The West should be rejected

The West should be rejected

Interview to the Greek Newspaper (2010)

Eurasianism. Many consider you the father figure of this political doctrine/ movement. How can u define it with a few words?

1.The human world is not one (Modern-Western) civilization as universal one and example of the development to all other, but rich variety  of civilizations, cultures, religions, ethnics and societies. Each one of them has absolute right of stay what it is or change at its own will in any direction. No society can judge another society because there is no common measure. Any judgment of the sort will be necessarily ethnocentric. The is only one universal think - total absence of any universality (concerning human society).

2. So we need to construct multipolar world where the Western (and North American) society will be one possibility among many other (and not common destiny).

3. The Russia is not a country like Germany or Italy, o Greece. It is something more. It is civilization on its own. It is cultural, geopolitical, historical and social pole of the human world charged with the mission. The Russia in not part of the West nor East. It is completely aside. To understand Russia we should compare it with Europe as whole or with Islamic civilization, or with chinese civilization.

4. In order to create real multipolarity we should reject all “must” of Modernity – individualism, human rights, democracy, free market, parliamentarism, Constitution, technocraty, progress, private property, secularism, irreversible linear time. May b these are the values and norms. May be they are the very good ones. But they are optional at the scale of humanity. We could accept them (if we like them) , or reject them (if we are reasoning in another way) . In the Western Modernity these values are unquestionable and universally accepted. But the real humanity is much wider than Western Modernity. So we have the facts – many societies are based on different set of values. And it is their absolute right. If the West and the Modernity persist in their imposition of local and historical values as the obligatory and normative ones, we should fight against the West and the Modernity with all means we dispose.

5. The West should be rejected as long as it claims to be the fate of all humanity. It is not. It is ethnocentric but very aggressive and annoying we-group. Nothing more. From the half part of XX century the USA represent the West in its more repellent features. That is the reason why we are radically opposed to USA and its hegemony. The USA as country can be good one or bad one. That is not important. It is local historically preconditioned phenomenon. There is nothing universal in it.

6. Societies of the East and societies of the West should oppose together American hegemonism, liberalism , capitalist globalization, the efforts of create One World, ruled by dark and corrupted financial elite.

7. In order to combat the liberalism and globalization we should elaborate the Fourth Political Theory beyond the liberalism, marxism and fascism. These three belongs to the Modernity. They should be rejected. The Modernity is to be rejected in all its parts. The Fourth Political Theory should be based on totally  holistic approach. The are only concrete societies, there is no one abstract society consisted of the individuals. So eurasianism is holism.

8. The eurasianism accepts geopolitical analysis of the world. There is the great struggle of the continents – between the Sea Power and Land Power. Land Power (the historical pivot of history) is Russia as Eurasia. The Sea Power – USA (Anglo-Saxon world as whole).  The Europe, the Middle East, Iran, India and China are Rimland where two main geopolitical Power com in conflict. Every country placed in Rimland can choose of Sea or Land. The USA and Russia are beyond the choice, they are geopolitically predestined to be what they are. The unipolarity is the victory of the Sea Power. The multipolarity  - is the victory of the Land Power.


More or less so.


From Pamyat, to the National Bolshevik Front and then to more intellectual circles. Does your course in a way define the modern politics in Russia?


It is difficult to judge. I was always been and stay being Russian patriot and eurasianist. At the time of Perestroika the Russian historical consciousness began to wake up. There were different forms of it: partly in soviet partly in antisoviet ways. Before 1991 I was rather on the right side. After 1991 I began to grasp that Soviet Union represented more traditional society (paradoxally enough) than liberal democracy. So I have revised my negative attitude to the socialism and made the appeal to the creation of the National-Bolshevist front uniting the left and right against the liberalism, westernization and globalization of Russia. From the beginning that was double initiative: intellectual, on one hand, activist and political, on other.

Very important point was the creation by myself of modern school of Russian eurasianist geopolitics, showing the objective contradiction between the Sea Power and Land Power, that confirmed the intuition of majority of Russian that after abdicating of communism the conflict between the Russia (as geopolitical heartland) and the West (atlantist civilization) will not stop. That was demonstrated by the entrance of countries of Eastern Europe and Baltic states on NATO.

We prefigured in the 90-s, criticizing frontally and severely Eltsin’s regime what was the politic of early Putin. It can be exlained by the circumstance that in 90-s in military circles and in special service Eltsins’s course was extremely unpopular and they needed an alternative (non purely communist because the Marxism has lost by the time the credibility). The answer laid in the antliberal, anti-Westrn synthesis that I proposed. So it was accepted by these circles. They were those who finally have out Putin to th power. That explains the influence of eurasianist and right-left antiliberal and anti-USA (antiaylantist) aspects of early Putin’s politics.


Eurasianism at some point became a trend in certain circles in Turkey, while it still does not attract a lot of supporters in european countries. Why has this happened?


