Alexander Dugin: Have we lost half our conscience?


– Now there is a lot of talk about the contradictory turn of Moldova towards Russia. We say that it is “contradictory” in connection with the republic’s orientation towards the European Union, which the ruling government is categorically unwilling to renounce, and in connection with the very active actions of the elected president, Igor Dodon, in rapprochement with Moscow, which supported him in the elections. He is trying to document the relations with the EEA, although the parliament and the government can stop his initiatives. In your opinion, how much is the Moldovan president really interested in changing the course? What outcome is possible in reality?

“As for Dodon, it seems to me that his political position on integration is absolutely sincere.” In general, I believe that in Moldova this is a turn towards Russia from the anti-Russian vector. I’ve heard a lot of criticism about Moldova, but I think there is no reason not to shake the hand stretched out by Chisinau. On the contrary! I believe that the process of Moldova’s integration into the Eurasian Union will continue, and this is the guarantee of the prosperity and independence of the sovereign Moldova.

– Independence and sovereignty – in the context of historical factors, in the context of rapprochement with Russia and its dominant position both in the CIS and in the Eurasian structure? This can hardly be regarded as a realistic doctrinal basis and an incentive for membership in the EEMP. There are, however, other incentives and arguments …

– I think that the Eurasian Economic Community is a very serious form of integration of the post-Soviet space on very correct foundations that strengthen sovereignty, not weaken it. Moreover, this is the only way to preserve sovereignty! What Kazakhstan (Nazarbayev), Belarus … understood very well before all … And they begin to understand the countries that join the Eurasian Union, and are the most powerful and independent as a result, strange as it may seem! After all, in order to preserve sovereignty, some support is needed, and Russia provides this support. But everyone can already use it.

Many want to present this as Russia’s desire to manage and dominate the countries of the former Soviet Union. And wrong. Because Russia has enough levers of influence without the Eurasian Union. It’s actually a much more serious thing. This is the creation of a self-sufficient economic and geopolitical zone, which is the only condition for the preservation of sovereignty by all post-Soviet states. And we see what happens to those post-Soviet countries that are trying to take an active position without sufficient support.

– Speaking about Eurasianism and the post-Soviet countries, we can not abandon extremely painful aspects. These are zones of military conflicts, called frozen conflicts. For a quarter of a century and more, negotiations, settlement processes, and concepts are being put forward. And all, say, ineffectual. Why for so many years nowhere have a real solution been achieved? How do you see ways of finding solutions?

– There are some conflicts that can not be resolved without changing the rather serious and global balance of power. Both the Karabakh conflict and the Transnistrian conflict, that is, the conflicts that arose in the era of early perestroika and in the 1990s-they were, in fact, explosions resulting from the destruction of the state. Somewhere it went smoothly, somewhere – not smoothly. Where there has been “not smooth”, the whole situation within the existing balance of power simply can not be resolved. A number of conflicts can be said: it’s even good that they are as they are. It seems to us that it’s hard to live for people, it’s hard to endure all this. Of course, so it is. But what is the alternative?

In Azerbaijan they are tormented over the question of what to do with Karabakh … There is one scenario, and our Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also supports him. Actually, he promotes it. It’s about returning regions taken by Armenians, but not in response to recognition. Armenians want recognition, and we say “in response to an improvement in the situation.” It is not enough for them. In any case, some solution to an existing conflict is possible only through a colossal irreparable damage to one of the parties. It is clear that these conflicts were initially formed when one of the parties or both suffered irreparable damage. However, the revision of existing conditions will cause even more damage.

How, for example, to solve the problem with the status of Jerusalem? Well, its just impossible to solve! On the one hand, Arabs will not agree to any condition, on the other hand, Jews. So, if today, at the moment, now there is simply no shooting, – this is an excellent solution. I regret to say this, but what is the same now, is in Transnistria and in Karabakh, is the best, because nothing can be done. It is absolutely impossible to “raze” neither one nor the other without colossal sacrifices, without blood.

If the overall balance changes, if multipolarity advances and prerequisites for a new balance of power are created, it will be possible to think about a solution within them. With the current status quo and these problems: happiness, that there is no blood pouring there! Because if you try to mobilize, solve them – what will happen? … And it’s bad that the blood is pouring in the Donbass.

– The problem of the Donbass is directly associated with Russia. How to deal with it?

– Donbass – the situation is extremely painful, because in reality it is half Russian spring. I lost a lot of people there, and it’s very difficult for me to talk about it. But we did not take Novorossia, we did not lose Novorossiya. We did not refrain from the action, we did not complete the action. Nevertheless, we paid in full – as if completed the action and took Novorossiya. And they carried out everything they wanted. Imagine: you are only looking at half the film, but they paid the full price, but got in the face and you were kicked out into the trash. And the film continues to go, someone is watching it. The situation is extremely painful, pathological with the Donbas.

