The Ukraine Question and the Trump Administration
I have to say that I am surprised by Dugin’s idea that all of Ukraine should be under Russian control, and I assume that he is tuned into what the Russian government wants. If Trump agreed to that, it would be widely seen as surrender. I had assumed that it was only the predominantly Russian Donbass that was the issue and that what Russia wanted was to combat Western expansion and a neutral Ukraine. Ending the war on terms satisfactory to both Russia and the U.S. may be very difficult.
From Arktos:
The Ukraine Question and the Trump Administration
 |
Alexander Dugin argues that Russia’s uncompromising stance on fully integrating Ukraine into its sphere is a geopolitical imperative, driven by existential necessity rather than expansionist ambitions, and must be clearly communicated to Western leaders like Trump to avoid disastrous misunderstandings.
When we say that all of Ukraine should be part of a unified Russian space, we are not making excessively extreme demands. This is not maximalism. The current state of Ukraine is incompatible with the very existence of Russia. And if this issue is frozen once again, even if we include all our new territories within administrative boundaries, it still solves nothing. They will rearm and attack again. No one can guarantee otherwise.
But even such a proposal for a truce is not being offered to us.
Therefore, negotiations with Trump about Ukraine from our side will be conducted as follows: Ukraine is ours; everything else is negotiable. Deal? Of course, it won’t be handed to us. But we don’t need it to be. We will liberate it ourselves, no matter what.
The only question is whether we can avoid nuclear war along this path or, unfortunately, not.
It would be better to avoid it, but we are ready for anything. Ukraine, for us, is not a desire to gain more but an existential threat to lose everything. And this is not a hypothesis; it’s a fact.
It is very troubling that the seriousness of our situation is not understood in the West. Biden’s globalists have managed to shift the Overton window so far toward the reality of dealing a strategic defeat to Russia that this trend has become central. Those who are more reasonable and closer to Russia say: maybe its not worth trying to defeat Russia, as the cost would be too high. But those who are enraged by us, riding a wave of Russophobia, proclaim: let’s deliver this strategic defeat; Russia won’t dare to launch a nuclear strike; it’s a bluff. Bluff or not, this will only be known when it’s too late.
All of this, this mental map, creates a serious threat to the Trump administration’s relations with Russia — the Russophobia hypnosis is too dense and effective. This was the plan. Out of the best intentions, Trump might say: Moscow, take all within the LBS (Line of Contact). And that’s enough. Deal?
But for us, this is entirely unacceptable. It is an inevitable new war and a very likely collapse of Russia itself. Because that’s a defeat. In every sense. Trump might think he’s giving us what we want. But for us, this will be a direct challenge, blackmail, and a call to surrender.
This is a very dangerous situation where geopolitical realities clash with artificial mental clichés. Altogether, it creates an extremely dangerous cognitive dissonance.
Washington must understand that Russia needs all of Ukraine, and that’s it. Then, let “comrade nuclear weapon” speak.
It’s unfortunate to start a dialogue with the new American administration, generally opposed to globalism and anti-traditional values, on such a hardline note. But this is yet another trap left by the globalists. Perhaps Trump does not understand it. And we, while maneuvering diplomatically, hesitate to call things by their names. It’s better to be straightforward with Trump. Ukraine is ours (all of it), and this is not up for discussion. We are fighting there with conventional arms until victory. What sacrifices we bear are our concern. Occupy yourselves with something else.
Sanctions may remain; relations need not be renewed. That’s for later. But Ukraine will be ours, entirely and unconditionally.
Because without this, we will perish. And we do not want to perish. If we must die, everyone else will, too.
Again, there is no extremism here — just the cold laws of geopolitics, clearly described from both sides: by us and by Brzezinski. The detachment of Ukraine from Russia has been an imperative of the entire Atlantic school of geopolitics since its founding — since Mackinder (and even earlier). It’s simply a law. For the Eurasian school, the opposite axiom is true: Ukraine will either be Russian, or there will be no Ukraine, no Russia, or anyone else at all.
A very delicate situation is unfolding. With Biden and the globalist fanatics, everything was clear. They put forward unacceptable demands, and our demands seemed unacceptable to them. With Trump, it’s a different matter. What appears as a “gift” to him will be, for us, a declaration of war.
Therefore, it is essential to explain all this to Trump clearly and unambiguously, without pathos or emotion. If we let our “sixth column” handle this negotiation track, they will surrender everything immediately. But our people, I think, understand this. However, the new Trump administration in Washington, which even theoretically cannot be free from neocons or deep state appointees, may easily mistake one thing for another.
I believe the most direct solution would be to declare Russia’s true plans for Ukraine now during Washington’s transition. Russia will stop only after Kiev’s unconditional surrender and full control over the entire territory. Ukraine is Russia. This is our nuclear stance.
https://voicefromrussia.ch/en/germany-a-state-without-sovereignty-in-a-comatose-state
So this mentally ill freak prefers nuclear war over not being able to control a certain country that poses no threat to them? Wow, this definately sounds like the type of guy we should be promoting!
The error here is that you are thinking like a Liberal statist. This does not mean necessarily political union, but definitely cultural unity.
Dugin explains this in many other places.
The Russian world is not a nation state. It is a civilization state that has several independent states within its sphere. It includes Russia, Belarus, parts of Kazakhstan and parts of Ukraine. Russia itself is a multi-ethic state. It is many nations in one world, one culture. The Russians are about 79 percent, but there are Turkic, Finnic and numerous Uralic and Siberian tribes making up the rest of the Russian world. Each has it’s own ethnicity, but are Russian nationality. This in turn is part of the Russian world. It is easy to see what parts of Kazakhstan are Russian. It’s impossible to see which parts of Belarus are Russian. They are seen as a “type” of Russia. Some Belarusians might see it differently, but there are no Belarusian nationalists to speak of.
Ukraine is more difficult to parse out. There is definitely Crimea and Donbas which are Russian. Then there is the rest of “New Russia” in which about 50 percent of the people in the territory speak Russian. Kiev would be included in that description BTW. So would Odessa and Transnistria. There is also MOST of Ukraine which speaks neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but Surzyk, a mixture of both languages that varies even from person to person. Only in three or four oblasts in the very West do people speak exclusively Ukrainian — and in those areas are also Rusyns, Poles, Hungarians, Roma, and Romanians — some would like their autonomy or to rejoin their nations.
In the West, we associate the nation with the politics and government of a region. We accept the Westphalian system. Most of the world does not accept this. In most places in the world, you belong to the same nation as your people no matter what the political boundaries are. The West needs to accept that model. This is one of the main reasons the West meddles and causes more problems than it solves when it inserts itself. The West needs to stop imposing its system on the East and Global South and let them parse out their own national conflicts. This is what Dugin is saying in the article. In a nutshell.
The Russian view is that if Ukraine is to be de-Na
The Russian view is that if Ukraine is to be de-Nazified, it would return to its natural state. The parts that cannot accept being part of the Russian world (Those three regions in the West) were actually never part of Russia or the USSR until after WWII. They might continue to exist as a dysfunctional rump state or exist as a union of states with Poland and/or Hungary.
Dugin posits a Eurasian heartland vs the Atlantic cluster, a Russian geopolitical counter to the English (and notionally Jewish) northern America, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and their allies. This is not a settlement that Europeans should welcome. Better to promote white unity of the western nations with the Slavs, and to loosen the comparatively growing power of the Chinese around the globe and in outer space.
Solzhenitsyn remains a better guide.