The Splitting of Time and the End of Anchorage
Why philosophy now shapes geopolitics.
Alexander Dugin explains why the struggle over the future is ultimately a struggle over time, philosophy, and the survival of civilizations.
Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.
Host: Last week, the conference “Philosophy of the Future: Ideas and Meanings” took place. In his welcoming letter, the President of the country, Vladimir Putin, noted the following, and I quote: “There is a growing need for a deep and responsible philosophical analysis of current events and contemporary challenges.” Therefore, I suggest we begin our conversation with the role of Europe in these contemporary challenges. You noticed a lot in the behavior of the West at this conference, so I’ll ask this question: is philosophical analysis in general characteristic of those who sit in Brussels today? Why do current politicians consciously choose the path into the abyss, if you’ll allow me that assessment?
Alexander Dugin: The thing is, it’s all a bit more complicated if we don’t simply write them off as idiots acting spontaneously without understanding the consequences of their actions. In reality, we don’t fully understand the metaphysics of the modern West. But it does have one. It’s just unexpected for us, because in the last 30–40 years, Western philosophical thought has largely broken with the tradition of the Enlightenment, with humanism, with placing man at the center — the very things it used to boast about and which, to some extent, gave it strength in the previous era.
Of course, one can argue about how sincere it was even back then. Double standards are very characteristic of the West: they spoke of progress while creating slavery, they spoke of equality while colonizing other peoples, they spoke of justice while organizing the genocide of entire countries and societies. So double standards are one thing.
But what’s interesting is this: over the last 30–40 years (and this was covered in detail at our conference in the “Lomonosov” cluster at Moscow State University across various sections and from several angles), modern Western philosophy has become openly anti-human. It is openly nihilistic, it carries no seductive image of the future whatsoever, and it essentially trades in horror. This is a philosophy that has completely and finally severed its ties with humanism, with sacred values, with tradition. It has immersed itself in this liberated, free, flowing-into-nowhere purely technical time and has completely reinterpreted all the notions it previously operated with.
That’s why it was so important at this conference to think about time and the future. Because what we’re dealing with is not a glitch in the program — we’re dealing with a certain fundamental tendency, embodied, for example, in the philosophy of accelerationism — the acceleration of time. But acceleration toward what? Acceleration to where? As soon as you pose these questions, as soon as you place them in an intellectual context and examine Western authors, their theories, object-oriented ontology, their ideas about time, temporality, and history — it becomes truly terrifying.
In essence, many modern Western philosophers consciously view the near-term prospect of the destruction of life on Earth, mutations, nuclear explosions, and man-made catastrophes not as a possibility to be avoided, but as a desirable outcome. It’s very hard to imagine, hard to believe that such theories exist. In our section and others, there were presentations, even testimonies from English philosophers themselves.
Richard Sakwa, the British philosopher, spoke about the collapse of progress. He said that no one in the West believes in progress anymore. He had a somewhat naive idea: “Let’s reinvent progress, let’s return to it.” But in reality, we need to delve into progress itself: what kind of ideology was it that has now ended? It was built on anti-Christianity, on the denial of God, religion, and eternity.
And for us now — especially in the face of the philosophy coming out of Washington, Brussels, Silicon Valley, and Western intellectual centers, which are consciously promoting and developing this — we need to emphasize sovereign thought, sovereign temporality, our Russian history, and our understanding of the future. The future of time. Quite simply, our time and the time of the West are flowing in different directions. We definitely don’t need to go where they’re not just inviting us, but actively pushing us.
And that is precisely why, it seems to me, our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin sent such an important message to the congress of philosophers who had gathered from different countries.
The Chinese, by the way, spoke about their own time, and it was very interesting. On the surface, they are successful in the present and very modern, yet they have a completely different understanding of time. And the best representatives of China — Zhang Weiwei, the famous Professor Jiang, who predicted everything possible: Trump’s victory, the war in Iran — they participated. This extremely important group of Chinese intellectuals says: “We also have Chinese time flowing in its own direction. Don’t think we’re submitting to the West — we know its true worth.”
