Multipolarity by Force
Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.
Host: Let us begin by discussing the negotiations in Abu Dhabi, which have undoubtedly captured the attention of the entire world. This is the first instance since the start of the Special Military Operation of a trilateral interaction in which representatives of Russia, Ukraine, and the United States sat at the same table. Naturally, the informational vacuum was immediately filled with numerous theories: what exactly was discussed, and what agreements, if any, were reached.
There is extremely little official information. We have only a statement by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who once again raised the territorial issue and claims that a document on security guarantees for Ukraine has been agreed upon “one hundred percent.” In this, he remains true to himself, continuing to broadcast his familiar narrative. Much more interesting, however, is the position of the American side. U.S. representatives—Steve Witkoff in particular—speak of a “serious breakthrough” and describe the discussions as constructive. American officials emphasize that the participants treated one another with marked respect and demonstrated a genuine willingness to compromise.
This raises the main question: what should we expect going forward? Will the meetings in Abu Dhabi become that decisive step towards a peaceful settlement, or are they merely another form of diplomatic camouflage?
Alexander Dugin: From my point of view, expecting peace right now is pointless: the conditions we are in are entirely unsuited to it. At best, one could speak of a temporary ceasefire. Behind the terse statements from our side and the moderately optimistic reports from the Americans lies a stalemate.
If we rewind the process a little, back to the negotiations in Anchorage, we will recall that our president proposed to Donald Trump the conditions under which Russia would be prepared to agree to a ceasefire. It is important to understand that these conditions were significantly below what we truly require. This was a gesture of goodwill, a readiness for substantial—though not fatal—compromises. To stop the bloodshed, there was only one way out: to accept this, to put it mildly, benevolent Russian proposal.
Trump understood this. He grasped how far Vladimir Putin was prepared to go: in essence, the president was ready to suspend hostilities without achieving the full range of objectives set at the beginning of the Special Military Operation. At that moment, our plan did not envisage complete denazification or total demilitarization. The discussion concerned control over the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] and the LPR [Lugansk People’s Republic], our military presence in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and a number of other demands. This was far less than what could be considered a full-fledged victory—very serious concessions that, for a range of reasons (the president knows best here), we decided to make.
Trump realized this and began to promote our plan, since from his point of view it was advantageous for the West and for Ukraine: Ukraine would remain as a subject, and we even agreed to certain guarantees of its security (without NATO membership and without the deployment of massive armies). Our proposal was genuinely generous toward the adversary—one could hardly wish for better.
Yet even this did not stop them. An outright sabotage of “Anchorage” began. The European Union, Britain, and, of course, Zelenskyy started putting forward counter-demands: an immediate ceasefire, the introduction of NATO troops onto Ukraine’s legally recognized territory, and expanded guarantees. This is exactly what Zelenskyy repeats when he claims that he has “agreed on something” (in truth, more with the Europeans than with the Americans).
Trump himself, owing to his impulsiveness and erratic nature, quickly lost focus on these agreements. After the capture of Maduro, the scandal around Greenland, and amid preparations for a new stage of war with Iran, the Anchorage plan was pushed to the periphery of his attention. By inertia, he began speaking to us in his usual style: issuing orders, ignoring obligations, applying pressure, and making threats.
His most recent messages boiled down to demands that we yield to the requirements of the Europeans and Zelenskyy: sign everything immediately, and that is that. In effect, Trump began treating us as vassals. Unfortunately, he lacks any model of partnership or of dignified, allied relations. In his world, there are either enemies to be destroyed or vassals and slaves. Since we showed goodwill and a willingness to compromise, in his logic we are not enemies—and if we are not enemies, then we must take the place of obedient servants. His thinking does not allow for a third option.
Host: Why did it unfold in precisely this way? Is this connected with success in Venezuela, with the very capture of Maduro?
Alexander Dugin: The thing is that Trump thinks in short cycles. Because Zelenskyy and the European Union very skillfully sabotaged the Anchorage agreements at the initial stage, dragging out the process and advancing unacceptable conditions, they managed to delay and effectively blur it. And Trump simply forgot what had been agreed upon. He forgot that he had been warned: the proposed option was the limit of our compromise—we would go no further and would discuss nothing beyond it.
Under the influence of success in Venezuela and his loud, cowboy-like, almost hooligan-style politics, Trump succumbed to dizziness from success. His terrorist methods on a global scale are yielding results, and he feels that there are no longer any limits. That is why he began speaking to us as if we were vassals. But we will not tolerate this. Yes, we formally observe protocol: we sent military representatives to Abu Dhabi so that, with calm Slavic faces, they could look at this frenzied scum, and then we recalled them. We do not comment on the outcomes because there is nothing there to comment on.
