Key Takeaway
“A nation-state is a state that must prepare for war and must be able not only to defend itself but also, under certain circumstances, to attack others. No war, no sovereignty. […] Repressions are mechanisms for the rotation of elites. This is the worst mechanism for the replacement of elites that exists, but there is something even worse: the complete absence of rotation of elites.”
Context
Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war and its transition into a prolonged war of attrition, it has become increasingly common in the West to argue that Russia has reached a strategic and intellectual dead end – not only militarily, but also politically and civilizationally – and that it has exhausted its ideological and strategic resources. Yet the leading contemporary proponent of Russian imperial thought sees Russia’s future very differently. In his view, Moscow is prevailing in the struggle for civilizational survival.
Summary
In a wide-ranging interview with Russian television host Ksenia Sobchak, Russian political theorist Aleksandr Dugin outlines a political and philosophical worldview centered on civilizations rather than individuals or nation-states. Dugin argues that modern Western political thought places excessive emphasis on individual rights and personal freedom while neglecting the importance of community, tradition, and cultural heritage. In his view, human identity is fundamentally collective in nature, meaning that society is held together not by isolated individuals but by shared values and historical bonds. As part of his critique of liberalism, he contends that excessive individualism weakens social cohesion and erodes the traditional frameworks that once provided meaning and direction to people’s lives. A substantial portion of the interview is devoted to geopolitics, which Dugin interprets as a historical rivalry between maritime and continental powers. Within this framework, the United States and the United Kingdom represent the civilization of the sea, characterized by commerce, globalization, and liberalism, whereas Russia serves as the core of the civilization of the land, rooted in tradition, cultural continuity, and territorial attachment. According to Dugin, these two civilizational models embody fundamentally different visions of world order, making rivalry between them both inevitable and enduring. On the question of sovereignty, Dugin argues that a state can be considered genuinely sovereign only if it is capable of defending itself and, when necessary, waging war. At the same time, he emphasizes that conflict should not be understood solely in military terms. In the modern world, he argues, civilizations also compete in the ideological, cultural, and informational domains. Preserving sovereignty therefore requires not only military strength but also the maintenance of an independent value system and a distinct cultural identity. Overall, the interview reflects Dugin’s conviction that civilizations – not individual states – will be the defining actors of the twenty-first century, and that Russia can preserve its place in the world only by maintaining its unique cultural and geopolitical character.