Indian professors from the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute — excellent thinkers, by the way — say that Indian time is not flowing in that direction either. Muslim authors and African researchers (Professor Nyamsi noted that time itself has a different meaning in African languages) emphasize that the West is trying to include us in its time, trying to colonize our consciousness of time and history.
And, of course, every section discussed the question of our Russian time and Russian future: where we should move. It is completely obvious that it is not in the direction the West is pushing us. This was the unanimous opinion of hundreds of people — more than a thousand participated in the congress. We need to go in a different direction: immediately switch the points, immediately get off this train, otherwise catastrophe cannot be avoided. It was a very serious congress. It is rare for two days to be filled with such dense discussions, arguments, and debates.
But already now, as you know, liberals and Westernizers are almost gone — they are rare specimens. The overwhelming majority understand that something needs to be done, that we need to substantiate our own philosophical sovereignty and philosophical independence. We need to build Russian history, Russian Enlightenment (there is, by the way, a presidential decree on historical enlightenment), we need to rely on traditional values, and we need to look not only for tactics but also for strategy. We must determine this path: where we are going, what we Russians consider to be the goal toward which our history is moving as it increasingly obviously diverges from the West.
And it was very important that we had representatives of our servicemen from the zone of the special military operation. Russian philosophers are also participating in the SVO on the line of contact. This is striking, and they were with us. They spoke about how hundreds of thousands of our fighters perceive and make sense of this war we are waging with the West. And this understanding is much deeper than it seems. We tend to think they are heroes who fight purely technically, carrying out orders, but it turns out they think deeply as well. These hundreds of thousands of people may be the most awakened, most active, and sharpest-thinking representatives of our people. Both ordinary and extraordinary — there are professional philosophers, scientists, humanities scholars, and physicists fighting for us on the front lines. While fighting, they think, and they shared their thoughts at the congress. It was priceless, simply priceless.
It is a rare case when an event received enormous support from the authorities, but perhaps the most important thing is that the authorities genuinely need this. It is needed not only by the philosophers or specialists themselves. It is needed by the President, by his administration, by the government (Vice Prime Minister Chernyshenko spoke), by the Federation Council (the deputy chairman of the Federation Council spoke). Essentially, state power is beginning to realize what should have been realized long ago. Thank God the time has come: without a deep philosophical analysis of the processes we are dealing with — both in the complex multipolar world and in our own country — it is simply impossible to move forward.
Host: From my personal experience, I’ve met many guys in the zone of the special military operation of different ages and from different backgrounds, and without a doubt, such clarity of thought is truly surprising. In your opinion, Alexander Gelyevich, how important is it for a Russian philosopher to physically experience what is happening, as they say, on the ground? You said, of course, that it is primarily important for the state, but still, if we are talking about philosophers…
Alexander Dugin: The thing is, we often think that history is about the past. But history is about the past, the present, and the future. All three times together (our past, present, and future) constitute the map of a people’s path, the destiny of a people in history. History is all three times, and accordingly, if a philosopher lives outside history, then perhaps he doesn’t care about anything — but such philosophers have never existed. All philosophers lived the fates of their civilizations and societies through themselves, passing them through their mind, heart, and soul.
Therefore, of course, the war we are waging now must touch every thinking person. Some help the front, some fight, some lose loved ones, some die, some wage the struggle on the level of spirit. But it is one and the same war — in the rear and at the front, in civilian professions, in the economy, in governance, and directly in combat operations.
Alexey Chadayev also participated with us. He is both a thinker and a philosopher, and at the same time the developer of a very powerful drone system. He is right on the front line. And there are many such people. Everyone must get involved in the war. This is destiny, this is a serious matter, this is not a technical glitch. We have been waging it for more than four years. In essence, this is a challenge to our entire civilization and our entire people. We will not win until we incorporate this victory into our very being, until we begin to live and breathe it. This victory, of course, changes one’s attitude toward thought.
