The conception of "disintegrating Russia" was developed by culturologist and philosopher of history Yuri Lypa in his book with the same title in 1941.
Oleh Bahan: "In the work "Disintegration of Russia" Yuri Lypa writes that Ukraine is the decisive geopolitical factor for the collapse of the Russian Empire - an artificial, oppressive and anti-national monster of international politics". The main conclusion of Lypas work, for Balan, is as follows: "Russia will be a burden and a threat for its neighbours until it starts focusing on building its own, ethnic Russian nation on its own lands, until it ends its imperialist politics".
The theses of Yuri Lypa resemble the general goals of Ukrainian nationalist geopolitical thought regarding the Russian problem (that is, destroying Russia as an empire while supporting the rights of Russians to their own ethnic state). Ukrainian nationalists did not, however, limit themselves to theory only. The national-liberation movement, led by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was in itself also an anti-imperialistic fight that aimed not only to free Ukrainian lands from Moscow-Bolshevik occupation, but also to destroy the Moscovia* empire in every form. To achieve this, Ukrainian nationalists actively worked with peoples of different nations, who themselves were subjected to Moscow imperialism (for instance, foreign divisions in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the Conference of the Captive Peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia in November 1943, the Antibolshevik Block of Peoples, and so forth). After proclaiming formal independence Ukrainian nationalists didn't abandon their own views of the problem of Moscow imperialism. Indeed, the help they gave to different members of the anti Russian-imperialist fight in the Caucasus region confirms this.
Destroying Russia as an empire was, is, and will be a strategic goal of Ukrainian nationalism. This stems from the vital interests of the Ukrainian people. But it's important to remember another reason why the destruction of the Moscow empire is extremely important, stemming from traditionalist, revolutionary conservative, anti-liberal and anti-globalist positions.
The idea to write this came to me when I was talking to one of my "friends" on the social network Facebook. My friend is an Englishman, a supporter of the idea of a Conservative Revolution, who also has sympathies to the conception of Eurasianism. I'm almost certain, that there are many people like him in the west. And there are a few reasons for this.
The West as we know it has become a territory of degeneracy. Beyond the bright advertising and wealthy life of the western individual lingers a civilizational rot - the corpse of a once great civilization. Life in this swamp forces those who do not belong to the mainstream to search for an alternative. Some of them find this alternative in the West - Ex Oriented lux has not stopped attracting those Europeans who strive for the truth. At the same time, the hope from the east is often viewed as Russia. If during the age of progressive modernism western Europeans looked at Russia as a country of savages, understanding by "savagery" something negative, then today amongst them there exists a huge temptation to find in Russia an island of traditionalism, and a bastion of resistance to total (and, to be honest, totalitarian) liberalism.
The faith in Moscow messianism is reinforced by the fact that Russia, beyond any doubt, gave the world a huge amount of incredibly talented (if not ingenious) philosophers in the area of Conservative Christianity - Konstantin Leontiev, Nikolai Danilevsky, Fedor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Pavel Florensky, Geores Florovsky and others. Russia to this day holds a similar intellectual brand due to, by in large, the unusual activities of well-known Russian philosopher and sociologist Alexander Dugin. Dugin has been able to successfully bring together his intellectual works with somewhat of a "marketing" of his own ideas. Bold views, confidence in his futuristic projections - all of it makes many intellectuals not only respect the philosophical position of Dugan, but with great sympathy look towards his ideas of Eurasianism.
It is, indeed, the passion of Dugin that has created pro-Moscow positions in many conservative western intellectuals. For many of them, Russia has become the center of traditionalist thought. In this sense, the view of Claudio Mutti, a guest at the first Russian Congress of Traditionalists is quite symbolic: "I was amazed with what I saw here, 20 years after my first trip here... I couldn't imagine that in 20 years, traditionalism would be discussed on such a level with such enthusiasm. This is what differentiates it from all traditionalist gatherings I've been to in western Europe. I'd like to say, that... In western Europe, there's a completely different atmosphere. First of all, the audience that was gathered today, the amount of people here interested in traditionalism far surpasses anything we can get in even large western European capitals. Secondly, the traditionalism in western Europe is mostly conservative... Here, however, I saw a traditionalism with a creative and pioneering spirit. Even the fact that this congress is dedicated to post-modernism is a sign of an original and creative approach". Sympathies to Russian traditionalism exist not only in Mutti, but in a great number of other European intellectuals, such as Allen de Benua, Guillaume Faye and many other ideologs of the "new Right".
