirring to the blood. Where's my old AXIS AND ALLIES board game?I bet that I could take Dugin, 3 games out of 5. Winner gets Izmir.

Anonymous said...

Might be a good time to point out that I get the impression that Putin is a good deal saner than Dugin...

Anonymous said...

"Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements..."

He's obviously very angry about the neocons doing all of the above to Russia and dreams of payback. I wish he didn't confuse the neocons with the American people though.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"I'm sure he's aware of the present immigration policies of Anglo countries. If all he cared about was foreigners flooding into Anglo countries, he wouldn't really have to advocate anything for the Anglo countries."

Depends on the place, dear boy. Now, the USA is getting just the kind of non-White immigrants that he wants, but they are, at present, insufficiently irredentist for his anti-Anglo ambitions. That being the case, a little agitation is in order, the hand of Asiatic Russia lifting up the Race of Bronze, so that both races may take what is rightfully theirs from the evil Anglo imperialists.

In regards to Australia, are the bulk of their immigrants Chinese? If not, something must be done. Russia cannot allow their fellow Asians to not fill the antipodes to the point of bursting!

Reg C├Žsar said...

Winner gets Izmir.

Smyrna, dammit. Winner gets Smyrna. Who wants "Izmir"?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"He's obviously very angry about the neocons doing all of the above to Russia and dreams of payback. I wish he didn't confuse the neocons with the American people though."

Don't be so shallow, dear boy. We are in deep waters now. Do you imagine that a thinker of Dugin's calibre extends his historical horizon only as far back as the last 20 odd years. Hardly. this is about avenging the Great Schism of 1054. This is Russia assuming its place as the 3rd Rome.

Anonymous said...

... to a true blue Anglo like myself, anything that would blithely condemn Australia (a fellow Anglo nation)to Chinese rule is the height of evil.

By opening Australia's borders to mass immigration, Australia's Anglo ruling class is already condemning the country to eventual Chinese rule.

Anonymous said...

He's obviously very angry about the neocons doing all of the above to Russia and dreams of payback. I wish he didn't confuse the neocons with the American people though.

This kind of thinking predates and goes beyond the neocons and their views of Russia.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"He's obviously very angry about the neocons doing all of the above to Russia and dreams of payback. I wish he didn't confuse the neocons with the American people though."

What are the neocons but the distillation of Anglo thought, with their soul-destroying interest in markets and capitalism?The Russian soul balks at the Anglo spirit, with its Adam Smith and Francis Bacon.

Russia expands with love; hence, it expands across land. The Anglos expand with thoughts only of money; hence they expand via water.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"By opening Australia's borders to mass immigration, Australia's Anglo ruling class is already condemning the country to eventual Chinese rule."

But one must contend with that damned word, "eventual." Surely Dugin, late at night, staring at his gilt-framed portrait of Alexander III, ponders ways to accelerate the process. Why not 1 million Han Chinese a year?

Anonymous said...

Don't tempt me, dear boy.

Don't give me reason to, dear girl.

Anonymous said...

"By opening Australia's borders to mass immigration, Australia's Anglo ruling class is already condemning the country to eventual Chinese rule."

The main thing people should take from the recording of Nuland discussing who should rule Ukraine isn't just relevant to Ukraine.

The people who run US imperial policy consistently work to put their cousins in power in Western countries e.g. Hollande, Sarkozy, Miliband, Cameron, Shatter, John Key etc.

And if there are no cousins available then non-cousins who are either corruptable, blackmailable or who have a historical grudge against Anglos that blinds them to the long-term consequences for their own people.

The people running US imperial policy are actively seeking to drive the Western nations over a cliff.

Anonymous said...

anonymous:"Don't give me reason to, dear girl."

In the mood for gender-swapping games, dear boy?

Anonymous said...

I always saw Australia as a cooler, bigger version of SoCal.I would definitely be willing to sign up to defend Australia from the Chinese/Russian condominium.

As a Brit many Australians are, quite literally, my family. I too would definitely be willing to sign up to defend Australia from the Chinese/Russian condominium.

Also East Prussia is far more legitimately German than Australia in any way belongs to China.

Anonymous said...