And this does exist. There are enclaves in our society, including in the philosophical community, that believe the war is not about them — it’s about someone else. It’s either about the authorities or about some alienated common folk, whom they apparently imagine themselves above. There is even a formula — “philosophical monkeys.” One philosopher said that there are philosophical monkeys who look like real philosophers. And those people who do not pass the war, the fate of their people, their state, the suffering, the prospects, and the efforts through their own soul cannot be called philosophers. They are philosophical monkeys. Or even worse, if they side with the enemy.
But every Russian thinker, every Russian humanities scholar, every honest Russian person, every thinking person with a soul, heart, and mind — of course, they must in one way or another pass through this war and internalize it, make it an event of their inner life. Then we will understand where history is moving, we will see with what difficulty it advances toward its own goal. We will see its goal, we will see the image of victory ahead. Without this, nothing will happen.
Therefore, I think this is necessary not only for the state but for any thinking person with intellect, conscience, and soul. For any normal Russian citizen, any normal Russian person. And this is not aggression, not militarism, not love of blood. It is rather an understanding of the tragic nature of human existence as such. And right now we are at the center of it — we cannot brush it aside.
That is why, it seems to me, one of the main themes at this congress was the comprehension and lived experience of the war, and the advancement to the forefront of a hard-won, profound, mobilizing, and attractive image of Victory, the thought of Victory, and the philosophy of Victory. That is what we need.
Host: Without a doubt, we will devote most of today’s airtime to discussing our path, but with your permission, I will ask one more question about the West. Honestly, it is interesting to observe the following. In your view, does globalism — which unified Europe dreamed about for so long — imply the destruction of the philosophy of identity at the level of nation-states? I would like to trace this moment of decline, from which it seems very difficult to find a way out right now.
Alexander Dugin: Globalism implies the destruction of nation-states themselves, of sovereign civilizations themselves, and the imposition on humanity of a certain model — a model that emerged in the postmodern West. Where the issue is already the decomposition of man. Individualism reaches a point where the individual begins to disintegrate into parts. Time turns into a rhizomatic mass, as the postmodernists say. And in fact, this new postmodern philosophy and object-oriented ontology, which proposes to finish with man altogether, becomes a necessary surrogate for all forms of national sovereign thinking.
In other words, what’s happening is the destruction of our philosophy — and, by the way, of traditional Western philosophy as well, which was genuinely very rich and interesting. Until recently, it was diverse, free, and dialectical. But all of this is now being subjected to total destruction through cancel culture and globalism. Even traditional Western thought itself is being revised and recut to fit the new pattern.
And what can we say about other countries that are supposed to be conquered in the course of this globalization? They’ll be left with nothing but exoticism. They’ll be put on display: we’ll be given the balalaika, the bear, the matryoshka, and the kokoshnik, and told, “This is all Russian culture has to offer.” Everything else will simply be destroyed, wiped off the face of the earth — including the Church, the state, and society.
This is a plan. It’s not accidental. They dream about it, and they are actively implementing it. Inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia in Ukraine is the direct path to establishing globalization. We are the main obstacle on this path. We are creating the preconditions for a genuinely multipolar world instead of a unipolar one. That is why we are the enemy and why we are marked for destruction. And after us, everyone else: China won’t survive, India won’t survive, the Islamic world won’t survive. It will be the end. Everyone understands this. That is why the main — and most negative — effort of the globalists is concentrated against Russia.
Interestingly, the colleagues who spoke at the congress also noted that globalism has slightly shifted. What we’re seeing now is simply direct Western hegemony. No one is even trying to hide the idea of conquering and subordinating all of humanity. This Trumpist West, this neoconservative West, no longer bothers to dress up its will to raw, harsh domination in pseudo-humanitarian language. And that is no less frightening.
