Sovereignty and War
When nations surrender the right to fight, they cease to be nations.
Alexander Dugin argues that true sovereignty, and thus freedom, begins with the state’s right to choose war or peace.
Forbidding the very thought of war is a direct repudiation of the very idea of sovereignty. The defining characteristic of sovereignty is the absolute right of a free state to begin a war. Or to refrain from beginning one. The meaning of foreign policy (international relations in general) is that there exists no legal or legitimate authority that can compel a sovereign state to do one thing or another. In domestic politics, such an authority does exist; it is the state itself. The right to use violence belongs solely to it. That is its legal foundation. No one has the right to resort to violence internally except the state itself. That is part of its definition. Externally, war is always possible. That, too, follows from sovereignty. From its very basis. In fact, a state can be considered genuinely independent only if it is capable of initiating war (or of refraining from it, but deciding that question by itself). Otherwise it is simply not independent, but dependent — that is, not sovereign. Consequently, it is not a state in the full sense of the word, but a colony.
These are the foundations of the political organization of world politics (the Westphalian system).
In the late Soviet period, the USSR completely forgot these political foundations, demonized war, and introduced criminal penalties for any responsible statement about war other than hysterical blind pacifism. It paid for that harshly: it disappeared, losing sovereignty, territory, and peoples. Thus anti-Russia appeared in the entity of Ukraine. And many others besides. And some of those who appeared on the ruins of the USSR were quite ready to wage war. Russia itself inherited the late-Soviet pacifism. Even before Putin, despite fighting in the North Caucasus, it was afraid to honestly admit that.
Continue:
Hello Mr. Dugin. I'm an Eastern European who spent half of his life in the " good ol' USA ", born under socialism-communism. While I'm against the war/violence, I understand perfect what you say/mean. Any nation/state has not only the ' right ', but the obligation/duty to protect its self (its people). If someone (person/individual or group/nation) is violent and attacks you, or poses a threat to you, then you must protect yourself by any means, including through violence. WHY ?! Simple: because the only language a thug understand is violence. An example for the other readers: I have posted my opinion on Amazon, regarding the book ' American Sniper ' (Chris Kyle) and I was called all kind of names...That those ' savages ' deserve to be killed, that being an immigrant in US, I don't understand how this ' Great Country ' became what it is (through violence) and so on. BTW, I was banned on Amazon (all 30 reviews) in Aug. 2019, because the so-called ' Amazon community ' noticed something suspect about my profile. PS: there is not going to be pace on Earth until we'll stop the Anglo-America-Zionist war /usury machine. Who believes that this could be achieved through peaceful means (vote, protests, demonstrations, etc.) is naive/gullible at best and/or cretin/imbecile at worst.
Based on what some of other readers have posted, I think that they are the same people who don't understand ' The 2nd Amendment ' and why the most ardent supporters are people born under the totalitarian regimes. The right to possess a firearm is stipulated in the 2nd Amendment not for hunting, not for sport or ' fun ', but against a tyrannical Government (and for individual protection against criminals, on the streets or in the Congress...just saying). If some of you guys are willing " to turn the other cheek ", it's your business; just don't ask the others to do the same ( like with the CONvid jabs ). Because I'm not going to do it, on the contrary: I will hit you back (you use the palm, I'll use the fist). PS: would be nice to live in a World without violence (without born ' defective' people, like Andrew Lobaczewski & Co. proved in his/their book ' Political Ponerology '), but unfortunately, we're not there. Because those 25% of psychopaths (defective born people, born without conscience) are (as AL and his group proved) attracted to the power positions. I remember what John Lennon said: “Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” He was assassinated for his thinking by the same cabal which orchestrated the ' public executions of JFK, RFK, MLK-Jr, Malcom X and others, including the last one ( Charlie Kirk ).