«THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA DEPENDS ON OUR WILL» (2001)
«THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA DEPENDS ON OUR WILL»
Politicians as showmen and charlatans – What is the link between Dugin and Noukhaev? - Eurasism and atlantism – Who will replace Kuchma? – There are no communists in the KPRF – How to revive the North? – The lack of will of the Russian "élite" – Is it possible to build the “Eurasist International”? – The post-Soviet space as the space of catastrophes – When will the Russian scientists return? – Pax Euroasiatica in the Caucasus – What perspectives for Zhirinovsky?
The leader of the All-Russian Socio-political Movement "Eurasia", Aleksandr Dugin, answers to SMI.RU readers’ questions.
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 Smilga, Boston)
AGD : We issue the newspaper “Eurasist Review” (http://eurasia.com.ru/eo.html), 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”, “servility”...
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], Moscow)
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 as such...
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, US)
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 Vision» (http://eurasia.com.ru/EL_new.pdf) [english version here].
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, Moscow)
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? (Maxim Karpalov)
AGD : We shall give you notice of the concrete date, stay tuned.
Q : What is the eurasists’ attitude towards Poland? (Peter, Krakow)
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 it 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, Samara)
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 pass!
Q : Did you participate in the redaction of the text of the Social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church? (Yura, Moscow)
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 dimension.
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 starobryadchestvo [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.