Almost three months have passed since the start of the SMO (Special Military Operation) in Ukraine. Some conclusions can be drawn. I will not consider the military aspect of the operation, which requires the opinion of experts in military strategy, and one cannot talk about everything while the battle is going on. I would like to assess other circumstances that are purely political:
The story of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statements, for which President Vladimir Putin has apologised, forces us to pay attention to how the issue of denazification is perceived by the world outside Russia.
Let's put all the elements together. We have a frightening picture (for the Russians). Forces, groups, worldviews and governmental entities, which collectively call themselves "the West" and which since their victory in the Cold War have been the sole rulers of the world, behind a façade of "liberalism" profess a thin eschatological theological doctrine, in which the events of secular history, technological progress, international relations, social processes, etc. are interpreted from an apocalyptic perspective.
We need to understand what is happening to us and around us. To do this, common sense is not enough, there must be methodologies. So let us consider SMO (Special Military Operation) in the context of a discipline like International Relations (IR).
The first phase has been solar and offensive: immediate attacks on a wide range of targets across Ukraine, Russian troops up in Kiev, Gostomel, the seizure of northern Ukraine (Chernihiv, Sumy), a breakthrough from the south to the Donbass, establishing control over Kherson and part of the Zaporozhe region, the semi-darkness of Kharkiv, a frenzied attack on National Front and AFU positions in Mariupol (the operation is almost complete) and on occupied DNR/LNR territory
The Special Military Operation can only end with a Russian victory. Interview with Alexander Dugin.
The way the Special Military Operation started and how it unfolded for the first 2 months makes it impossible for the rest of Ukraine to remain under the rule of the Nazis and globalists. There is no imperial maximalism in this, at least for this time. Imperial maximalism could have ended up in Novorossia, and the other half of the former Ukraine left to live as it wishes, but now things have gone too far. A major factor has been the direct attack on the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Stop at the first (generally flawed) or the second option and we are throwing a host of Orthodox believers to their deaths, torture and possibly genocide. Nothing will be left of them. That’s why we are now fully responsible for Western Ukraine.
We have approached a fundamental change in Russia itself. Everyone talks about the 'party of war' and the 'party of peace'. I think these expressions are wrong. This was the case in 2014, but it no longer fits the new conditions.
In France, the first round of the presidential election was completed on April 10. According to its results, the current head of state Emmanuel Macron won 27.84% of the votes, while his rival, the leader of the right-wing National Unity party Marine Le Pen, got 23.15%.
When the Supreme Commander-in-Chief began a special military operation in Ukraine, the course of history was changed. Irreversibly changed. This is the case when they say "the die is cast," "we have crossed the Rubicon," and "there is no turning back". It may seem to some that there is, but there isn't. And now no one and nothing can affect anything, and no one and can do anything the way it was before.
Russia's special operation in Ukraine is a challenge to the unipolar world, its results will establish a new world order, Russian philosopher and political scientist Aleksandr Dugin believes.
Few people feel what is happening today more acutely than Alexander Dugin. Few people have been more deeply immersed in the events in Ukraine all these eight years. Some follow him, defending the Russian idea, others consider him almost the incarnation of evil. But no one is indifferent to his ideas.
The fate of the world order is being decided in Ukraine. This is not a local conflict between two powers that have not divided something between them. It is a fundamental watershed in history.
When trying to analyze the evils of the African continent, it is essential not to forget to address the ideologies on which Africa is aligned in an attempt to emerge on the geopolitical chessboard.
In the case of network technologies (technology) - Google, twitter, youtube, facebook, instagram, etc. - we see a very important phenomenon: they do oppose Russia not because they depend on the U.S. government. They do not depend on it. They are the tools of the globalists, of a supranational oligarchy that no one elected. And no one gave them the right to set their own rules on a global scale.
From an ideological point of view, the world is still living in the shadow of the controversy of the 1990s between Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. Whatever criticism may be levelled at the theses of both authors, their importance has not been diminished in any way, as the dilemma still remains and, moreover, is still the main content of world politics and ideology.
Thorough understanding of the special military operation in Ukraine requires a preliminary explanation: what, in the broadest sense of the word, are we dealing with? The concepts of “nation”, “nationality”, “people”, “ethnos” are totally confused, and hence those of “Russians”, “Ukrainians”, “Little Russians”, etc. We should first give an ethno-sociological map and distribute the concepts with which we operate in the analysis of this conflict.
The place of Ukraine in the geopolitical confrontation of Land and Sea has already been written about quite a lot and in some detail. Moreover, it is symbolic that the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder, was the Entente high commissioner for Ukraine during the Civil War in Russia.
Probably only few people paid serious attention to the fact that the Fourth Political Theory, which I adhere to, pays the most serious attention to the criticism of nationalism. Most striking is the criticism of liberalism and the rejection of Marxist dogma. But equally necessary and fundamental is the radical rejection of not just nationalism, but even the nation.
I started to develop geopolitics 30 years ago. When Russia only started to feel itself the part of the Global Civilization, Global West, and everybody was optimistic becoming the part of this Humanity: Civil Rights Theory, Human Rights Theory, the Global World. We entered in this process we accepted the Western Identity, we have abandoned Soviet Identity, we have totally forgotten the Tzarist pre-Soviet identity and we try to be like everybody else. And in that moment not being too much engaged in this Soviet system, neither in Liberal System, I have discovered the geopolitics formulated by British authors like Halford Mackinder, who tried to explain the Great Game between British Empire and Russian Empire in the terms of Sea Power and Land Power.
Information and Reality
War is always a reality check. What precedes and accompanies it, as a rule, has a virtual character and is, if not pure disinformation (from all sides), then close to it. And it is almost impossible to catch those topics and theses which correspond to the real state of affairs. These are the laws of the correlation of the information sphere and reality.
Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2RxutaSGQU
Russell: My guest this week holds the distinction of being the only philosopher in the world to be officially sanctioned by the United States government. He is sanctioned because he is the leading intellectual behind the global nationalist populist movement that is threatening to take over governments across Europe and the United States, and he is known as Vladimir Putin`s mind. This is my interview with Alexander Dugin.
This short excerpt is from the book (Beginning with Heidegger: Strauss, Rorty, Derrida, Dugin and the Philosophical Constitution of the Political) by Philosopher Michael Millerman from the publisher Arktos.
Before starting to talk about counter-hegemony, we must turn to Antonio Gramsci, who introduced the concept of hegemony into the broad scientific discourse of political science. In his teachings, Gramsci says that within the Marxist-Leninist tradition, there are three zones of domination
This interview was conducted by Tsargrad TV.