MAGA and Eurasianism

Alexander Dugin on terrorism, victory, and the Eurasian path towards a multipolar world.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: I’d like to begin with grim, deeply sad news: in Moscow, Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov was killed in a bomb explosion. At the moment, we do not know who carried this out. There are only suspicions that Ukrainian special services were involved, but those suspicions are rather obvious. How do you think we should respond? After all, this is neither the first, nor the second, nor even the third such act. It seems they will continue as the conflict develops.

Alexander Dugin: First of all, I would like to express my most sincere condolences. My family joins me in this. I lost my daughter in a terrorist bombing carried out by Ukrainian terrorists. This is a terrorist regime. Every terrorist act has both a symbolic goal and a concrete one—that is, the elimination of an element deemed dangerous to the enemy within our society or our state, and at the same time a symbolic message.

At first, they delivered symbolic strikes against thought itself—against the brightest, most talented people in our country, against the youth. That was monstrous; it was the first wave, at the initial stage. Then they shifted their focus more towards our military. Unfortunately, from time to time they succeed.

We have just marked Chekist Day, the Day of Security Service Employees, and in reality no one knows how many terrorist attacks are prevented. But if one looks even slightly beneath the surface, it is an enormous number. Our security services are working; they protect our citizens. They investigate, hot on the trail, the attacks that do succeed. But the lion’s share of terrorist acts are thwarted, though this is not talked about. They prevent mass casualties on a huge scale.

In our country, there operates a very extensive network of enemy sabotage and reconnaissance groups, relying on the intelligence infrastructure of Western services—primarily British and European. (Before Trump, the CIA played a very active role in this.) In addition, there is a vast fifth column. At first, it acted openly and brazenly, opposing the war, signing letters against the Special Military Operation, but later it quieted down. The tactics of the terrorists of the Ukrainian regime itself also changed. All these networks began targeting the military more—especially those on whom much depends in conducting and planning operations, in concrete operational activity. They reoriented themselves. We no longer see attacks on public figures after the first wave, but attacks on military personnel have, on the contrary, increased.

I think that, given the symbolic significance of such actions, it is worth recalling the Soviet period: our special services were then extraordinarily sensitive to such operations—during the Cold War, during confrontation, and especially during the war with Nazi Germany. For every such action there followed several systemic responses, if you will, proportional ones. If they managed to eliminate one of our key figures, we responded by eliminating one of theirs. Of course, it is difficult to speak of this directly: human life is priceless. But at least a distant parity in such targeted eliminations of individual figures on enemy territory must exist. Something like that.

This would cool their ardor, because right now it creates the impression that they are methodically, point by point, and alas successfully eliminating our people—one after another—like General Sarvarov, an extraordinarily important figure in our military leadership and in operational planning. That is, once again a blow to the brain, to our military consciousness, to planning itself.

Perhaps this will become the argument that finally forces… It is completely obvious: the people demand a tougher approach both to the internal enemy and to the external one. The entire nation is crying out for justice. People who are losing loved ones—our society as a whole—need at least some symmetry, at least symbolic.

This is where we began our conversation. Terrorism, like war—especially in our time—has a very pronounced symbolic character. Accordingly, our society expects the demand for justice—even during combat operations, during war—to be satisfied. And our leadership, it seems to me, is now choosing the principle of humanity.

If we respond—of course people want that. They want a proportional response. They want these terrible situations to stop happening to us. But at the same time there is a peace track underway. Everyone is discussing how Kirill Dmitriev just traveled to the United States, to Miami, where he spoke with Witkoff and Kushner. It seems that something is approaching, that some breakthroughs are being outlined—although some say they are real breakthroughs, others that it was merely constructive dialogue. We are not given full information.

But if we respond harshly to this provocation, if we remove someone from the top leadership or influential figures in Ukraine—this would in fact become a victory for them. We ourselves would hand them levers of pressure. They would calmly throw this into the media, into European outlets, which would blare about how dangerous, frightening, and aggressive the Russians are, how they attack. And no one would even learn about the first horrific killing—the one from which it all began.

Continue:

MAGA and Eurasianism