Home » Interviu » Aleksandr Dugin – „Russia strongly reject any presence of USA Navy in the Blacksea”

Aleksandr Dugin – „Russia strongly reject any presence of USA Navy in the Blacksea”

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a known politologist and one of the most popular ideologists of Russian expansionism and nationalism, with close ties to the Kremlin and Russian army staff. He is leader of The Eurasia Party and creator of the modern Russian school of geopolitics.

CP: – Mr. Dugin, we daily see demonstrations of the people in all major parts of the world. It’s a democratic way to express their disagreement. In Russia, the radical measures of the authorities but also the inability of the opposition led the right to protest in ridiculous. Population doesn’t believe in this „institution” of citizen. Maybe that’s why Kaliningrad episode was so much fuss. How see you this episode ?

AD: – There are some problemes with the functioning of democracy in Russia, I agree. But I think that there is the very big problem with the democracy as such in the West and in the other part of the world. The mass protest actions couldn’t reach the only real goal – to overthrow the capitalist system based on the expropriation of  the real value of human work. The democracy on the global scale is bogus. It is completeness faked. What we call «democracy» is an Spectacle, with or without special glasses. Namely: in the advanced societies the Spectacle is very impressive as the 3D technology as in Avatar movie. In the more tradition societies, like Russia, with less davanced technologies, the illusions of Spectacle are much poorer. We, Russsians, are living in the first stage of capitalist lie. So our Spectacle of democracy is bad and the cruelty of capitalist exploitation is not masked properly.

The capitalism is something that is not compatible with the real democracy, human right and freedom and social justice. The only difference that I see consists in the fact that modern Russian capitalism is much cruder.

CP: – Remaining at the public perception. In Kaliningrad, the population turned out to be enthusiastic at speech of opposition leaders who rushed to claim disapproval of Putin’s regime (I say Putin and stop because nobody  protests against Medvedev !). What errors underlying opposition to failure as a legitimate political force that must be taken into account ? What should be done to change the things ?

AD: – The problem is that now we haven’t real opposition in Russia. The majority is disinterested in politics and aproves in general features the course and discourse of Putin. Medvedev proves to be nothing at all, so he is not mentioned. The only group that is moving still are the marginals, paid by USA and other NATO countries, without political programm and having the only goal – distabilize the situation and to cause the problems to Putin’s souvereign rule. Sometime they manage get mass support – as in Kaliningrad case – but it is casual and without any effect on the national scale. In the distant zones of Russia the social problems are really very serious and that is the reason of some action of protest. Not associated with opposition politics. But in the USA, we are witness at much more animated mass action that usally lead nowhere. In my view, the Kaliningrad case is overestimated in the West. In Russia nobody knows and doesn’t wants to know either.

CP:Media spoke of a future presidential party. What would be the logic and purpose of setting up a party of President Medvedev ? It spoke at a time of possible fractionation United Russia party. We’ll witness at a migration to a presidential party ?

AD: – There has been some speculation on this subject. But nobody speaks clear of such possibility yet. I doubt that it would be possible. Medvedev is completely zero as the man. Political man, I mean. United Russia is not the real political party either, but it is fully under Putin control. So for create „presidential party”, we need a real President. But that is exactly what we lack.

CP: – What means exactly in your view that “United Russia is not the real political party” ?

AD:I mean the United Russia is an organisation without a clear ideology, without any political ideas, programms or common goals, existing only on the basis of Putin’s personal popularity and the political technology of the power in Kremlin, with zero grade of the autonomy. That is not good nor bad, just the state of affairs corresponding to the concrete historic situation. On that note as such.

CP: – Recently, Russia has changed protective speech on Iran issue. Then returned at more good feelings. And after has tightened speech… What is the real vision ? or Russian criticism just was a momentary attitude in the context of recently ended negotiations on START 2 ? We are talking about a very important treaty with global implications, so it is important each argument.

AD: – Iranian nuclear issue is likely to worry many leaders. But I think that the Russia has no reason at all to support West in its anti-Iranian position and considers Iran to be rather geopolitical ally of Russia. The NATO contrarily is regarded as possible enemi. That explains the ambivalent attitude of Russia in time. Russia had itself arguments that were useful in negotiations on START 2. We look carefully developments in the Iranian problem. But a decision to sign to sanction Iran would be only if there are conclusive evidences. Iran is our friend. It could turn once to becom nuclear friend. So is Israel. Israel is friend of USA and possesses the nuclear weapon. So is Pakistan also. Geopolitical speaking, there should be the symmetry.

CP: – For that spoke about START 2, it said that Russia’s anger (about the location of the missile shield elements in Eastern Europe) was still clamp for use in negotiations. U.S. officials said that last year ago Russia knew where will be new locations shield. And recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that these two are very different and not conditional on one another. So, Russia feels really threatened or just claim an reason to negotiate ?

AD: – Yes, Russia feels threatened because NATO keeps moving Eastward from the end of 80-s. Any step of NATO in the Eastern direction is a confirmation of the reasonability of our concerns. No one can persuade us that all this are friendly. The real frindly step was made by Gorbachov dissolving the Warsaw Pact. What followed ? The move on NATO to the East. It is unfriendly step and correctly perceived as an agression. All the other similar initiatives should be regarded and analized in this light.

CP: – Analysts argue that non-involvement of Western in elections in Ukraine were a fair trade with Russia on the location of the shield elements in the Black Sea. What do you think about ? Moreover, these two aspects – Ukraine as a buffer and new location of shield elements – something radically change on geopolitical building in this area ?

AD: – The Ukraine is the part of Russian influence. So the West has nothing to do with this. And the Orange Revolution is over. Russia strongly reject any presence of USA NAVI in the Blacksea. We will not tolerate the american vision of Caucases. Or the plan of the Greater Middle East project. I think that the Ukraine will be part of Russian-Eurasian defense system. Or this defensive system not included shield of U.S. I don’t see such cooperation possible. At least, not in this context.

Gabriela Ionita

© 2010 REVISTA CADRAN POLITIC · RSS · Designed by Theme Junkie · Powered by WordPress