Denying the achievements of Russian intellectuals is impossible, and the problem, to be honest, has nothing to do with these achievements, but with the fact that through them, in the west they see the messianic purpose of Russia. It is not hard to understand why. A thirsty individual in a desert sees what he wants to see. Living in the darkness of European decay, those whom the dope of liberalism has not stopped from thinking, believing, and dreaming try to see some light in the dark hole of an decaying empire.
What exactly is modern Russia? Do her realities coincide with western illusions? Some try to see in Russia a powerful opponent of the United States, others - a fortress of Christianity, others - a "white empire", and others yet a successful example of peaceful existence of Muslim and Christian peoples (thank God, that in the west more and more people are discussing the idea of Christian and Muslim reconciliation in order to resist the forces of Satan). But what is Russia in reality?
First of all, a key illusion must be cleared in the heads of many readers who do not speak Russian regarding that very word - "Russian". In the Russian language, there currently exists two words that in English translate into "Russian". The word most English-speaking people think of and might know is "Russkiy", which means an ethnic identity, much like Polish, Ukrainian, etc. In Russia today, that word is used mostly to describe the Russian language. The word they will likely not know is "Rossiyanyn", which is a plastic, fake world that is used in modern-day Russia describing merely "citizens" of Russia, much like the "Soviet" people. Many see speeches by individuals such as Vladimir Putin translated into English and notice a very strong nationalist undertone, only, however, because of the fact that they do not understand Russian. Putin himself strongly avoids the world "Russkiy", as do all major media and politicians in modern-day Russia, and as such promote the multicultural discourse by using the word "Rossiyanyn", which denotes people living in Russia of all nationalities. Speeches by Putin where he discusses "Rossiyany" are essentially the same as speeches by western liberals when they talk of "citizens of all nationalities", "diversity", etc., except because of the word, there is no need to say anything like that - Rossiyanyn encompasses all of it.
Furthermore, we need to calm the hot heads of those, who, seeing the demographic destruction of their own peoples, see Russia as the saviour of the white race. It would be good if they took an interest in the latest statistics and found out what percent of Moscow, for example, comprises of ethnic Russians. For ethnic Russians, the same demographic processes exist as they do with every other European people. Somewhat different processes can be found in Muslim peoples, controlled by the Moscow Empire, and such process are definitely not in favour of Russians (however, Muslims also receive little advantage from this, but I'll discuss that later). A large part in the decreasing role of Russians in apparently their "own" state are starting to play immigrants as well, especially the Chinese.
The reasons for the decline of the white population in Russia somewhat resemble similar processes in western Europe, but are also somewhat different. A shared trait is low morality, which is a result not only of de-Christianization, but also a lack of Christianization in the past. On the other hand, however, if in the west immigrants mostly come from other countries, then in Russia we see an inner-migration of peoples from non-ethnic Russian lands inside of Russia into ethnic-Russian lands inside of Russia. This is caused not only by uneven development of different regions, but also the ongoing war in the Caucasus region. Drowning the peoples of the Caucasus' in their own blood as they fight for their own state, the imperial government through that stimulates streams of refugees who migrate not only to ethnic Russian lands, but also to western Europe.
It's important to remember that the described processes should not be viewed merely as "Islamization". Moving to Moscow, a Muslim often leaves his own religious principle and is tempted by the secular culture. Instead of a demographic Jihad, Muslims go onto the path of ethnic and religious marginality. As such, instead of a synergy of Christian and Muslim religious, in reality the imperialist nature of Russia brings about the conditions necessary for both the destruction of Russians as a people and the religious degradation of captive Muslim peoples.
