Dugin’s American Turn
Alexander Markovics argues that Alexander Dugin’s sudden admiration for America is not a betrayal of his anti-globalist philosophy...
Alexander Markovics argues that Alexander Dugin’s sudden admiration for America is not a betrayal of his anti-globalist philosophy but the natural outgrowth of his multipolar vision, which sees in Trumpist populism a potential ally in the struggle against thalassocratic liberalism.
Order Alexander Dugin’s The Trump Revolution here.
Dugin — from “America-hater” to admirer of the United States?
The Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin has been called the most dangerous thinker in the world by The New York Times. This assessment stems from his Fourth Political Theory, which sets out to overcome liberalism. For this reason, he is considered by some observers to be anti-American — especially since he advocates a multipolar world with several power centers, rather than a globalist One World order led by the United States. All the more surprising, then, was his celebration of Trump’s election victory and his talk of a second American Revolution. How should Dugin’s recent statements be interpreted? Are we truly dealing with a “turn” in his thinking, or rather with a logical development of his intellectual framework?
Trump’s Populism and Multipolarity
Dugin already commented on Trump’s 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton. The reason: at the time, Trump promised to drain the globalist swamp in Washington and end the role of the United States as world policeman. This also implied abandoning the Heartland Theory of British geographer and politician Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), which held that whoever controls the Heartland (Eastern Europe and Russia) controls the world island of Eurasia — and thus the world. Consequently, both British geopolitics and, after 1945, its American successor sought to prevent the emergence of a hegemonic power in Eurasia — whether the German Reich or the USSR — as well as any German-Russian alliance. In this way, the Anglo-Saxon, progressive sea powers aimed to defeat the conservative, continental land powers of Eurasia — a theme addressed by Carl Schmitt in Land and Sea (1942). This strategy enabled the brief American “end of history” from 1991 to 2022, during which the United States, as the sole world power, dominated the globe and, under the banner of globalization, spread the rainbow flag and “Western democracy” by fire and sword — culminating in the so-called Great Reset.
From One World to the Distributed Heartland
As part of his theory of a multipolar world, the Russian thinker developed the concept of the “distributed Heartland”: not only Russia-Eurasia, but also the USA, Europe, China, India, Africa, the Islamic world, and others each constitute their own Heartland (read: civilization), each of which has the right — analogous to the USA in the Americas — to repel foreign powers and live according to its own political idea. This was seen as a crime worthy of death in the eyes of globalists, and led to the assassination of his daughter Daria in 2022. Accordingly, land and sea are to be found within each Heartland: as the struggle of the land-bound populist Trump against fluid globalists demonstrates, land and sea are not only opposed in the conflict between Russia and the USA, but also within the USA and Russia themselves. Every person in the world now has the opportunity to follow the example of Putin and Trump and join the global land power in its struggle against the global sea power. Thus, the USA is not an “eternal enemy” of the peoples of the world but only a problem when under the control of globalists who align themselves with the thalassocracy.
The American Spirit in Dugin’s Eyes
In volume 13 of his philosophical magnum opus Noomakhia, Dugin turned in 2017 to the pragmatic Logos of the USA. “Everyone can be whatever they want — even Elvis Presley — so long as they can convince those around them.” This sentence, for Dugin, captures the American spirit, in which the subject plays a far lesser role than in Europe. While Dugin despises this form of thinking, he nonetheless appreciates its creative streak and its potential for fighting globalism — whether in the populist fairy tale The Wizard of Oz, the mysterious Twin Peaks by David Lynch, or in the populist movements of both the Left and Right in the United States. Patriots such as Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, along with left-wing populists like Jackson Hinkle and Caleb Maupin, value Dugin — and he values them, because they all share a common struggle: the liberation of their peoples from globalism. In this sense, there is no “pro-American turn” in Dugin’s thought, but only a logical consequence of his theory of the multipolar world — a theory that completes the Eurasianist worldview. We Germans and Europeans can take inspiration from this and, like the great statesman Otto von Bismarck, seek the eternal interests of our people rather than fixating on eternal enemy images.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
Donald Trump is particularising the universal state. This is why he is hated so much - he is putting the sword to the religion of the universals.