By opening Australia's borders to mass immigration, Australia's Anglo ruling class is already condemning the country to eventual Chinese rule

But is it the Anglo ruling class driving that. PC dictates they cant have a white Australia policy, who drives that idea? Its true the PC points based immigration system is a slow-motion suicide but its one 'conservatives' can sign up to as they throw away their children's futures.

The US/European immigration system is a high-speed suicide of course.

And one should note that there are plenty of undesirables turning up in OZ via refugee/asylum status and what I assume is family re-unification. The much vaunted points sytem is thus bypassed.

Anonymous said...

I always saw Australia as a cooler, bigger version of SoCal.I would definitely be willing to sign up to defend Australia from the Chinese/Russian condominium.

As a Brit many Australians are, quite literally, my family. I too would definitely be willing to sign up to defend Australia from the Chinese/Russian condominium.


That's Dugin's point. Geopolitics dominates and we can expect the Atlanticist condominium to rally around Australia in this sort of scenario.

The bigger issue is that China wants to push back the American domination of the Pacific and Asia which currently surrounds it towards Hawaii and the eastern Pacific. Now in the Atlantic condiminium, both at the ordinary citizen and political leadership level, there is a greater affinity for Australia and consequently a greater willingness to rally around it than there are for the Asian and Pacific countries. But if the Atlanticists are less willing to rally around the other Asian and Pacific countries, then it may be easier for China to push America back, and consequently Chinese domination of Australia may become easier. So the calculus is tricky here.

Anonymous said...

The bigger issue is that China wants to push back the American domination of the Pacific and Asia which currently surrounds it towards Hawaii and the eastern Pacific.

As much as I dislike the corrosive effects of American hegemony, the way China treats its neighbors, and the way its historical self-image plays into that, moves me to hope that they don't push back anything.

Ever.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"That's Dugin's point. Geopolitics dominates and we can expect the Atlanticist condominium to rally around Australia in this sort of scenario."

Actually, on this point geopolitics does not dominate, as the impetus comes from the affinity of one Anglo power (America) for another (Australia).

Anonymous:"The bigger issue is that China wants to push back the American domination of the Pacific and Asia which currently surrounds it towards Hawaii and the eastern Pacific. Now in the Atlantic condiminium, both at the ordinary citizen and political leadership level, there is a greater affinity for Australia and consequently a greater willingness to rally around it than there are for the Asian and Pacific countries."

Precisely, dear boy. Australia is a very lovable place for Anglos.


Anonymous:" But if the Atlanticists are less willing to rally around the other Asian and Pacific countries, then it may be easier for China to push America back, and consequently Chinese domination of Australia may become easier. So the calculus is tricky here."

MMMM, on the other hand, the whole thing could go balls up on Dugin. after all, the Hitler-Stalin love fest ended rather badly. China might decide that Siberia is ripe for the taking....

Anonymous said...

As much as I dislike the corrosive effects of American hegemony, the way China treats its neighbors, and the way its historical self-image plays into that, moves me to hope that they don't push back anything.

What does this have to do with geopolitics though? America currently surrounds China and China won't feel entirely secure until America doesn't dominate the Western Pacific and East Asia. Those are all the ingredients you need for conflict.

You're also projecting your views on China's neighbors that they don't necessarily share. Many of them are far more anti-Japanese, for example, than anti-Chinese.

Hope is one thing, but how much would Atlanticists be to willing to invest to maintain a dominant presence in the Pacific and Asia? The Atlanticists may care about Australia, but they're not going to care as much, especially ordinary Atlanticist citizens, about Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. The only way would be if people believed in some sort of reprise of the Domino Theory.

Anonymous said...

Actually, on this point geopolitics does not dominate, as the impetus comes from the affinity of one Anglo power (America) for another (Australia).

They're part of the same geopolitical bloc.

MMMM, on the other hand, the whole thing could go balls up on Dugin. after all, the Hitler-Stalin love fest ended rather badly. China might decide that Siberia is ripe for the taking....

Russia is more formidable, especially on it's own turf.

Anonymous said...

What does this have to do with geopolitics though?

What doesn't it?

wiseguy said...

There's a lot of love for the Aussies on this thread, which gets me thinking: does Australia beat out Italy for the title of "country with the highest approval rating?"

Anonymous said...

In the mood for gender-swapping games, dear boy?

