From Special Operation to Civilizational War

Alexander Dugin argues that Russia’s official recognition of a war with the collective West marks a decisive turning point that will reshape the country’s politics, society...

Alexander Dugin argues that Russia’s official recognition of a war with the collective West marks a decisive turning point that will reshape the country’s politics, society, and understanding of the conflict.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: We’re going live on Sputnik radio. In the studio with us is Mikhail Alimov. Good afternoon, everyone. This is philosopher Alexander Dugin’s authorial program “Escalation.” Recently, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of Russia, made a highly symbolic and important statement: he said that the Special Military Operation [SMO] has turned into a real war because “behind Kiev stands a number of European capitals and, unfortunately, Washington.” That’s a direct quote. Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], please tell us: at what point did this transformation occur? After all, European capitals joined the process almost immediately.

Alexander Dugin: I think this transformation — the one we’re talking about and the one the President’s press secretary mentioned — has occurred primarily in our own minds. Previously, we understood the Special Military Operation as a technical action designed to cool down the West’s aggressive plans. It was supposed to be conducted in a local mode, within a limited regional format, with full control over escalation risks. The SMO needed to be carried out swiftly and successfully and concluded fairly quickly. After that, we were supposed to begin normalizing relations with the West, which could have taken a certain amount of time. At the beginning of the SMO, the goal was to secure our political sovereignty within the framework of the existing single global — that is, Western — world, whose legitimacy we largely recognized. We were only supposed to expand the scale of our independence and increase our importance within the overall world order, without directly challenging the West, without entering into war with it, and without provoking it into open conflict. The task was limited: to change the local configuration of our presence in the post-Soviet space by establishing control over what we firmly considered our zone of responsibility. It was believed that this could be achieved through technical means, without a complete break with the West.

That, in my view, was the original calculation. There’s no point in discussing today whether it was correct — it turned out to be wrong. It’s possible the plan itself was properly constructed, but its implementation went differently. What happened, happened. The main thing is that in May 2022 we failed to take Kiev. We were in Hostomel, right next to the city, but for a whole range of reasons we couldn’t capture it — and with that, the original plan was exhausted. From that moment, a new situation and a new reality emerged. The Special Military Operation ceased to be a special military operation — that is, something technical, local, regional, fast, and successful. The logic of any such operation is simple: you quickly do something difficult and unpleasant, and then for a long time, through diplomatic efforts, you smooth over its negative consequences. But everything went differently.

The Special Military Operation ended with our withdrawal from Kiev, and in the spring of 2022, a war essentially began. The West, which apparently believed we would rather quickly prevail in this operation, couldn’t believe its own eyes. It couldn’t believe that Ukraine had held out — and then it threw itself fully into the conflict. From that moment onward, we have been at war.

However, when the Special Military Operation as a blitzkrieg failed and the war began, it required very complex reflection on what was happening, and that took a lot of time. Remember: at first, criminal cases were even opened against people who spoke about a “war,” because officially a Special Military Operation was underway and that was the only way it could be referred to. Anyone who uttered the word “war” faced direct legal prosecution — administrative, and sometimes criminal. But at some point, punishment for using the word “war” in relation to the Special Military Operation in Ukraine was lifted, and from then on the situation began to change. Nevertheless, it took another four years for us to finally and officially acknowledge the reality. After all, the President’s press secretary doesn’t express a personal opinion — he conveys the opinion of the President, and that opinion is directive in nature. In other words, the SMO should now be called a war, and accordingly, what is happening in Ukraine should be understood as a war.

So, for four years our consciousness was coming into alignment with reality. Now we have essentially acknowledged that we are talking about a war. Everything is clear: this is war. And we must immediately add — as Peskov also did — the clarification: war with whom exactly? This is not a war with Ukraine — this is a war with the West. And this war, as Peskov rightly noted with the words “unfortunately,” is also being waged against America, against the United States, which is fighting on the opposite side, on the side of our enemies — despite all the statements and steps Trump took at the beginning of his second presidential term. That is where we stand today.

And the question arises: why was this statement made today with such clarity, unambiguity, and irreversibility — that we are in a state of war with the collective West?

Host: To answer a pressing question from society?

Alexander Dugin: I think there are two reasons — an internal one and an external one.

The first, internal reason is the intensification of the conflict, which now affects almost the entire population: drone strikes on our rear areas, terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev criminal Nazi terrorist regime, problems with energy infrastructure, shelling of our territories, the increasing death of civilians, and the growing number of people drawn into the war. Of course, we suffer fewer losses at the front than the enemy — and that is right. We are advancing — and that is also right. We are on the offensive and we are winning. But we do suffer losses: that’s how war is.

