Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Let’s start with Ukraine. There are some statements coming from the opposition, particularly Viktor Medvedchuk, who says that the Zelensky regime is sliding into terrorism as it continues begging for more and more weapons. This sentiment echoes what Fico recently said, referring to Zelensky as simply a beggar. Medvedchuk adds that the worse the situation on the frontlines becomes for Kiev, the more Zelensky resorts to terrorist methods in his rhetoric and actions. But this is the opposition speaking, those who are against Zelensky. Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], what exactly is Medvedchuk aiming for here?

Alexander Dugin: It’s difficult for me to say what Medvedchuk’s precise goal is. I want to highlight that this isn’t news because the terrorist nature of the illegitimate Nazi Ukrainian regime became clear, transparent, and universally known back in 2014. That’s where it all began.

These people, instead of waiting for elections, overthrew the legally elected president. They could have just waited a little while and resolved the issue democratically. Instead, they established a neo-Nazi terrorist regime, which remains what it is today.

Medvedchuk was part of this system, attempting to fix the situation through palliative measures and compromises. But negotiating with terrorists is impossible because any concession to them is fatal. This was evident with the recognition of the “elections” of Poroshenko, then Zelensky, and attempts to engage the junta in the Minsk negotiations. All of this was trading with terrorists. The more you appease a terrorist, the more their appetite grows.

I don’t see any change in the Kiev regime over the past ten years. It began with an armed coup, the overthrow of state power, and the imposition of neo-Nazi, aggressive, Russophobic ideologies. Its goal was always to harm its neighbor — us, the brotherly nation. It persecuted dissidents. Ukraine is a part of us — a part of the Russian World, part of our shared historical, political, and cultural space.

From the very start, the goal of this neo-Nazi terrorist formation, now called modern Ukraine, was to sever this part of the Russian World. And in that regard, I see no progress or regression. The Nazis took power in Kiev in 2014, and they still hold it.

Are there nuances to this terrorist regime? Has it become slightly more or less terrorist? It’s hard to say because they continue committing terrorist acts, waging war against us, physically eliminating people who disagree with their pathological ideology — first on their territory, then on ours.

Since 2014, after Maidan, everything the Ukrainian regime has done is unrelenting terrorism. The country has been taken hostage, and counterterrorist measures are required. The Special Military Operation (SMO) is exactly that — a counterterrorist operation.

But it’s strange that the Ukrainian opposition still clings to the hope that this regime will change, heed reason, soften its position, or stop being so totalitarian and neo-Nazi. That’s naive. Whether it’s the opposition or not, this regime can only be destroyed.

There is no other historical resolution to this situation. Either this terrorist group, which has temporarily taken over part of the Russian World — calling it “Ukraine” — is destroyed, or we overthrow it, put it on trial, and hold a tribunal. Otherwise, this will repeat again and again.

I believe that the Ukrainian opposition should have long since gone underground, taken up arms, and begun overthrowing this neo-Nazi, illegitimate terrorist regime.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Another pressing question is whether elections will happen in 2025. Increasingly, we’re hearing statements from the West, including Washington, on this topic. There are reports that Zaluzhny [Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces] is being pressured to ensure no elections take place in Ukraine. But that’s a separate story. Here’s a question from one of our listeners: “Do you support democratic procedures for electing authorities or not?”

Alexander Dugin: It depends on what we mean by “democracy.” Recently, in Romania’s presidential elections, outsider candidate Călin Georgescu — a patriot opposing LGBT ideologies, wokeism, and globalism — won the first round. He wasn’t sanctioned by the EU or globalist systems.

But what happened? The EU annulled the results. Officials like Thierry Breton openly declared that they would overturn any democratic election results they disapproved of. The same rhetoric is now being applied in Germany, where Alternative for Germany [AfD], a conservative-populist party, leads the polls.

In contrast, Russian democracy, or more accurately, a “people’s monarchy,” reflects our people’s desire to empower our historical leader. This is genuine democracy — a people’s expression to strengthen their state and grant freedom to their ruler.

On the other hand, we have the so-called democracy of Europe, where election results are annulled if the globalist elites disapprove. In Ukraine, if elections follow these European liberal rules, their outcome will be irrelevant. Globalists will install whoever suits them, regardless of any “democratic” processes.

However, if the Ukrainian people were to overthrow Zelensky and establish a genuine Ukrainian — not anti-Ukrainian — regime, that would be an act of direct democracy. It would be a real expression of the people’s will. This is the difference: there is democracy, and there is “democracy.”