It turns out that both the globalist West and the openly hegemonic, America-centric West leave humanity no chance. We have no choice but to pull ourselves together and defend our right to exist — which means we must inflict a strategic defeat on them. Not wipe the West off the face of the Earth (we have no such plans), but curb their will to global domination and cut short their globalist ambitions. That we must do.
The West is ending in Ukraine. It must be stopped at Ukraine’s western borders — or better yet, even further back. This is precisely what is being decided right now. The fundamental question being resolved is this: do peoples have the right to their own philosophy (not just our people, but peoples of the world in general), or will the West succeed in imposing its own, already perverted version? Because this too is a philosophy. It is not just technology — it is the philosophy of post-humanism, the philosophy of replacing man as such with artificial intelligence. An anti-humanistic, nihilistic philosophy in the spirit of object-oriented ontology, which they want to make the only one in the global context.
This is what the war is being fought over. These philosophical meanings of the war are now coming to the forefront. And the more deeply we study the West — how it thinks, what it writes, what its philosophers discuss at their congresses — the more horrified we become. We simply don’t know this side of them. If we truly knew it, I believe we would be acting far more decisively in this war.Subscribe
Host: Anti-humanism, the attempt to blur individuality, the destruction of the nation-state — all of this creates a chasm when it comes to diplomacy and any possibility of dialogue with the West, at least because of the radically different interpretations of concepts, as seen with the “Spirit of Anchorage.”
Alexander Dugin: Of course, the “Spirit of Anchorage” is ultimately just a figure of speech, as the President himself recently said. There were no actual agreements in that interview. They simply talked about the need to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine so it doesn’t turn into a nuclear war. There was agreement on that point. Both sides expressed a desire not to strike each other with strategic nuclear weapons and not to use tactical nuclear weapons for the time being. But it’s “for the time being.” And we’ve already seen what Western promises are worth with the example of Iran.
So the “Spirit of Anchorage” is really just a euphemism. In reality, nothing was achieved, and there is no reason to expect anything. Moreover, if we look seriously, this euphemism wasn’t even necessary. The West perfectly understands our real position, but it interprets our desire for de-escalation as a sign of weakness. That’s all there is to it. The “Spirit of Anchorage” undermined the determination of our society to fight to the end, to complete victory. That was harmful. And in the end, there was nothing substantial in those talks.
I think it was a mistake. Of course we should talk and work toward de-escalation. High-level meetings and contacts are necessary, but we shouldn’t trumpet them publicly. It confuses people. I think all the i’s have now been dotted.
Host: Continuing our conversation about Anchorage and Vladimir Putin’s recent statements in his interview with Pavel Zarubin, I’d like to ask, Alexander Gelyevich: how can trust be built at the diplomatic level if Europe is planning to fight Russia almost according to specific dates and timelines, and previous agreements have ended in betrayal?
Alexander Dugin: I think that while maintaining communication channels, Russia currently has no other choice. None at all. We have already used every possibility except one: to truly fully engage in this war.
Our President has repeatedly said that we haven’t even started yet. He is sending signals. This means we do not want escalation. It’s not that we aren’t fighting — of course we are fighting, and we have both successes and difficulties. But any statement that “we haven’t started,” that we are ready for negotiations, that we remain open — all of this is now perceived as an invitation for the next strike.
In other words, they are beginning to understand (if we put ourselves in the West’s place) that they are the only ones playing the escalation game. They have the lever, they have the rheostat with which they set the level of escalation. We either respond or don’t, but in any case, they are playing the game called “escalation” alone. They can make promises, send dubious negotiators, or give signals, but in reality (as the President and Ushakov have said), they don’t value us at all, they don’t take us into account, they treat us as an object. They wear us down, target our facilities with their missiles, press the buttons themselves, and are essentially waging direct war against us indirectly, through the so-called Ukrainians. And to us they say: “No, no, everything’s fine, we’re waiting, we’ll open Nord Stream or something else, we’ll make a deal about a tunnel.”