People are increasingly asking themselves: is this really a Special Military Operation? The very concept of a Special Military Operation implies that only a very narrow segment of forces is involved — professional military personnel, those who belong to that sector. Special military operations are conducted precisely by them: the army, special services, internal troops. But here the people themselves have been drawn into the events. The people being pulled into a Special Military Operation is a contradiction in terms — by definition, that cannot be. Therefore, Peskov — and in essence the President — had to explain to the people what is happening: we are in a state of war. And that is an entirely different matter.

For four years the phrase “Special Military Operation” was used — and now it has been said outright: this is, after all, a war. Everyone already understands that a war is going on, but until the word is spoken from the top, it is not officially considered a war. Many of our agencies, ministries, governors, sectors, and many people had already realized that this is a war and that they needed to behave accordingly. Some, however, continued to live according to the logic of a Special Military Operation. Now what has been said applies to everyone: war is war.

That is the internal answer to the question of why this statement was made precisely now: it seems it was no longer possible to remain silent. Silence would only have been possible if we had achieved a swift victory and captured Kiev — not just liberated Donbass, but actually taken Kiev. Then we could have said: it was a Special Military Operation; it turned out to be far heavier, more terrible, and more difficult than we had anticipated, but congratulations to everyone, medals all around — Ukraine is ours, the Special Military Operation is complete. But since such an outcome is not yet in sight, despite our offensive, people need to be told how things really stand. And in reality, we are in a state of the most severe war — moreover, in its very first stage. A war with the collective West.

That is the first explanation. Now the second. Our military and political leadership, the agencies and services — everyone who truly understands what is happening — knows that the West is not preparing for a truce or de-escalation. The West — the European Union, all NATO countries, Rutte, the alliance itself — is preparing for a new wave of war against us: an attack on Kaliningrad, the use of missiles and other truly serious means against our territory. Even now, NATO drones are flying at us through the territory of the Baltic states. In fact, no one in the West is going to conclude a truce; no one intends to reduce the intensity of escalation.

We thought Trump would be the figure who would defuse the situation or at least postpone the showdown. He may have postponed it somewhat, but we were unable to take advantage of that pause. And that postponement was not serious — it was declarative, expressed only in limited actions. In essence, the main thing in this war is intelligence support from the United States. This is generally a war of space surveillance, an information war. Without Starlink support, without the transfer of reconnaissance data, we would have already taken Kiev — it wouldn’t have been a problem. But with such surveillance, with the involvement of precisely the American reconnaissance system and American secure communications, with the most careful monitoring of our territory, the main problems arise.

That is why Trump, mentioned by Peskov at the end with the words “unfortunately,” who is also participating in all of this, represents the most terrible and most crucial factor. Even the European Union, with all its considerable military power, without the American base of reconnaissance data and high technologies, would not have been able to wage a full-fledged war against us: we would have taken what was ours and then moved toward de-escalation. But the presence in this construction of “unfortunately, Trump,” as Peskov put it, changes everything. The entire infrastructure for transmitting reconnaissance data remains in place, while NATO and the European Union intend only to increase pressure on us.

The criminal Kiev regime is prepared for anything, up to and including the use of dirty bombs. I think it’s no coincidence that they are striking the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. They are clearly preparing for something, and they have the ability to deliver a serious blow — including provoking a nuclear catastrophe in our country with a dirty bomb. We are, of course, fighting back, but with the unambiguous and total support of the Kiev regime by the entire West, such a scenario is entirely possible.

So today we are at war. People need to be told where we stand so that they understand and are aware of what is happening responsibly, rationally, and objectively. And society must undoubtedly be restructured onto a war footing — essentially in preparation for a major world war, which has, in essence, already begun.

We might like to end the conflict, agree to a truce, and even make certain concessions — the President has said that in Anchorage we agreed to a number of concessions. But most likely, no one will offer them to us anymore. The West has smelled blood; it has realized that it has truly clashed with us, and any truce options it offers us will proceed from exactly that. We have demonstrated, unfortunately, a number of weak sides — although we have also courageously held out — as well as many strong ones. Let us be objective: some things did not work out for us. The fact that the SMO failed as a blitzkrieg is in reality the main thing. Seeing this, they decided that we could be finished off, and they have essentially moved in that direction. We cannot convince them otherwise with words or even with individual small tactical successes.

We now face a real examination — in the face of a major and inevitable war that we do not want, but which we cannot stop, prevent, or avoid. Any concessions we might make now would be incompatible with Russia’s continued existence.