I favor people’s democracy. Elon Musk recently described the kind of democracy he envisions for Mars, saying it would be direct — leaders chosen by those who know them personally. That’s a fantastic model, similar to the zemstvo system1 in Russian history. But representative democracy, infiltrated by financial interests and invisible powers, is no longer democracy in its true sense.

For example, when Musk removed harsh liberal censorship on X (formerly Twitter), liberals in Europe immediately called for its ban due to the absence of such censorship! These same liberals, who cry about democracy, now advocate banning platforms that allow free speech. The term “democracy” has become so meaningless that it’s often better to avoid it altogether and focus on more serious concepts.

Whether Ukraine holds elections or not is irrelevant if they follow these flawed European liberal frameworks. They change nothing.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Let’s turn to something more significant. There’s growing anticipation that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump may hold direct talks soon. Trump’s advisor, Mike Waltz, hinted that discussions could occur in the coming days or weeks. Has the West finally changed its rhetoric on Ukraine to sit down for serious talks with Russia, or not?

Alexander Dugin: Since the U.S. presidential election and Trump’s return to power, the concept of a unified West has disintegrated. There is no longer a single West or a unified opinion. Today, we have two Wests.

The first West is represented by Trump and the Trumpists, now in power. They have always been skeptical of Ukraine and globalist agendas. However, before this, they were marginalized within U.S. politics and on the world stage. Now that Trump is back, they’ll define their own stance on Ukraine. Trump and his supporters have never sympathized with Zelensky or viewed this war as their issue.

For Trumpists, this war has always been seen as the lunacy of globalists like Biden and Obama, as well as the European globalist networks.

The second West consists of the globalists, still entrenched in Europe and some American institutions. Though their influence is waning, they continue to hate Russia and support the Nazi regime in Kiev. Yet even their interest in Ukraine has diminished because they see no further benefits from it.

Trump and Putin will discuss matters on a completely different level. Media narratives and other politicians’ statements are irrelevant. These are two sovereign leaders addressing problems caused by their mutual enemies — globalists. This creates room for cautious optimism.

Ukraine is important to us, but to Trump, it’s irrelevant. His priorities lie elsewhere.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Can we expect concrete outcomes from the first meeting between Putin and Trump, unlike Zelensky’s endless, fruitless summits with European leaders?

Alexander Dugin: The meeting won’t be a waste of time, but expecting a definitive resolution on Ukraine from the first encounter is unrealistic. Trump doesn’t fully understand the gravity of Ukraine’s significance to Russia. For him, it’s a far-off problem. He doesn’t grasp that Ukraine is an existential issue for us. For Russia, Ukraine is part of our nation — our people, our land.

Imagine if a U.S. state, say Delaware or Utah, declared independence, adopted an extremist ideology, and advocated the extermination of all Americans outside its borders. Would Trump tolerate that? Of course not. But he currently doesn’t see Ukraine in this light.

Putin must clearly explain to Trump that Ukraine is akin to one of Russia’s states. Only after understanding this context can Trump start to make realistic assessments of the situation. Unfortunately, even Trump has been influenced by globalist propaganda, and overcoming that will take time.

Furthermore, new communication channels with Washington are urgently needed. The Trump administration represents an entirely new phenomenon, ideologically and politically. We’ve only dealt with either dialogue or opposition with globalist powers. This new factor requires a shift in tone and strategy in Russian-American relations.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Some listeners have asked about the role of Congress and the Senate in this process, given their continued support for Ukraine.

Alexander Dugin: Support for Ukraine in Congress and the Senate was strong when globalists and neoconservatives dominated both institutions. However, the tide is shifting. Even figures like Mark Zuckerberg, once a staunch globalist, are now distancing themselves from liberal ideologies and censorship, aligning with Elon Musk’s vision of free speech.

The Trumpists will now apply pressure on Congress and the Senate using their methods. Key figures like Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and others are assuming leadership roles, ready to dismantle the structures that upheld the Zelensky regime.

Trump has nothing to lose. This is his last term, and he’ll go all in. Resistance in Congress and the Senate is inevitable, but Trump’s administration is prepared to confront it decisively. His team has promised to root out globalist influence, dismiss those responsible for the decline of traditional values, and dismantle the woke agenda and DEI policies. Figures like Elon Musk have declared, “Cancel culture should be canceled,” and Trump’s allies will act to cancel the globalists who promoted these destructive ideologies.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Many people are concerned about whether Trump can really be an ally for Russia. We’ve often emphasized that Trump isn’t pro-Russian; he’s pro-American. We mustn’t harbor false hopes in this regard. Serbian President Vučić recently proposed Serbia as a venue for a potential meeting between Putin and Trump. What do you think of that suggestion?