Mood's a thing for cattle, dear girl.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous:"They're part of the same geopolitical bloc."

Yes, but which comes first, dear boy, the geopolitical bloc or the ties of Angloness (to coin a phrase)? I'm inclined to think that it is the latter that engenders the former.



Anonymous:"Russia is more formidable, especially on it's own turf."

More formidable than the Anglos? Hardly, dear boy. Russia is a primary resource extraction state these days, far past its Soviet peak.And Johnny Chinaman is swiftly overtaking him.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"Hope is one thing, but how much would Atlanticists be to willing to invest to maintain a dominant presence in the Pacific and Asia? The Atlanticists may care about Australia, but they're not going to care as much, especially ordinary Atlanticist citizens, about Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. The only way would be if people believed in some sort of reprise of the Domino Theory."


Somehow I knew that the Domino Theory would rear its head once Dugin became a topic...

Anonymous said...

In the mood for gender-swapping games, dear boy?

Mood's a thing for cattle, dear girl.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but which comes first, dear boy, the geopolitical bloc or the ties of Angloness (to coin a phrase)? I'm inclined to think that it is the latter that engenders the former.

No, they can't be separated, since outside the UK, the Atlanticist countries are relatively new outposts tied to sea power that have never been autarkic and self-contained.

More formidable than the Anglos? Hardly, dear boy. Russia is a primary resource extraction state these days, far past its Soviet peak.And Johnny Chinaman is swiftly overtaking him.

Militarily, yes. Russia can go toe-to-toe with the US militarily. China is very weak militarily.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"No, they can't be separated, since outside the UK, the Atlanticist countries"

I'm sure that you are aware, dear boy, of the inherent silliness involved in calling antipodean Australia "Atlanticist." Try writing "Anglo." It's shorter.


Anonymous:"are relatively new outposts tied to sea power that have never been autarkic and self-contained."

Don't know about that one, dear boy. I rather think that Australia is a good deal more "autarkic" (I do so love Continental Cafe Theorist words) and self-contained than Britain, which, last time I checked, needs to import a fair bit of its food...






Anonymous:"Militarily, yes. Russia can go toe-to-toe with the US militarily."

Well, yes. Nukes are the great equalizer.


Anonymous:" China is very weak militarily."

But for how long, dear boy?Chinese economic strength grows even as we speak, while Russia's economy stays bound to resource extraction. Ominous days ahead, I should think, for the Russian East....

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that you are aware, dear boy, of the inherent silliness involved in calling antipodean Australia "Atlanticist." Try writing "Anglo." It's shorter.

Australia is just a vassal of the Atlanticist powers, not an independent power. First a vassal of the UK, now a vassal of the US.

Don't know about that one, dear boy. I rather think that Australia is a good deal more "autarkic" (I do so love Continental Cafe Theorist words) and self-contained than Britain, which, last time I checked, needs to import a fair bit of its food...

It hasn't been autarkic though. It's always been heavily intertwined with the Atlanticists.

But for how long, dear boy?Chinese economic strength grows even as we speak, while Russia's economy stays bound to resource extraction. Ominous days ahead, I should think, for the Russian East....

Australia is bound to resource extraction as well. Most of Chinese economic growth is in consumer goods. China has a long way to go to catch up in military strength. The Russian Far East is far more formidable.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous:"Australia is just a vassal of the Atlanticist powers, not an independent power. First a vassal of the UK, now a vassal of the US."

MMMM, yes, and both America and Britain are Anglo powers, as is Australia. Hence, Anglo makes more sense as a moniker. Plus, it's shorter.Brevity is the soul of wit, dear boy.



Anonymous:"It hasn't been autarkic though. It's always been heavily intertwined with the Atlanticists."

Well, yes, dear boy. Anglos like doing business with other Anglos. Keeps it in the family.



Anonymous:"Australia is bound to resource extraction as well."

Yes indeed.And no one talks it up as a great power. Great powers are not resource extraction economies. Hence, Russia's sad decline.

Anonymous:" Most of Chinese economic growth is in consumer goods. China has a long way to go to catch up in military strength. The Russian Far East is far more formidable."

For a little while, dear boy. The long term favors China. Russia is facing a terminal eclipse. China is ascending.