– What do you think: on which path will the development of events in the Donbass take place – in the Karabakh, Transnistrian scenario? Or, for example, in the Crimean?

– This is a bleeding wound, which we first warmed up, contributed to its creation. Then we did not cure her. We did not finish anything. And now we were offered the same situation – Donbass – as the first conflicts – Karabakh, Pridnestrovie. They are more or less pacified, they do not require immediate intervention. Donbass demands. And he was already recorded as if in a settled problem, although no solutions were found.

No half-hearted decision in this case is possible due to the participation of Russians from this side of Novorossia and territorial borders. Therefore, this is one of the most, let’s say, truly horrible topics. For any Russian person, it will be painful. About the Donbass, we simply can not speak, because we ourselves are involved in this, we lose close people. And having actually paid for the full program, they received a selective answer – some sort of cognitive dissonance has come!

Again half-heartedness! Like half a glass: one screams – how much water, others – see how much emptiness. And they say, they say, this is a normal situation, usually so half a glass and pour. Something in this is fundamentally wrong, and for both sides – in the sense that it is said that we are only with the Crimea, and this simply helped. Ukrainians in response say: “Well, it’s not like that! You support them. ” That is, we are forced to simply tell Ukrainians a lie. And they have even a certain logic.

They declared war on us – in fact, they try to lead it, but we do not recognize it, we do not. At the same time, we get real damage, real losses. We periodically threaten that we recognize federalism, that is, the Donbas as part of Ukraine. The population categorically does not want it – it did not suffer for it. So many victims! And yet, when it comes to the peak, and it seems that Russia has betrayed the Donbas, it has abandoned it altogether – once! – and we seem to get out of a certain “process”. And, for example, we do not let Ukrainian border guards into their territory. Therefore, we do not betray anyone, we do not remove our economic support. But every time the situation is painful for us.

I’m not talking about the others who look from the outside and do not understand how Russia behaves and what it is. Half smashed her head and still speaks about something with this half-smashed head, suddenly invites her to undergo treatment or curses. But it’s disgusting! Our behavior is disgusting. Started to kill – kill, you do not want to kill – go away. Why all just fuck up? I say, looking from the outside, but there, inside, no one understands this. We are forbidden to talk about this subject.

– What does “forbidden” mean? Direct censorship?

– I’m forbidden to appear on some channels, on some programs. I’m doing it a little now. But here, due to the fact that I refuse to glorify this ingeniously clever plan, it is ugliness, to praise it as the great wisdom of all times and peoples. Ugliness is ugliness! And, criminal, bloody, dishonest ugliness. When I say this, they tell me that I rock the boat. And I speak the truth and do not swing anything. I am a supporter of Putin, Russia, and it’s hard to suspect me otherwise. But when they show the horse and say “this is a cat”, I still say – no, this is not a cat. With all the wild love for Putin – no.

– That is, are you ready to defend your views, regardless of the consequences?

– There was such a case in China. Once the country was seized by eunuchs – a weak emperor was, 12 thousand concubines, here the eunuchs took power. One eunuch decided to set up an experiment. He seated the emperor, gathered all the nobles and said: “Now we’ll look at the best horse of the emperor.” And brought out a deer. Half were indignant: “Where is the emperor’s horse?” It’s a deer. ” The second half admired, they say, what a beautiful horse, what a steed, never seen such a thing.

Then the eunuch said: “Who else here will talk about some deer, which neither I nor the emperor can see, that kind will be carved up to the babies.” One more division: already from those who were indignant, why they are shown a deer, they began to agree – well, the horse is nothing, good. And in the remaining half they still said: “You know, mister eunuch, it’s a deer.” And all these people with their childbirth were carved. Imagine this is a real story.

In fact, this choice is very complicated. It is a choice of heart, in fact. Donbass. That’s where we, loyal people, are introduced into this situation: the same eunuchs bring out the same deer and are forced to say that it’s a horse. And this is not a horse. And we are just as painfully worried, just as morbidly indignant and suffering, as the ends meet with us do not converge, as with all the other nightmare observers that occurs in the Donbas.

People continue to perish. Nobody names things by their own names, no one takes decisive actions. And we conduct ourselves in this matter, in my opinion, unworthy. Too half as unworthy. Can you lose half your conscience? Interesting, huh?

One response to “Alexander Dugin: Have we lost half our conscience?

Stauffenberg was Right!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s