Alexander Dugin: Any country — Serbia, Turkey, or even an Arab state — could theoretically serve as a venue. However, such locations would be weak choices for both Trump and Putin. They would both find themselves on someone else’s territory. Serbia, for example, is part of Europe, and Turkey is part of the Islamic world.

In my view, the most suitable venue would be India. India occupies a unique position in global geopolitics and U.S. domestic politics. Trump views India favorably as part of his broader strategy to pivot focus from China to India.

India maintains strong relations with Russia while also opposing China on regional issues. It advocates a multipolar world, making it a natural balancing force between Moscow and Washington. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi leads a conservative government that shares traditional values with both Russia and the Trumpists.

India’s significance also extends to domestic U.S. politics. The growing Indian diaspora in America is seen by Trumpists as a positive and supportive force, aligning with their values. Prominent Trump allies, such as Kash Patel and Vivek Ramaswamy, are of Indian origin, and even JD Vance’s wife is of Indian descent.

Europe, on the other hand, is despised by Trumpists as the epicenter of globalist liberalism. A venue in Europe would not be appropriate for such historic talks.

India could serve as a neutral starting point for talks. From there, perhaps Putin and Trump could visit each other directly. Putin, as a courageous leader, might offer to visit the U.S., while Trump, equally bold, could visit Russia.

Direct discussions between these two sovereign leaders, in a neutral and mutually agreeable setting, are necessary. This isn’t merely about two countries or political systems — it’s about two individuals, Putin and Trump, resolving issues caused by their mutual enemies.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Trump has also revived discussions about Greenland and other territories like Canada and the Panama Canal. Reports suggest that a significant portion of Greenland’s population is open to joining the U.S. What do you make of these developments?

Alexander Dugin: When it comes to such geostrategic issues, it’s essential to consider who’s driving the narrative. If polls show that a majority of Greenlanders favor joining the U.S., it’s likely the work of Trumpists. Conversely, if the narrative supports Greenland remaining under Danish control or becoming independent under globalist influence, then it’s driven by Brussels and other globalist actors.

This highlights the broader ideological split between Trumpists and globalists. Under the globalists, discussions were framed in terms of ideological dominance rather than factual reality. Now, this dynamic is playing out between Europe and the new Trump-led U.S. administration.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): What about Canada? What’s Trump’s agenda there?

Alexander Dugin: Trump likely envisions the elimination of Canada as an independent state. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become for the U.S. what Ukraine has been for Russia — a hub for liberal dissent, anti-Trump sentiment, and globalist agendas.

During Trump’s campaign, many liberal Americans vowed to move to Canada if he won. Canada has become a refuge for anti-Trump forces, similar to how Ukraine became a refuge for anti-Russian elements.

For Trump, Canada’s current state as a liberal-globalist stronghold is unacceptable. His administration views Canada as a potential 51st state, one that could be integrated peacefully through financial and political means rather than military action.

Symbolically, Canadians have embraced the “Trump Dance,” performed to the anthem “YMCA,” as a gesture of support for his vision. This demonstrates that even in Canada, many people are rejecting Trudeau’s globalist policies and aligning with Trump’s traditionalist agenda.

This ideological divide reflects the global struggle between traditionalism and liberalism. Just as Russia cannot tolerate Ukraine as an anti-Russian project, Trump cannot accept Canada as an anti-American project.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Could this lead to sanctions against the U.S. from globalists?

Alexander Dugin: It’s unlikely. Sanctions from minor countries like Denmark would be laughable. We endured comprehensive sanctions when the entire globalist West was united against us. The U.S., under Trump, would face far less resistance, especially as the globalist order crumbles.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Lastly, what about the relationship between Moscow and Beijing under Trump? Will it remain unchanged?

Alexander Dugin: Trump might try to pressure Putin to distance Russia from China, but Putin will not yield. He’s a historical leader of immense stature, immune to crude deals or coercion. China supported us during critical moments, though cautiously and in its own interests.

As U.S. aggression shifts focus from Russia to China and the Middle East, Russia must prioritize its national interests. We will not sacrifice our relationship with China, but this new geopolitical reality demands careful navigation.

This year, as the Trumpists proclaimed, will be the most unpredictable in history.

Tatyana Ladyaeva (Sputnik): Let’s hope this unpredictability unfolds positively.

Alexander Dugin: The world has already been mad in the worst sense. Things can only improve from here.

1, The zemstvo system, introduced in 1864 in Imperial Russia, was a local self-government structure addressing education, healthcare, and infrastructure, with elected councils that included nobles, urban residents, and peasants, though dominated by the nobility.