Our president strictly adheres to his promises and cannot simply declare a rejection of the “spirit of Anchorage,” but that spirit itself no longer exists. They are trying to pressure and humiliate us. A very subtle game is underway: we do not withdraw from the process solely in order to demonstrate our capacity for agreements and not to raise the level of escalation too abruptly. In reality, however, these negotiations are doomed. As soon as Trump began taking into account the demands of the European Union and Ukraine—which are categorically unacceptable to us—he crossed out everything that had been discussed in Alaska. Now this is merely a routine leading nowhere.
Trump is offering us a humiliating model of relations that is unacceptable for Russia. However, we are not yet ready to move to the next level of confrontation. And the next step would already be more than just words about missiles. If Ukraine and NATO go further, we will exhaust the resource of threats. We will no longer be able to threaten—we will have to strike. Until we move to that strike, let negotiators like Witkoff and Kushner shuttle around Abu Dhabi or come to Moscow: it’s clean here, it’s safe, they can walk around freely. This is an entirely sterile diplomatic track.
The problem is that the West has never believed in our genuine geopolitical sovereignty. Certain failures during the Special Military Operation were taken by the enemy as evidence of weakness and insufficient resolve. At some point, we missed the moment for a harsh response, relying on Western rationality—but there is none there; they understand only force. Having missed the opportunity to demonstrate that force at an intermediate level, we now find ourselves in a situation where the next step in asserting our geopolitical agency requires an extreme escalation of stakes. At this point, I do not see how a nuclear conflict can be avoided because in the West no one any longer takes statements about “Poseidon” and “Burevestnik” [Russian strategic weapons systems] seriously.
There are many targets that could be struck. For example, one could completely destroy the government quarter in Kiev, so that it simply no longer exists. Even if we did not hit the military-political leadership of this terrorist regime itself, they would still be forced to hide in bunkers and move underground through sewer systems. One could go further—cool the ardor of the most Russophobic, most aggressive European enemies. I do not think we have yet matured to the use of strategic nuclear weapons, but we must be prepared for it. If the West, with which we are fighting in Ukraine, denies us the right to sovereignty, we have no other choice but to prove it by any available means.
Simpler forms of demonstrating our seriousness and strategic power were, unfortunately, missed by us,as we believed it would be possible to manage with conventional types of weapons. Meanwhile, escalation continues, moving to a new level: no de-escalation has occurred on either side. On the contrary, the enemy is inflaming the situation, and we are forced to respond. The moment has now come when everyone is waiting for our strike. The world is frozen in anticipation: why, how, with what force and effect will we respond? To do so is fundamentally necessary.
Actions have consequences, but so does inaction. If we do not strike, we confirm in the eyes of the enemy our inability to act. In contemporary politics of interaction with the West, there is no longer any concept of rational restraint. There is only “I can” or “I cannot.” Either you turn your enemy into Gaza, or Gaza is turned into you. It is a monstrous, horrific formula that one would prefer never to hear, but it is not we who dictate it. I repeat: either Gaza is your enemy, or Gaza is you.
Attempts to draw red lines, shift them, make statements, or enter into compromises—none of this works anymore. It does not work even in relations between the United States and the European Union, let alone with us. The only argument now is effective action. Words have been devalued. Trump simply kidnapped the acting sovereign president of Venezuela, in two hours effectively annexing the country and declaring its riches his own. This is a direct act of international terrorism, a trampling of all norms, but Trump openly says that international law does not exist.
We may be morally outraged by this, but we have no alternative but to accept these rules of the game. Morally correct now is what Russia considers morally correct. We must do what we can and what we want, because that is precisely how they treat us. This is an entry into an entirely new coordinate system, where everything is decided by force—convincingly demonstrated and effectively applied. If we do not enter this system ourselves, we will be pushed into it by force.
Therefore, negotiations with the United States are completely exhausted. They will continue only “for form’s sake,” as a meaningless inertia of the lifeworld, simply to avoid irritating Trump psychologically once again. But the ball is in our court. We must deliver a very serious, weighty, and vivid strike. Against whom exactly—that is for the president and the strategists to decide. But in a no-holds-barred fight, the one who does not strike gets struck himself. If you ask for peace at the moment your opponent swings, you receive a double blow.
We must designate an object for just retribution and demonstrate power. Our inaction now is as effective as action, only in the opposite, catastrophic sense. To strike is risky, but not to strike is even more dangerous. To continue the war is risky, but to stop it now would mean acknowledging catastrophe.
I carefully analyze the Western and American press. The situation in Ukraine does not worry me—it is already clear there: Zelenskyy will sabotage any peace until the very end since war is the only way for his physical survival at the head of the regime. I believe we must destroy this terrorist regime and all of its leadership as quickly as possible, by any means and at any cost. That is the shortest path to peace, to victory, and to the defense of sovereignty. The era of preventive strikes has arrived. Whoever delivers the first, effective strike will gain not only time, but the future.
A powerful and correctly targeted strike against the enemy may be the only way to end this war.