We can no longer allow ourselves to be deceived. Continuing to say “you’re hitting us and it doesn’t hurt, and we’re still so kind” simply doesn’t work.
Most importantly, I think discontent is already beginning to grow among the population. Our society wants determination, clarity, an image of victory, and unambiguousness. This “Spirit of Anchorage” should simply be banned as a term. I’m not saying we shouldn’t negotiate with them — I’ve already said we should. But we shouldn’t announce it to our own population. Just do it quietly. Someone flew somewhere, someone came — fine. That’s normal in any war.
But our people don’t need to know about it, because it demobilizes them and creates a false impression of indecision on the part of our leadership. That is unacceptable in wartime. We must have confidence in our leadership, we must be united and consolidated around the President, the state, and our army. There must be no room for doubt. Any talk that we’ll soon make a deal, that the war will end soon, or that a ceasefire is coming has an extremely negative effect on us.
That’s one thing — we are our own people, we might understand and sort it out. But it has a completely different effect on the West. They understand that they control the escalation process. By talking this way, we signal to them that they are in control — and they act accordingly. They raise the temperature exactly to the degree that is convenient and safe for them. Today they attack tankers, tomorrow they direct their missiles, the day after they supply certain equipment — and we merely respond.
We must put an end to this reactive, responding-only strategy in the escalation game. We need to fully enter the escalation process ourselves. That means we must (acting roughly as Iran does, in my view) carry out several pinpoint actions that are extremely painful for the entire West — even for the United States — actions that break their illusion that they control everything.
I have said many times that when I met the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, I asked him: “Are geopolitical chess games played by two players?” He replied, “No, by one.” Right now the West is playing chess against us with only one player: they raise escalation a bit, we respond. They adjust it, and we follow. We are only reacting. That is chess for one.
We need to play chess for two. Even Iran shows how. If we can’t reach decision-making centers, then let’s strike some proxy target. And not necessarily crudely — intelligently. There are many ways to inflict enormous damage on the enemy on their territory, in their waters, in their airspace, and in their social systems. Instead, we are simply running from the fire. We don’t have network operations to destabilize the social situation in Germany, France, Italy, or Britain. But the tools exist. We just say “we’re not like that.” Well, if we’re not like that, then it will end very badly.
What are they doing? When they fully control the escalation process, they deliberately arrange things so they suffer no damage, endure no losses, while inflicting maximum painful losses on us — and then amplify it informationally. We need to do the same.
I’m not even saying what Sergei Karaganov says — take strategic nuclear weapons, take tactical nuclear weapons and start using them. Maybe that too. I’m not an expert there — let the specialists give their recommendations. But the fact that in information warfare, social engineering, and the symbolic conduct of war (from the philosophical point of view), there are still many unused methods and directions is obvious. Why? Because the West, understanding that these are our painful areas, does not attack us in those directions. They do everything so that we respond strictly symmetrically. They are conducting this war of attrition against us in a very calculated way.
And of course they are planning to fight. If we move to positive recommendations: we need to prepare and show the West that we are ready for a frontal war with them. That our society is ready, our economy is ready, our information system is ready, our industry is ready, our people are ready, our political parties are ready.
We have elections right now. Why not rename the party? Not necessarily rename “United Russia,” but declare it the “Party of Victory.” Not the party of war, but the party of victory. And conclude a consensus pact among all political parties that they sign on to this strategy of victory.
Society must be reoriented onto a wartime footing. The information space must shift from entertainment to mobilization. We should simply ban the use of words like “ceasefire,” “end of the war,” “agreement,” and “Western partners.” Our President and the relevant services should, of course, do their work. But society doesn’t need to know the details. The West monitors our society very closely.