He is plenty of flaws, but recognising that absolutism and multipolarity don't mix, and trying to stop what could have easily metastasised into WW3 under the Democrats are big positives.
Nice one Alexander. Solid analysis. There is nothing contradictory in Dugin's thinking here.
Dugin’s ideological architecture is deeply mythopoetic and archetypal. His opposition to globalism (which he sees as a fluid, thalassocratic force) reflects a binary worldview: Land vs. Sea, Order vs. Chaos, Multipolarity vs. Unipolarity. Psychologically, this reveals: Manichaean thinking: He projects a moral geography where continental powers (Land) symbolize rooted identity and tradition, while maritime powers (Sea) represent rootless cosmopolitanism and nihilism.
His personal trauma (e.g., the assassination of his daughter Daria Dugina) likely reinforces his psychological need to view politics as an existential, civilizational war.
His “admiration” of Trump is projective identification: he sees in Trump (and American populists) the archetype of “continental resistance” within the Sea power itself.
Thus, his shift is not cognitive dissonance but a sublimation of his own anti-globalist psychodrama onto any actor who fits his Land power mythos, even within the USA.
At the level of pure logic, Dugin’s position appears consistent within his own metaphysical system:
He opposes liberal globalism, not America per se.
Trump’s “America First” nationalism and critique of globalist elites logically aligns with Dugin’s multipolarity thesis.
Thus, supporting American populists is not hypocrisy but an extension of his “distributed Heartland” concept.
However, logically, his argument has slippery slopes:
• He conflates anti-globalism with virtuous land power, even when land powers can be oppressive.
• He essentializes civilizations as monolithic “Heartlands”, ignoring internal diversity and contradictions.
Hence, while internally coherent, his logic is rigidly metaphysical, prone to oversimplifications.
⸻
3. Historical Analysis
Historically, Dugin’s geopolitical framing draws from Halford Mackinder, Carl Schmitt, and Eurasianist thinkers.
• His interpretation of Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy vs. Eurasian land powers revives 19th–20th century geopolitics but overlooks post-Cold War transformations.
• The idea of the USA as a homogeneous “globalist” entity ignores historical periods of isolationism, anti-imperialism, and populist nationalism.
• His invocation of Bismarckian Realpolitik suggests a cyclical view of history, where great powers inevitably clash in a civilizational struggle.
Critically, Dugin’s historical lens is selective and archetypal, romanticizing continental empires while demonizing sea powers.
⸻
4. Geopolitical Analysis
Geopolitically, Dugin’s “distributed Heartland” is a strategic adaptation:
• It reflects Russia’s diminished capacity to impose a Eurasian hegemony, shifting instead to supporting “civilizational pluralism”.
• His support for American populism is a pragmatic move to foster internal divisions within the USA, weakening its globalist agenda.
• The idea of “every Heartland for itself” resonates with emerging multipolar realities (China, India, BRICS+, etc.), though it risks encouraging regional authoritarianism.
However, his geopolitics downplay the complexity of global interdependence (e.g., economic globalization, transnational threats like climate change).
⸻
5. Sociological Analysis
Sociologically, Dugin’s appeal to American populists taps into:
• Anti-elitist resentment (against the “Davos class”, tech monopolies, woke capitalism).
• A revival of traditionalism, nationalism, and conspiracy theories (e.g., Great Reset).
• His framing of “land vs. sea” maps onto cultural wars: rural vs. urban, traditional values vs. progressive cosmopolitanism.
Yet, his sociological model:
• Ignores class dynamics within Heartlands (oligarchies, social inequalities).
• Simplifies the complex identity politics of Western societies into civilizational binaries.
Dugin’s synthesis appeals to movements on both Left and Right that feel alienated by liberal globalism, yet risks becoming an ideological mirror image of the globalism it opposes—a rigid, exclusionary essentialism.
⸻
Synthesis: Is This a “Turn” or a Continuity?
Dugin’s “admiration” of Trumpist America is not a true ideological conversion, but:
• A tactical alliance framed within his multipolar civilizational theory.
• An example of strategic adaptability in narrative warfare.
• A logical extension of his anti-globalist metaphysics applied within the USA itself.
Thus, it is both a continuity and a situational recalibration—Dugin remains consistent in his Eurasianist ontology, merely expanding the theater of struggle into America’s internal contradictions.