Continue:
It is the heaviest of loads to take on to any good heart, to understand that all that can be done, has been done, to convince the enemy that they need not be so, but in this, Putin and Russia have done their utmost, and like you, I agree, there are only two courses left for Russia to take - give up all ideas of Sovereignty and Multipolarity, which will prove every critic of, and planner of Russia's demise true, which is unthinkable, or strike a very specific target, in a very meaningful way, as the last hope to bring the Western hegemonic leadership to its senses - and by that I mean they must be taught true fear, for nothing else will do.
As you have rightly pointed out, even Russia's latest weapons, Oreshnik, Burevestnik, and Poseidon have not impressed on these arrogant, narcissist, cognitively dissonant fools, the very real danger these systems present, and think they can play with time itself to create answers to these weapons systems - time they are too stupid to realise, they have not got, and indeed, Russia would be extremely foolish to give them.
I am a UK citizen, I do not want to die, I do not want Russia and Russians to die, I do not want the World to die, or Ukrainians, Americans, Germans, Britons, or anyone to die, yet I see no other choice for Russia, and it is not a choice that can be delayed much , or NATO will have time to arm, force-conscript, and organise against Russia further.
I do not want to see Earth turned into Planet America. Like Putin, and You, and others who see the truth, I want to see a multipolar World, governed by respect for each other, and respect for law obeyed by all. It isn't just about Russia any more, it is about the very existence and continuation of the Human species, and many other forms of life on this planet, which for all the theories and ideas, is still the ONLY place of life in the Universe, until otherwise proven.
Extreme Narcissists like Trump (he is not alone in this) cannot be reasoned with - they can pretend to reason with you, but they are always. always, always thinking of themselves, and their plans. However, because the root of Narcissism is self-preservation above all else, they DO understand fear when it has been properly demonstrated to them.
Choosing the right target is paramount.I would argue that it is not Kiev, not Berlin, not Paris, but The City, in the City of London. Kiev is too close to Russia, as is Berlin, Paris is far enough, but London is better. Strike London, and all the others, Washington included, will become very afraid.
However, I would use several Oreshnik to wipe out The City, in The City of London, and give enough warning to evacuate, but strike with the full intent to destroy on an exact timetable. I would have my entire nuclear forces publicly at their highest state of readiness, and make that known, and also make it known that ANY retaliation from Britain, and or NATO countries, would result in the immediate launch of Nukes at Britain, with the intent to wipe out its entire military infrastructure, and any participating NATO ally.
I doubt very much that it will take nukes to send the strongest message of Russia's readiness, and ability to strike where it wanted, with Nukes if that became necessary, and that the multiple Oreshnik strikes on The City, in The City of London, would instil just the right fear into Trump, and other vassal leaders. It would be a devastating blow to NATO, but most importantly, it will trigger Trump's, and the American Deep State's survival instinct. They do not want to lose their lives or country, and they will come to a genuine peace agreement with Russia.
The problem is that the USA is the ONLY country to have used WMD's in conflict - they have demonstrated what they are willing to to do with no other peer previously on the Planet, but until Russia demonstrates it's own ability to strike hard at an enemy that really counts (doesn't have to be nuclear, but close enough to get the massage across that it could be a nuke next time), no Western Nation will respect Russia as an equal.
It is a horrible position for Russia to be in, but Russia has already demonstrated Oreshnik in Ukraine, and that was too far from the real handlers - The UK, Washington, Paris, and Berlin, for them to have their narcissist self-preservation kick in - and I'm not talking about their current clamouring about Russia being a threat - that's just for optics to get funding, to in time, build up forces to counter Russia - it's not the same thing as striking genuine fear of imminent annihilation into their stone-cold narcissist hearts, which will have them scrambling to make peace.
I suggest Britain is that target because for geographical and political considerations. Britain is begging for it, and it is strategically the best option. I argue against the others, because if Britain falls, it is far enough from Russia to not be effected badly by radiation (if it comes to nukes), and because all the other Narcissists in the alliance will not be keen to have their countries wiped out.
I also think that the alliance will immediately fall apart, with each member looking to its own survival, and thankful they weren't the target. I also think that Kiev will lose all its backing, and then be forced to capitulate, saving Ukraine from losing everything to The West. In many ways, Ukraine is the victim, used as a sacrificial pawn in the West's ambitions to break Russia.
Regardless of what I think however, I accept that I may be wrong in my evaluation of things, but whatever Russia does, it cannot roll-over, and give in. The USA is the one that needs to see Russia's seriousness, and resolve, to gain its respect, the rest will follow suit - however that is done, I hope it results in minimal casualties, whilst achieving Russia's goals, but an attack on the US itself would be suicide, and the end of all, which is why , as much as I don't want it to be my country, I think my country is the prime candidate.
Vechnaja Pamjat' to your beautiful daughter, murdered by Satanists, Professor Dugin. A striking personality in the war against Evil was she.