Regarding the religion of the Russian people themselves, we should remember something. Christianity in Moscovia cannot be considered fruitless. It created a unique type of spirituality, many bright souls (because of it) found Christ. However the character of Moscovia Christianity was strongly introvert, filled with "spiritual and ascetic social Hesychasm" (Father Ivan Havanio"). Behind the spiritual feats of different monks we find too little evangelization of society. Instead of religious upbringing of the population, the vast majority of the Moscow clergy engaged in only glorifying ritualistic parts of religion. Religious life was changed by spiritually empty conducting of rituals. The nature of Moscow Christianity is his Caesaropapism, an unnatural serving of secular authorities. The direct result of this was the victory of the Bolshevik revolution, something mentioned by both foreign authors (for example, the Ukrainian Yevhen Malanyuk), as well as Russians themselves (the previously mentioned Nikolai Berdayev.
The entire nature of Moscow Christianity is illustrated by a simple statistic. Around a half of the parishes of the Moscow patriarchy are located in Ukraine, where, despite certain negative times in history it was always easier to spread the Good News. Furthermore, amongst Ukrainians themselves the highest level of spirituality and morality can be seen in the western part of Ukraine - in a region that suffered the least from Moscow imperialism (including Church imperialism).
Today, unfortunately, Moscow Christianity did not change its nature. The Moscow patriarchy seems more like a state institute than a Church. Imperialistic logic and a true sense of being, in the case of Russia, are mutually exclusive. As such, Russia is simply destined to become further de-Christianized. The only alternative is to stop putting what belongs to Cesar above what belongs to God not and to conform to the ways of the Satanic empire. Historical precedents of exactly that do exist, and, perhaps, only the prayers of martyrs, who remained true to Christ and didn't bow to the "Orthodox" or Communist King will save the Russian people from total decay. But so far, Christian non-conformism doesn't exist. There is patriarch Kyryl, who reports to Putin, and Russians - a people who were for centuries without true spiritual care, then became victims of the bolshevik experiment, and are now adopting western pseudo-values. Can such a Russia resist the center of Satanic imperialism - the United States?
As Yevhen Malanyuk once quite accurately noted, there exists a key similar trait between western Protestantism and Moscow Orthodoxy - the inability to oppose "the strong of this world". Perhaps, it is this shared trait that is the reason Moscow cannot become a true alternative to America. The standoff between quasi-Orthodox Russia and post-Protestant America is, essentially, a fake standoff with nothing behind it.
No one can deny that geopolitically, America and Russia are opponents. They are opponents, however, no more than Satan and the Antichrist are opponents. It is true that between them one can find certain differences - the US is an instrument in spreading Mondialism, a locomotive of globalization, Russia represents an imperial entity in the more classical sense of the world. Yet, behind these differences we find a metaphysical unity that shows it self in the development of world history.
America achieved global hegemony using the brand of fighting Communism. Similar geopolitical logic exists today. The revanchist moods of Russia force many peoples to look for protection in the west. Certain countries from the former socialist camp went this root, countries who were occupied by Russia in the USSR (the Baltic states and the Georgians). Through this, one imperialist forces independent peoples to become enslaved by another imperialist monster.
In fact, the logic of globalization as we know it today is exactly this: Russia loses control over a region, and immediately after, that region is captured by the ultra-liberal west. America, however, is not interested in the destruction of Russia as an empire - America wouldn't be able to handle such a large amount of geopolitical toys. It's no wonder the Bush-Senior in his day called upon Ukrainians to stay inside the Russian empire - western imperialists were not, are not and will never be interested in seeing Ukraine as an independent geopolitical player. America would rather deal with one Russian empire than with dozens of national states or confederate entities.
What does the destruction of Russia as an empire offer?
First of all, the disappearance fof the Russian threat would allow the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to feel more independent in respect to the west. If anti-liberal forces in western Europe wait for a light from the East, that light can come from Eastern or Central Europe. It is this region that has preserved its truly European essence, it is this region where Conservative and nationalistic forces have strong positions, it is from here that the flame of the Reconquista can become ignited... Or, if this world is truly reaching its end, it is on the territory of central and eastern Europe that a pocket of Resistance can be formed.
Secondly, on top of the ruins of the Russian empire a national awakening of both Russians, as well as other ugro-finic peoples will take place, peoples who will be able to integrate into the reformed Europe. Collectively, these peoples can become a sort of "buffer zone" between Europe and Asia. It is this type of archaea futuristic picture that the destruction of Russia as an empire offers...