We need to launch a real, large-scale anti-Western campaign in our universities and education system. All of this exists. National idea, our own textbooks, sovereign education, sovereign history, traditional values — all of this is declared, but it is not concentrated. It is done as a secondary matter and has not been given the status of a priority.
This is exactly what dilutes the efforts the President himself is making. He is giving all the right instructions in the right direction. But it feels as though all of this then settles somewhere: someone has their own point of view, someone has money in the West or family in the West. And gradually, the image of a society ready for the final confrontation — mobilized, awakened, aware of its place, its country’s destiny, its people and state — becomes blurred.
Instead, we get a picture of something undefined: one life on the Patriki, and a completely different life on the front lines. These sectors are divided. People in Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod (and now also in Rostov, Crimea, and many other territories) feel one way, while somewhere else people continue to live in a vacation mood.
What vacation could there have been in 1941? In 1942? In 1943? What shashliks? What planning of trips to the sea? I understand that people need rest, but… we’ll rest after victory. And if there is no victory, then there will be no rest either — because there will be nothing left at all.
Alexander Dugin: You see, only when the West sees such resolve in our society will it back down. That is precisely the way to avoid real confrontation — because they don’t mess with the strong, especially the very strong and determined.
Behind the President, in my view, there should stand a group of people… Not just society as a whole, which already supports him, but we need to show clear symbols. We need to show, if you will, “hawks” who stand behind the President like a football team — so that no matter where you look, there isn’t a single weak spot.
Host: Perhaps we should learn from Iran in this regard? It was quite striking to watch how they operate on the external media front and on the domestic one, especially after the strike on the school. Domestically, the agenda was framed in such a way that even their opponents felt that in a difficult time for the country, it was necessary to unite around the Ayatollah — regardless of whether you support him or not. At the same time, on the external front, especially in American social networks where most Americans view war or any conflict as evening television entertainment, you see open trolling videos showing Iran chasing American aircraft carriers. They create a genuine image of a confident, strong, and resolute state that fears neither aircraft carriers nor any other external threats.
Alexander Dugin: Absolutely correct. Of course we should learn from Iran, from North Korea, from China… Balance is important here. Our internal situation is different: Iran has a political problem and political opposition, while we do not. Therefore, we don’t need to rally anyone extra — we simply need to isolate this Westernizing sixth column, and that’s it. It’s a pinpoint action. This group is not a mass phenomenon in our society; it’s simply the removal of certain individuals who are ready to hand the keys of the city to the enemy. They exist, and they have revealed themselves. If the fifth column (the anti-Presidential one) has already been eliminated, the sixth column remains. These people genuinely live in the “Spirit of Anchorage” and are waiting for this nightmare to end so we can go back to the way things were.
By the way, Kiriyenko, speaking at the philosophical congress, said: “Nothing is going to end. We will never go back. The psychological desire to survive the trauma and return to the previous situation is understandable, but it won’t happen. It would be irresponsible. Nothing will return. The world will be different.”
And here, in my view, you are right: Iran very actively demonstrates to the outside world its readiness to defend its interests in the harshest possible way. In this respect, we are actually doing even more and defending our interests more firmly than Iran. But it’s all about the image. Our image is somehow incomplete. There are certain internal restraints holding back our full onslaught against the West. Yet we could do much more, and far more effectively.
Of course, we need to use the widest possible range of modern social engineering tools to inflict very serious damage on our opponent. This must be put on a systematic, mass scale rather than done in a piecemeal fashion.
In this sense, Iran has taken a highly effective, convincing, and practical position by demonstrating its image of courage and its total unwillingness to compromise under any circumstances. There should be no illusion that if you remove a few “hawks,” the West can easily defeat an entire people. Even if you destroy this 90- or 100-million-strong nation — 30 million have already signed up for the army. Every third person: women, opponents of the regime, and supporters alike. You are absolutely right about that.
