This question asked in the beginning of Putin’s career has been created during the transmutation of the political language of current Russia from Modern into the Post-Modern. In classical language Putin as a human being is an essence, a reality, a personality in the first place. Then he’s being understood inside the political context along his political actions. This is the approach for the Age of the Enlightenment: there is Vladimir Putin, a politician, a person with certain specifics, with certain roots, and there is also his system of evaluations and thoughts. This was true until the Epoch of the Post-Modern has come...

Inside the Post-Modern a person is an empty space, because all a human being deals with is an interpretation of his/her consciousness. As a result, Vladimir Putin’s image appears not from the knowledge of Vladimir Putin, and not from the analysis of his actions, but from the language context he is in. This is why the question "Who is mister Putin?" inside the Post-Modern system has no answer at all. This is a forever open question.

The historical National-Bolsheviks (Nikisch, Ustryalov, Thiriart) have intuitively come close to this complex, but even they have faltered from the path: Nikisch saw positive meaning in technology and process, Ustryalov flirted with NEP and wasn't aware of Germany's meaning for Russia, Tieriard denied esoterism and religion, remaining a materialist pragmatic.

National-Bolshevism is by far the most interesting phenomenon of the 20th century. It has adopted everything that fascinates us within Bolshevism or fascism. Whatever brought these ideologies to an end, contradicts with the spirit of this virtual doctrine.

National-Bolshevism helps us understand where the anti-liberal regimes of our century went wrong and why they were bound to fall. This analysis is loyal to the past and graphic, when it comes to our time, when the "new" right and "new" left are but parodies of what even in its own time were merely parodies of the virtual National-Bolshevism.

The term “national-bolshevism” can mean several quite different things. It emerged practically simultaneously in Russia and Germany to signify some political thinkers` guess about a national character of bolshevik revolution of 1917, hidden in orthodox Marxism internationalist phraseology. In Russian context “national-bolsheviks” was a usual name for those communists, who tried to secure the integrity of state and (either consciously or not) continued the Great Russian historical mission geo-political policy. Those Russian national-bolsheviks were both among “whites” (Ustrialov, smenovekhovtsy, left Eurasians) and among “reds” (Lenin, Stalin, Radek, Lezhnev etc.) (1). In Germany the analogous phenomenon was associated with extremely left forms of nationalism of 20s-30s, in which the ideas of non-orthodox socialism, the national idea and positive attitude to Soviet Russia were combined. Among German national-bolsheviks Ernst Niekiesch was undoubtedly the most consistent and radical, though some conservative revolutionaries may also be referred to this movement, such as Ernst Juenger, Ernst von Salamon, August Winnig, Karl Petel, Harro Schultzen-Beysen, Hans Zehrera, communists Laufenberg and Wolffheim, and even some extremely left National-socialists, such as Strasser and, within a certain period, Josef Hoebbels.

The glassy guys were left behind – we had set out for the East. I fell deeper asleep, having no more fear of the pensioner. I considered, that if necessary I could hit him with the huge wineglass, which was extended onward and upward by that crystal goose.

I swam by the surface of the ocean, after the cataclysm of Australia and Oshym oshym city. Here the main thing begins. More precisely, It seemed the main thing in my sleep, in the train. The surges which carried me away were not just watery ones. A bit lower they were filled with something. I realized that I was sleeping on my back, but for all that the sensations were turned inside out, as if vice versa. On the entire surface, under the hands, grasping the void room under the dangling body, there was felt some paste.

In planetary history, two opposing and constantly competing approaches to the mastery of the Earth’s space, the “land” and “sea” approaches, have existed. Depending on which orientation (“land” or “sea”) this or that state, people, or nation belongs to, their historical consciousness, their foreign and domestic policies, their psychology, and their worldview accord with entirely separate rules. Given this peculiarity, it is fully possible to speak of a “land”, “continental,” or even “steppe” (“steppe” is land in its pure, ideal form) worldview, and a “sea”, “island”, “oceanic” or “aquatic” one (let us note in passing that we can find the first hints at such an approach in the works of the Russian Slavophiles, such as Khomyakov and Kireevsky).

In modern physics, primarily exploring “very unbalanced conditions” and chaotic systems, there is a technical term - “Lyapunov time.” It designates a period, when a certain process (physical, mechanical, quantum, or even biological) moves beyond the bounds of precise (or probabalistic) predictability and enters a chaotic mode. In other words, the tajectory of the process is subordinate to strict laws only up to a certain moment in real time. Beyond this moment, “normal” time ends and paradoxical “Lyapunov time” (or, more precisely, “positive Lyapunov time”) takes over. The characteristics of this “time” are very curious. Unlike usual physico-mechanical time, which is regarded in classical physics as an essentialy reversible quantity (this means that time is nothing else but a static axis, adding a fouth dimension to three-dimensional space; refer to the educational Einstein model), “Lyapunov time” flows irreversibly, only in one direction, and, consequently, consists not of a once-and-for-all defined trajectory (in four-dimensional space), but of “events,” completely unpredicatable movements, which are arbitrary, accidental, irregular. Processes that occur during “Lyapunov time,” are called chaotic in contrast to processes in classical mechanics.

 The future of Russia depends on our will, our determination, our mind. Thus I want to remark that the frontal strategies - opposition, nostalgia, restoration - on which many have counted since the end of the 1980s have finally collapsed. The gravity of the situation was never acknowledged to its full extent. We have wasted our forces in idle clashes and internal contentions. We realized that it is necessary to go by a different way. The present Russian authorities are found in the status of hostages – hostages to the foreign and domestic policy. Before the people and history they are obliged to fight for the Russian future, but just this is what the winners – the US, the globalists – will try not to allow at any cost. This is the tragedy of the authorities, the personal tragedy of President Putin. Neither the condition of our society, nor the subjective qualities of the President are those needed to begin today the revolt against the winner, the exit towards a new historical trajectory. To this purpose there are neither material, nor spiritual resources. Therefore it is a very hard road we have to follow. 

I consider myself a Conservative Revolutioneer and National-Bolshevik. That is not exactly Fascism, or to say it more clearly, exactly not fascism. There were several periods during the history of fascist movements, and these periods were quite different from one another not only politically, but also philosophically and ideologically. In early Italian Fascism (which I happen to like, and I don't hesitate saying this aloud) there were many Avantgardist fronts - in social and economic spheres (Syndicalism, trade unions), in art (D'Annunzio, Marinetti, Papini, etc.), in right-wing Hegelianism that created the ideology of the Absolute State (Gentile), within esoterical seeking and Traditionalism (Evola, Reghini), and, finally, in the very Fascist way, where nihilism and anarchism ("direct action, romanticism, exotica") coexisted with the conservative ideals of nation, ethics, hierarchy, and military values. However, after the Mussolini-vatican pact and the re-established monarchy it all became rather dull, bureaucratic and uninteresting. For a while in 1943-5 the spirit of this left-wing republican Fascism resurfaced in the Salo republic (after the Conservatives betrayed Mussolini to the Americans), but that was something else.