Of course, making exact predictions for the future is not possible. What can be exact, however, is an evaluation of current events, finding friends and enemies. He who wants to fight against this modern insanity must clearly understand, that successcannot be achieved fighting against Satan with the Antichrist, nor with the Antichrist fighting against Satan.
As a person who has an interest in philosophy and looks at the world through the eyes of a traditionalist, I indeed respect Dugin the intellectual. As a Ukrainian, however, I definitely view him negatively. No form of cognitive dissonance occurs here, because in my understanding, feelings of hostility and respect are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases organically united (unfortunately, today another approach is mainstream, the approach of plebeians, whereby any enemy must be staunchly hated and disrespected). Agreeing with many ideas of the reactualized by Dugin traditionalism, I completely disagree with his imperialistic nonsense. This nonsense, quite honestly, is a great illustration how an intellectual can sacrifice his own views and principles and become a slave of "the strong of this world".
Earlier, Dugin was more independent. Today, however, he has turned into an obedient herald of a decaying empire. As Yegor Letov once said, "the plastic world has won", and Dugin, at the moment, is merely an ideologue of a plastic Russia. All those who dislike artificiality and love what's natural must fight against this plastic monster. Life exists underneath its roof, where the potential of newly freed peoples burns. We find life in the Mojaheeds of the Caucuses, in the independence movements of Tatarstan and Mari-El, those who go to protest with signs "separate Moscow from Russia", "Siberia will be free", "Long live a republic in the far east!", in the partisans of Primorye - heroes, who tried to free their own people from an imperialistic sleep. In all aforementioned cases we find life, a voice of organics, bastions of Being. But in Dugins Eurasian Youth Movement we find no life. Despite all the financing from the gazprom-bandit government...
In the title to this article I used the phrase "utopias of Eurasia". This understanding, in my opinion, quite accurately describes the sense of modern-day "traditional" ("white", "Orthodox", etc.) Russia. The unnatural Eurasian empire exists, but the messianic empire does not exist. Such an empire is fake, a simulation, a utopia, an illusion. Instead, peoples exist - peoples who want freedom, and it is these peoples who can change the ontological status of the world.
* Moscovia is the original name of Russia, Rus' is the original name of Ukraine.
Oleh Bahan: "In the work "Disintegration of Russia" Yuri Lypa writes that Ukraine is the decisive geopolitical factor for the collapse of the Russian Empire - an artificial, oppressive and anti-national monster of international politics". The main conclusion of Lypas work, for Balan, is as follows: "Russia will be a burden and a threat for its neighbours until it starts focusing on building its own, ethnic Russian nation on its own lands, until it ends its imperialist politics".
The theses of Yuri Lypa resemble the general goals of Ukrainian nationalist geopolitical thought regarding the Russian problem (that is, destroying Russia as an empire while supporting the rights of Russians to their own ethnic state). Ukrainian nationalists did not, however, limit themselves to theory only. The national-liberation movement, led by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was in itself also an anti-imperialistic fight that aimed not only to free Ukrainian lands from Moscow-Bolshevik occupation, but also to destroy the Moscovia* empire in every form. To achieve this, Ukrainian nationalists actively worked with peoples of different nations, who themselves were subjected to Moscow imperialism (for instance, foreign divisions in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the Conference of the Captive Peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia in November 1943, the Antibolshevik Block of Peoples, and so forth). After proclaiming formal independence Ukrainian nationalists didn't abandon their own views of the problem of Moscow imperialism. Indeed, the help they gave to different members of the anti Russian-imperialist fight in the Caucasus region confirms this.
Destroying Russia as an empire was, is, and will be a strategic goal of Ukrainian nationalism. This stems from the vital interests of the Ukrainian people. But it's important to remember another reason why the destruction of the Moscow empire is extremely important, stemming from traditionalist, revolutionary conservative, anti-liberal and anti-globalist positions.
The idea to write this came to me when I was talking to one of my "friends" on the social network Facebook. My friend is an Englishman, a supporter of the idea of a Conservative Revolution, who also has sympathies to the conception of Eurasianism. I'm almost certain, that there are many people like him in the west. And there are a few reasons for this.