Incidentally, I recently met with the Iranian ambassador, and he said that the most popular song in Iran right now goes something like: “With or without a hijab, I love my country and I will destroy the Zionists and the Americans, no matter what it costs me.” With or without a hijab — that matters to them. They handled this very correctly.
We don’t have such problems. Our society is united — ethnically, socially, and politically. This is a unique situation. We essentially no longer have a fifth column, only a sixth. The fifth column in society has been liquidated — they scattered or reconsidered their positions. There is no direct opposition to Putin, to the war, or to the state. But the patriotic masses are waiting for resolve from our leadership.
I believe that Iran’s successes both in the war and in negotiations with the West (which are real successes, because they don’t fall for Western tricks) are largely due to exactly this. Trump threatens: “You won’t make it back, negotiator, I’ll shoot your plane down.” And they walk out of the negotiations. They demonstrate courage, dignity, and honor.
I think that around the President there should stand exactly this forest of people with names and clear positions. It is no coincidence that at the United Russia congress, figures such as Maria Lvova-Belova, Struna, our hero Poddubny, and Lavrov were included in the top five of the federal list. This is very important because people trust these figures completely: the war hero, the military correspondent, the warrior-hero. The woman who fights so that no child is left homeless or parentless, so that every child has a family — she fights courageously, just like the people at the front. She has also suffered for it, just like the President, with the false accusations from the International Criminal Court about the alleged kidnapping of Ukrainian children — when in reality we were saving them. They always do this: they kill people themselves and then accuse the victims of committing crimes.
These impeccable figures at the forefront are a very important signal. It means we are serious about consolidating society. I believe there are in fact no traitors around the President. There are no traitors around him. But our enemies believe there are, and they are betting on them. They attribute any indecision to their influence. This issue needs to be clarified.
This means that not only those who have already proven their resolve, patriotism, courage, and readiness (like the people now heading United Russia’s list), but also the President’s inner circle must speak out clearly. “I am for victory,” says Peskov. “I am against the West,” says Alexey Gromov. “I will fight for my people to the end,” says Sergey Kiriyenko. They are exactly like that — they are wonderful people. But because they remain in the President’s shadow, a false impression is created. Our enemies think: “Maybe they’re not really like that? Maybe with a pinpoint strike we can break the country’s will to resist?”
We must show that the will to resist and to achieve victory in our society and our state will never be broken. This must be demonstrated.
We cannot dose patriotism the way it is currently done in information policy — one step forward, one step back. Excellent news reports are followed by a program that completely undermines the seriousness of what people just heard with its relaxed tone and glitter. Right now, military songs, truly moral, spiritual, or religious content and traditional values must dominate everything. This has already been said a hundred times.
Host: But ideally, we should geographically spread such active, bright, well-known figures not only at the level of the State Duma or the Presidential Administration, but also at the regional level. This essentially means a complete restructuring of the system.
Alexander Dugin: The President has already spoken about this: we need a new elite. The old elite of the 1990s is leaving. First, they have aged — thirty years is not without consequences, and people lose certain qualities. Second, they have accumulated a huge amount of negative experience that brought them personal enrichment and created false psychological associations. This 1990s elite is no longer fit for purpose. It must give way to real patriots and real heroes — including at the regional level, as you rightly noted.
But the main thing now is different: in my view, this new round of elite rotation must be symbolized around the President. His inner circle must either openly swear allegiance to victory (then there will be no doubts either among the people or the West), or simply make way for the next generation — people like Lvova-Belova, Struna, and our own people.
We all understand that both the people and the West believe there are still people around the President who are not ours — who are theirs. They think so. In reality, this is not the case — I emphasize this once again: it is not the case. But they think it is, the people think it is, and the West thinks it is. This is very dangerous. This illusion must be dispelled through a rotation of the elites.
And of course, if we all unite around the President and around our state, together we will defeat the enemy and achieve victory — no matter what it costs.
(Translated from the Russian)
https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-splitting-of-time-and-the-end-of-anchorage