My Accidental Introduction to Aleksandr Dugin

Putin's Rasputin, advisor, philosopher, or something else entirely?

Somewhere in the Twittersphere (X-sphere?) lurking beneath the everyday banality of the ever-present western political volleyball match, one finds a character named Dr. Aleksandr Dugin (@Agdchan). Considered by some to be “Putin’s philosopher”, the Russian intellectual and author potentially offers unique insight into the mind of the Russian leader, his desires, and his thoughts about global affairs. Dugin deeply believes in the reunification of the Soviet empire (though he wouldn’t phrase it in such a way), as a national imperative in the preservation of the motherland. But besides his loyalty to his leader and his personal patriotic convictions, things get really interesting when we investigate his views on global issues and their impact on the Putin regime.

When making a depressing trek through the “leftverse”, one needn’t venture very far before encountering the ubiquitous “MAGA Republicans are Putin apologists” trope. Many on the left simply repeat this mindlessly due to the incessant nature in which this rhetoric is dutifully employed ad nauseam by propaganda merchants in the media. The war in Ukraine, in which the Biden administration has made funding its chief concern above all others, has been a litmus test for the left since the Russian invasion began. The once antiwar American left, now exhibiting a hawkishness that makes Dick Cheney look like a peacenik in comparison, has rallied behind the war, and supports an endless stream of American tax dollars and materiel to be given to Ukraine. Conservatives, and Trump supporters in particular, generally do not view the war effort to be a national priority, or to carry with it any American advantage. In this zero sum atmosphere, to not support the war effort in Ukraine is tantamount to supporting Putin’s desires for conquest.

In a recent tweet, Dugin gives us his predictions for 2024, which shed a unique light into the Putin regime’s wishes for the new year - written in Chinese interestingly enough:

- Russia in Ukraine against the liberal collective of the democratic world and postmodernity in general;

- China vs Taiwan (the latter is underpinned by the exact same Satanist neoliberal world order);

- Middle East resistance against Israel and the United States (again the latter has Western support);

Dugin’s use of the phrase “liberal collective of the democratic world” is a recurring theme in his writings. Dugin offers a deeper reason for Russia’s involvement in Ukraine as a war against “postmodernity in general”, which is of course fostered by the democratic western world. This is also what he refers to as the “Satanist neoliberal world order”. Concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict, Dugin appears to sympathize with the Palestinians, due to his animus towards the west, which of course supports Israel.

Things get much more interesting as he continues:

- Western democracies = enemies. BRICS = allies and friends. Both possess nuclear weapons. The F-16s provided by the United States to Ukraine could trigger a Russian nuclear strike against the United States at any time (Lavrov has announced that we cannot be sure whether the F-16 flights over Ukraine will carry weapons of mass destruction - so if it crosses the line, we will at any time launch the first blow).

Perhaps 2024 will be the last year in human history, and the use of nuclear weapons means the complete end of the material dimension. After that we will return to eternity and the Great Judgment will take place. Could this be the last year of humanity—you never know.

In an almost megalomaniacal tone, Dugin nonchalantly - if not gleefully - calls for a nuclear strike against the US if we “cross the line”. He even acknowledges the American retaliation in response, recognizing that the reality of such an act would mean the “complete end of the material dimension”. Can one assume, due to his proximity, that these are the positions of Vladimir Putin as well? It is important to note that Dugin holds no official position within the Kremlin or the Putin regime; and his sway over the Russian leader has been described as being anywhere from minimal to very influential.

At this point, it’s a good idea to delve into the geopolitical philosophy of this character, so we know fully what we’re dealing with here. Dugin offers us another tweet, this time quoting from his book, Liberal Totalitarianism:

The Special Military Operation (SMO) changed a lot, as the beginning of military actions in Ukraine finally contradicted the liberal dogma: ‘Democracies do not fight against each other.’ And if they do, one of them is not a democracy. And the West easily identified who. Of course, Russia. And specifically, Putin. Thus, the liberal West finally refused to consider us ‘liberals’.