The West as we know it has become a territory of degeneracy. Beyond the bright advertising and wealthy life of the western individual lingers a civilizational rot - the corpse of a once great civilization. Life in this swamp forces those who do not belong to the mainstream to search for an alternative. Some of them find this alternative in the West - Ex Oriented lux has not stopped attracting those Europeans who strive for the truth. At the same time, the hope from the east is often viewed as Russia. If during the age of progressive modernism western Europeans looked at Russia as a country of savages, understanding by "savagery" something negative, then today amongst them there exists a huge temptation to find in Russia an island of traditionalism, and a bastion of resistance to total (and, to be honest, totalitarian) liberalism.
The faith in Moscow messianism is reinforced by the fact that Russia, beyond any doubt, gave the world a huge amount of incredibly talented (if not ingenious) philosophers in the area of Conservative Christianity - Konstantin Leontiev, Nikolai Danilevsky, Fedor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Pavel Florensky, Geores Florovsky and others. Russia to this day holds a similar intellectual brand due to, by in large, the unusual activities of well-known Russian philosopher and sociologist Alexander Dugin. Dugin has been able to successfully bring together his intellectual works with somewhat of a "marketing" of his own ideas. Bold views, confidence in his futuristic projections - all of it makes many intellectuals not only respect the philosophical position of Dugan, but with great sympathy look towards his ideas of Eurasianism.
It is, indeed, the passion of Dugin that has created pro-Moscow positions in many conservative western intellectuals. For many of them, Russia has become the center of traditionalist thought. In this sense, the view of Claudio Mutti, a guest at the first Russian Congress of Traditionalists is quite symbolic: "I was amazed with what I saw here, 20 years after my first trip here... I couldn't imagine that in 20 years, traditionalism would be discussed on such a level with such enthusiasm. This is what differentiates it from all traditionalist gatherings I've been to in western Europe. I'd like to say, that... In western Europe, there's a completely different atmosphere. First of all, the audience that was gathered today, the amount of people here interested in traditionalism far surpasses anything we can get in even large western European capitals. Secondly, the traditionalism in western Europe is mostly conservative... Here, however, I saw a traditionalism with a creative and pioneering spirit. Even the fact that this congress is dedicated to post-modernism is a sign of an original and creative approach". Sympathies to Russian traditionalism exist not only in Mutti, but in a great number of other European intellectuals, such as Allen de Benua, Guillaume Faye and many other ideologs of the "new Right".
Denying the achievements of Russian intellectuals is impossible, and the problem, to be honest, has nothing to do with these achievements, but with the fact that through them, in the west they see the messianic purpose of Russia. It is not hard to understand why. A thirsty individual in a desert sees what he wants to see. Living in the darkness of European decay, those whom the dope of liberalism has not stopped from thinking, believing, and dreaming try to see some light in the dark hole of an decaying empire.
What exactly is modern Russia? Do her realities coincide with western illusions? Some try to see in Russia a powerful opponent of the United States, others - a fortress of Christianity, others - a "white empire", and others yet a successful example of peaceful existence of Muslim and Christian peoples (thank God, that in the west more and more people are discussing the idea of Christian and Muslim reconciliation in order to resist the forces of Satan). But what is Russia in reality?
First of all, a key illusion must be cleared in the heads of many readers who do not speak Russian regarding that very word - "Russian". In the Russian language, there currently exists two words that in English translate into "Russian". The word most English-speaking people think of and might know is "Russkiy", which means an ethnic identity, much like Polish, Ukrainian, etc. In Russia today, that word is used mostly to describe the Russian language. The word they will likely not know is "Rossiyanyn", which is a plastic, fake world that is used in modern-day Russia describing merely "citizens" of Russia, much like the "Soviet" people. Many see speeches by individuals such as Vladimir Putin translated into English and notice a very strong nationalist undertone, only, however, because of the fact that they do not understand Russian. Putin himself strongly avoids the world "Russkiy", as do all major media and politicians in modern-day Russia, and as such promote the multicultural discourse by using the word "Rossiyanyn", which denotes people living in Russia of all nationalities. Speeches by Putin where he discusses "Rossiyany" are essentially the same as speeches by western liberals when they talk of "citizens of all nationalities", "diversity", etc., except because of the word, there is no need to say anything like that - Rossiyanyn encompasses all of it.