That is why, it seems to me, this situation is not new: it did not arise today but formed gradually. If we measure the path we have already traveled — the path of war — it is already more than four years. And how much more lies ahead? Moreover, we will have to go forward not under conditions of reduced tension and an improved situation, but under conditions of further escalation, which moreover does not depend on us. They escalate; we can try to de-escalate, but they do not listen. Our red lines are erased and not restored: they are erased — and they no longer exist. Seeing that we only react, only take limited retaliatory steps, they understand that they can engage in escalation under their own control, unilaterally, and to whatever extent they see fit.

Right now we need to restructure the entire society. I think that in order to win this war, we also need to restructure the political system — temporarily, of course, onto a war footing.

From this follow several fundamental conclusions. From the words of the President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov it follows that we must restructure society, the economy, and the administrative system onto a war footing. Moreover, onto a war footing in which real, not paper, achievements will be rewarded, while failures in certain directions and missions — in the military sphere, the economy, and the administrative system — will be met with corresponding punishment. It is no coincidence that with the announcement of war, many rules are being tightened. What is permissible in peacetime — even if it may be harmful there too — becomes impermissible in wartime: when people are rewarded for failures; when window-dressing is encouraged rather than punished; when superiors are told what they want to hear rather than what is actually the case. Our Minister of Defense, Andrei Removich Belousov, by the way, speaks about this: mistakes are possible — lying is not. There is a sense that this peacetime flaw — the habit of embellishing things to please the boss — is being carried over into the military sphere as well. That is unacceptable.

And of course, a rotation of elites is necessary. We need the best, truly effective people. In the new extreme conditions, the political system, the government, and the military department require, first of all, people who deserve the positions they hold — what is called meritocracy. Secondly, we need maximally effective people — emergency managers, crisis managers. Not just administrators, but precisely crisis administrators — those who perform well and effectively in extreme, emergency circumstances, not in ordinary ones. These are different types of people.

Thus, we need a rotation of elites and the strengthening of the positions of crisis managers — more vigilant, sharper, bolder, more decisive, and even somewhat unbound people who follow instructions when possible, and when it is not — act at their own risk for the sake of victory. This is a different type of person. And now that the President’s press secretary has announced that we are at war, the peacetime elites must be replaced: peacetime managers must be replaced by crisis managers — that is, wartime administrators — with the creation of appropriate structures of reward and punishment suited to emergency circumstances.

Thus, we need to take two steps.

The first is truth — complete, responsible, honest, and, if necessary, bitter. It is absolutely essential. Otherwise, the fog of war will persist — but this fog is not being directed at our enemies. Our enemies understand everything perfectly; they see what is really happening with us. This fog of war is directed inward, at our own society. Inside the country, there must be complete transparency. We should be deceiving the enemy, not ourselves. However, it often seems we are doing the exact opposite — not always, of course, but far too often.

The second step is the rotation of elites and the arrival of wartime people. And not only in sensitive military areas, but also in the economy, management, government, and the administrative system — and, if you will, in the humanitarian, cultural, and information spheres as well. Right now, all of these areas are still being run by peacetime managers.

Paradoxically, even the army — which we do not criticize, but on the contrary, glorify — is only slowly and with great difficulty emerging from its peacetime state. Yes, our army will win; our army is the best; it has excellent leadership; we have the strongest army in the world. But it feels as though we are waking up to our own military reality as if coming out of a deep sleep. As if we had been peacefully dozing, convinced that we were the strongest, and had grown complacent. And now we are being told: prove that you are the strongest, demonstrate it, achieve results. And we reply, as if still half-asleep: come on, we’ll deal with all of you anyway.

However, today it is not enough to simply maintain confidence in what we truly are. I have no doubt that we are the best, the strongest, the bravest, and the most victorious — just as our ancestors were, and as we actually are. But we have forgotten who we are. The army must remember what victory is, how it is achieved, and what actions are required to attain it. We need a society of victory and reforms of victory.

Host: You spoke earlier about certain changes specifically in the administrative sector. How can this be done? We have State Duma elections in September, for example. Through this mechanism, or do we need something radically new?

Alexander Dugin: Of course not. The elections, thank God, will go as they should: everyone will be elected correctly. But what do elections have to do with it? They serve a function similar to a sociological poll. All reforms in our country can be carried out only and exclusively from the top. The people are thirsting for these reforms and are asking for them — asking to bring society, governance, the social model, and the political system into line with popular expectations. Our society is addressing this request to the head of state, to the President. This is not an ultimatum or a demand — it is a humble, respectful request. People are simply saying: we bow before you — please carry out the reform. And this request is directed to the President. No one intends to resolve this issue through voting.

Continue:

From Special Operation to Civilizational War