But it seems we still want to prove at any cost: ‘No, we are the real liberals; you are not liberals. You have deviated from liberal democracy, supporting the Nazi regime in Kiev. We remain true to liberal dogmas. After all, they include anti-fascism, and that’s what we are fighting against — Ukrainian fascism — as required by liberal ideology.’

Obviously, there’s a lot to unpack there. Interestingly, it is noteworthy that Dugin sometimes despises liberal democracy, and other times embraces it as a self-imposed description of his own country’s government. This apparent conflict is another recurring theme in his writings. Dugin sees it as an imperative of Russia to fight fascism as a self-described liberal society. Evidently, he ignores the fascist tendencies of his own leader to ruthlessly silence any and all dissent of his regime, the most well known example being in regard to Putin opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

As a side note, I found the comments of Russian President Putin after a conference in Geneva with President Biden concerning the imprisonment of Navalny to be quite intriguing. Biden made it clear that he was concerned with the treatment of Navalny being that his imprisonment was due to his opposition to Putin. Putin brought a sense of rational clarity to the issue by immediately comparing the persecution of January 6th protestors to that of Navalny. Putin stated that the protestors were charged with crimes for their political demands, and that their prosecution infringed upon their 1st amendment rights. Setting aside for a moment the few specific cases where protestors did indeed commit violent acts or otherwise break laws with no political component, I find myself in agreement with Putin - considering some are doing lengthy prison sentences and were not even present at the Capitol that day. Even though the specific circumstances differ, Putin’s point is how can we criticize his treatment of his political opposition, when we are similarly punishing political opposition for an unarmed demonstration that was a far cry from an act of insurrection?

Dugin then goes on to lament the preservation of western liberal norms and customs within the fabric of Russian society, an effort he has termed “liberal totalitarianism”:

We still deal with ‘sovereign liberalism’, i.e., the (contradictory and hopeless) attempt to combine the political sovereignty of the Russian Federation with global Western norms, i.e., with liberal totalitarianism and the omnipotence of the liberal Western elites who seized power in the country in the 1990s.

And the plan of Russian liberals is, even during the SMO, to retain their power over society, culture, science, economy, and education, so that — when all this ends — they can again try to present Russia as a ‘civilised and developed Western state’, where liberal democracy, i.e., the totalitarian dominance of liberals, was preserved even in the most challenging times.

Dugin instead favors a new ethnocentric ultra-nationalist Russian empire, founded on traditionalist principles that exclude western liberalism:

It seems Putin signed Decree 809 on traditional values (directly opposed to liberal ideology), added provisions about the normal family to the Constitution, mentioned God as the immutable foundation of Russian history, banned LGBT movements as extremist, constantly expanded the list of foreign agents, and declared the Russian people a subject of history and Russia a state-civilisation... However, the liberal hegemony in Russia still remains. It has penetrated so deeply into our society that it continues to reproduce itself in new generations of managers, officials, scientists, and educators. And this is not surprising — for over thirty years in Russia, a group of totalitarian liberals has been in power, having established a method of self-reproduction at the head of the state. And this is despite President Putin’s sovereign course.

This dynamic is absolutely fascinating. And it is here where we finally get perhaps some insight into why the American left is so quick to paint those to the right of themselves as admirers of Putin. These efforts to ingrain traditional values into Russian society may at first seem to mirror aspects of what rightwing conservatives tend to favor, but with a glaring difference. Second only to God and family, conservatives value the Bill of Rights, which fundamentally enshrines western liberalism into the fabric of American society - an act that Dugin, and presumably Putin, no doubt find abhorrent. In using the state to outlaw and punish movements that are found to be anathema to the regime, Putin is in direct conflict with western conservative values which uphold the freedom of speech, expression, and association as fundamental to a free society.