Furthermore, we need to calm the hot heads of those, who, seeing the demographic destruction of their own peoples, see Russia as the saviour of the white race. It would be good if they took an interest in the latest statistics and found out what percent of Moscow, for example, comprises of ethnic Russians. For ethnic Russians, the same demographic processes exist as they do with every other European people. Somewhat different processes can be found in Muslim peoples, controlled by the Moscow Empire, and such process are definitely not in favour of Russians (however, Muslims also receive little advantage from this, but I'll discuss that later). A large part in the decreasing role of Russians in apparently their "own" state are starting to play immigrants as well, especially the Chinese.
The reasons for the decline of the white population in Russia somewhat resemble similar processes in western Europe, but are also somewhat different. A shared trait is low morality, which is a result not only of de-Christianization, but also a lack of Christianization in the past. On the other hand, however, if in the west immigrants mostly come from other countries, then in Russia we see an inner-migration of peoples from non-ethnic Russian lands inside of Russia into ethnic-Russian lands inside of Russia. This is caused not only by uneven development of different regions, but also the ongoing war in the Caucasus region. Drowning the peoples of the Caucasus' in their own blood as they fight for their own state, the imperial government through that stimulates streams of refugees who migrate not only to ethnic Russian lands, but also to western Europe.
It's important to remember that the described processes should not be viewed merely as "Islamization". Moving to Moscow, a Muslim often leaves his own religious principle and is tempted by the secular culture. Instead of a demographic Jihad, Muslims go onto the path of ethnic and religious marginality. As such, instead of a synergy of Christian and Muslim religious, in reality the imperialist nature of Russia brings about the conditions necessary for both the destruction of Russians as a people and the religious degradation of captive Muslim peoples.
Regarding the religion of the Russian people themselves, we should remember something. Christianity in Moscovia cannot be considered fruitless. It created a unique type of spirituality, many bright souls (because of it) found Christ. However the character of Moscovia Christianity was strongly introvert, filled with "spiritual and ascetic social Hesychasm" (Father Ivan Havanio"). Behind the spiritual feats of different monks we find too little evangelization of society. Instead of religious upbringing of the population, the vast majority of the Moscow clergy engaged in only glorifying ritualistic parts of religion. Religious life was changed by spiritually empty conducting of rituals. The nature of Moscow Christianity is his Caesaropapism, an unnatural serving of secular authorities. The direct result of this was the victory of the Bolshevik revolution, something mentioned by both foreign authors (for example, the Ukrainian Yevhen Malanyuk), as well as Russians themselves (the previously mentioned Nikolai Berdayev.
The entire nature of Moscow Christianity is illustrated by a simple statistic. Around a half of the parishes of the Moscow patriarchy are located in Ukraine, where, despite certain negative times in history it was always easier to spread the Good News. Furthermore, amongst Ukrainians themselves the highest level of spirituality and morality can be seen in the western part of Ukraine - in a region that suffered the least from Moscow imperialism (including Church imperialism).
Today, unfortunately, Moscow Christianity did not change its nature. The Moscow patriarchy seems more like a state institute than a Church. Imperialistic logic and a true sense of being, in the case of Russia, are mutually exclusive. As such, Russia is simply destined to become further de-Christianized. The only alternative is to stop putting what belongs to Cesar above what belongs to God not and to conform to the ways of the Satanic empire. Historical precedents of exactly that do exist, and, perhaps, only the prayers of martyrs, who remained true to Christ and didn't bow to the "Orthodox" or Communist King will save the Russian people from total decay. But so far, Christian non-conformism doesn't exist. There is patriarch Kyryl, who reports to Putin, and Russians - a people who were for centuries without true spiritual care, then became victims of the bolshevik experiment, and are now adopting western pseudo-values. Can such a Russia resist the center of Satanic imperialism - the United States?
As Yevhen Malanyuk once quite accurately noted, there exists a key similar trait between western Protestantism and Moscow Orthodoxy - the inability to oppose "the strong of this world". Perhaps, it is this shared trait that is the reason Moscow cannot become a true alternative to America. The standoff between quasi-Orthodox Russia and post-Protestant America is, essentially, a fake standoff with nothing behind it.