The case of Turkey is unique. Their identity is not fully Eastern (islamic). Nor fully Western. So they should define them otherwise. The eurasianism fits perfectly for them. Exactly as for us. So that is the main common point. Geopolitically they have more and more contradiction with USA (kurdish problem after the intrusion of USA in Iraq, Northern Cyprus issue and so on). The impossibility of entry in EU is another dramatic question. So the turks hav discovered eurasianism and enthusiastically engaged in this direction. My geopolitical manual was published in Turkey and has influenced much the strategic vision of their military chiefs. They discovered the second point of view (that of Land Power), hence before they were aquainted only with atlantist one (Sea Power- for example in the Brzesinski works). So for them I think that was very important and very actual discovery with grave political meaning.

For the Europe eurasianism is problematic. The identity of european countries is certainly Western. So the eurasianism that questions the Western claims for universality can be of interested only to the some non-conformist antiliberal circles (from right or from left). More echoes it finds among european New Right and traditionalists (who distinguish Europe and West). So in Turkey eurasianism is the affaire of live importance, in Europe is the a kind of nonconformist critics.



Can a country like Greece, with a long history of armed struggles and conflicts versus Turkey accept the dogma of eurasianism?


The Eurasians has no dogmas. The Turkey and historical aspect of greek-turkish relations has nothing to do with eurasianism.

The eurasianism is not apriori nor pro-Turkish, nor pro-Greek. Both countries are now the members of NATO, so officially they are on the other side of geopolitical barricade. But when the Russians have with Turkish people the same problem with the identification and in both cases the Eurasian identity is the best and most logical solution, it is obvious that the Greece is something completely different. The identity of Greece is clearly European, and not Eurasian.

But the Greece historically was the center of Other Europe. The identity of the Western Europe was made on consequently rejection of the Greek way of thinking. So I suppose the Greek should have also real problems with the Western Europe – being orthodox and conserving up to the certain level the structures of traditional society the Greece should find the way to redefine its identity. The eurasianism directly doesn’t fit in. But it can serve as example how reject the universality and affirm its own identity struggling against globalization, uniformization and total desocialization of post-modern society.

It believe that in the case if Greece the national-bolshevism can be of more importance. We see in your country the mass rejection of globalism, the liberal capitalism and so on – the left is powerfull. But some circles on the political right also reject the same rends affirming Orthodox Church, cultural identity of Greeks and so on. They spend the time and forces struggling with each other accusing the left be internationalist and right – capitalist and “fascist”. It is the trap set by the System. Uniting the forces of national Left and non-liberal Right we arrive to the synthesis. The same idea is expressed by French sociologist Alain Soral – la gauche de travail et la droite de valeurs. It is other name for national-bolshevist strategy. 


Is Eurasianism a russian version of the european radical right?


As I tried to explain eurasianism is not right, nor left. It is synthesis of all antiliberal tendencies (leftist, rightist, ecological, religious and so on) united wit the geopolitical analysis.


Chechen/Muslim terrorism is nowadays a big issue on Russia. How do you see this situation evolving?


Now it is not so much Chechen terrorism, but there are wahhabi groups in the Northern Caucasus. It is multilevel phenomenon. Partly it is consequence of the ineffective social, economic and cultural policy of the Moscow in region. We approach the inevitable crisis in Russia because of totally failed (and totally false) course of actual President Dmitry Medvedev. So the weakness of the center is swiftly perceived in the most problematic regions. The ethnic and religious differences aggravate the situation. So we should blame first of all the federal politics provoquing au to the certain point the terrorist activities.

Partly there are historical tension that revive always when the central power became weak.

Partly there are influence from the USA that seek to weaken more their geopolitical  concurrent. They do it indirectly via the foreign Islamic organizations.

The situation is degrading. That preoccupates us.


What do you think is the answer to the americanisation/globalisation?


I have explaned it earlier. The only response is the Multipolar world based on the diversity of civilizational great spaces. The poles of new multipolarity should be non national state but new kind of geopolitical organization (alliances, supernational economic systems) where the foundation will be the community of values, principles, cultures.


How do you see the control of the IMF over economically troubled countries such as greece?


IMF is criminal in its practice and its ultraliberal monetarist policy. So it will signify the end of the Greece as the independent country. The Russia rejected all kind of relations with IMF in early Putin’s year. That is the reason why our economy (not brilliant at all) is but still alive.


Immigration (and right now muslim immigration) is the platform that many anti-globalisation nationalist/conservative movements are making gains in Europe. Do you see this trend continuing?


Yes this trend will continue. The immigration changes the structure of European society. The islamic people have very string cultural identity. The European people weaken their own identity more and more in conscious manner. It is human right and civil society individualistic ideological dogma. So the Europe is socially endangered and is on the eve to loose it identity. The free continuation of the flux of the immigrants could result in the brutal change of the society. So the governments of some European states prepare now the space to control immigration by the means much harder than before. That is the question of their own survival. But they have demonized themselves the anti-immigration discourse. So they make the step backwards and rehabilitate up to the certain measure and under certain conditions some xenophobic far right groups and movements. And that will grow. The condition is liberalism, pro –USA politics and the support of Israel. The governments of European countries believe that they will able to keep the growth of far right wingers under control. I sincerely doubt it.

Nevertheless in the immigration issue I am convinced that we need combat the source and reason of the problem and not the consequences. The liberal capitalist global cosmopolite system – that is the center of the evil. Not the immigrants, nor Islam, nor the people from different societies. All the oppressed by ultraliberal global elite should be united and struggle not against each other but against the common enemy.