Dugin treads dangerously close to Maoist cultural revolution tendencies as he elucidates his disgust with the guardians of what he calls “liberal hegemony” - which includes “managers, officials, scientists, and educators” who protect and keep alive the spirit of western liberalism through the arts and sciences. Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong had similar proclivities, as his Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was marked by the “purging of political enemies, the destruction of cultural symbols, the banning of western influences, and the cult of personality around Mao” (SOURCE).

Another tweet in which Dugin quotes his book Liberal Totalitarianism, offers his perspective on globalism:

…liberal dogma denies sovereignty altogether and advocates for national states to be abolished and integrated into a supranational world government structure.

Is this true? In our study of classical western liberalism, no globalist tendencies are found. Liberalism in the classic sense refers to the basic idea that above all else, government should concern itself with the preservation of individual liberty and freedom. These freedoms are not endowed by government, but rather our Creator. Globalism chiefly concerns itself with global homogeneity and collectivism; denying individual autonomy and instead favoring allegiance to the central globalist government. A world order in this regard would necessitate the dissolution of national borders, national identity, national language, and national culture - all of which are alien concepts to the idea of classical western liberalism.

Rather than liberalism, these concepts much more fit the model of progressivism - which seems to rule American culture at the moment. Instead of God in the classic sense, progressives worship secular humanism and its hedonistic tendencies. The sexualization of children through drag performances in schools, the war on natural gender roles, and the demand that society accept these things without question are all testaments to this new progressive dogma. It is true that so many of those at the forefront of the progressive movement were formerly liberals in the American sense. The “fundamental change” of America as promised and delivered by the Obama administration fostered the rapid transformation of liberals into progressives, among ushering in many other undesirable metamorphoses that took place across the American sociopolitical landscape at that time, and up to present.

Perhaps I am in possession of a uniquely American sense of western liberalism, overly idealized in the minds and pens of those who cherish American liberty as we have enjoyed it since our comparatively recent inception on the world stage. Western liberalism does indeed favor globalization - as world free trade and opening up communication and education across the globe does aid in economic opportunity and freedom of the world’s denizens. But though semantically similar, globalization is a far cry from globalism in practice.

The American political arena is very dichotomous in nature, given that we are a two party system. People on both the left and right tend to see issues almost entirely through one lens or the other. But in studying the geopolitical views of Dugin, and and possibly the Putin regime by extension, one is wise to apply some nuance to the discussion. On the one hand, Dugin tends to favor the conservative values evident in Putin’s Decree 809 honoring God and the traditional nuclear family in Russian society. On the other hand, he tends to favor far left - if not communist - sentiments regarding the abatement of western culture, ethnocentricity, and the sovereignty of the Russian leader. These elements echo the likes of Stalin or Mao in their utility as organizing principles of society. So one concludes that shoehorning Dugin, et al. into either an American leftwing or rightwing container is shortsighted, and frankly, erroneous. One thing remains clear however, Dugin is no fan of western culture or even modernity in general. His political views are a patchwork of components borrowed from philosophies of both the left and right (i.e. communist and fascist) - the common thread being the elimination of western influence.

I want to address one more important thought before concluding. I see no evidence in the writings of Dr. Dugin or elsewhere that would encourage one to believe that the Putin regime has any designs on world conquest, and therefore needs to be contained militarily in order to prevent some sort of broad scale European invasion. Furthermore, I am personally inclined to believe that the Biden administration has placed so much focus on Ukraine due to personal reasons rather than over national security concerns. I say this fully realizing that such an opinion may be unpopular or even inflammatory. Nevertheless, I am without compelling evidence to the contrary. At any rate, despite finding few areas of agreement with the philosophy of Dr. Aleksandr Dugin, as a student of world affairs and geopolitical dynamics, I find his positions to be interesting, and I welcome his freely sharing and disseminating his views - as any western liberal worth his salt would.