No one can deny that geopolitically, America and Russia are opponents. They are opponents, however, no more than Satan and the Antichrist are opponents. It is true that between them one can find certain differences - the US is an instrument in spreading Mondialism, a locomotive of globalization, Russia represents an imperial entity in the more classical sense of the world. Yet, behind these differences we find a metaphysical unity that shows it self in the development of world history.
America achieved global hegemony using the brand of fighting Communism. Similar geopolitical logic exists today. The revanchist moods of Russia force many peoples to look for protection in the west. Certain countries from the former socialist camp went this root, countries who were occupied by Russia in the USSR (the Baltic states and the Georgians). Through this, one imperialist forces independent peoples to become enslaved by another imperialist monster.
In fact, the logic of globalization as we know it today is exactly this: Russia loses control over a region, and immediately after, that region is captured by the ultra-liberal west. America, however, is not interested in the destruction of Russia as an empire - America wouldn't be able to handle such a large amount of geopolitical toys. It's no wonder the Bush-Senior in his day called upon Ukrainians to stay inside the Russian empire - western imperialists were not, are not and will never be interested in seeing Ukraine as an independent geopolitical player. America would rather deal with one Russian empire than with dozens of national states or confederate entities.
What does the destruction of Russia as an empire offer?
First of all, the disappearance fof the Russian threat would allow the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to feel more independent in respect to the west. If anti-liberal forces in western Europe wait for a light from the East, that light can come from Eastern or Central Europe. It is this region that has preserved its truly European essence, it is this region where Conservative and nationalistic forces have strong positions, it is from here that the flame of the Reconquista can become ignited... Or, if this world is truly reaching its end, it is on the territory of central and eastern Europe that a pocket of Resistance can be formed.
Secondly, on top of the ruins of the Russian empire a national awakening of both Russians, as well as other ugro-finic peoples will take place, peoples who will be able to integrate into the reformed Europe. Collectively, these peoples can become a sort of "buffer zone" between Europe and Asia. It is this type of archaea futuristic picture that the destruction of Russia as an empire offers...
Of course, making exact predictions for the future is not possible. What can be exact, however, is an evaluation of current events, finding friends and enemies. He who wants to fight against this modern insanity must clearly understand, that successcannot be achieved fighting against Satan with the Antichrist, nor with the Antichrist fighting against Satan.
As a person who has an interest in philosophy and looks at the world through the eyes of a traditionalist, I indeed respect Dugin the intellectual. As a Ukrainian, however, I definitely view him negatively. No form of cognitive dissonance occurs here, because in my understanding, feelings of hostility and respect are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases organically united (unfortunately, today another approach is mainstream, the approach of plebeians, whereby any enemy must be staunchly hated and disrespected). Agreeing with many ideas of the reactualized by Dugin traditionalism, I completely disagree with his imperialistic nonsense. This nonsense, quite honestly, is a great illustration how an intellectual can sacrifice his own views and principles and become a slave of "the strong of this world".
Earlier, Dugin was more independent. Today, however, he has turned into an obedient herald of a decaying empire. As Yegor Letov once said, "the plastic world has won", and Dugin, at the moment, is merely an ideologue of a plastic Russia. All those who dislike artificiality and love what's natural must fight against this plastic monster. Life exists underneath its roof, where the potential of newly freed peoples burns. We find life in the Mojaheeds of the Caucuses, in the independence movements of Tatarstan and Mari-El, those who go to protest with signs "separate Moscow from Russia", "Siberia will be free", "Long live a republic in the far east!", in the partisans of Primorye - heroes, who tried to free their own people from an imperialistic sleep. In all aforementioned cases we find life, a voice of organics, bastions of Being. But in Dugins Eurasian Youth Movement we find no life. Despite all the financing from the gazprom-bandit government...
In the title to this article I used the phrase "utopias of Eurasia". This understanding, in my opinion, quite accurately describes the sense of modern-day "traditional" ("white", "Orthodox", etc.) Russia. The unnatural Eurasian empire exists, but the messianic empire does not exist. Such an empire is fake, a simulation, a utopia, an illusion. Instead, peoples exist - peoples who want freedom, and it is these peoples who can change the ontological status of the world.
* Moscovia is the original name of Russia, Rus' is the original name of Ukraine.
