Understanding Aleksandr Dugin’s Vision of Geopolitics and the Clash of Civilizations

Aleksandr Dugin is a Russian philosopher and political theorist, often regarded as a controversial and influential figure in shaping neo-Eurasianist thought and Russian geopolitical strategies. His ideas blend elements of traditionalism, nationalism, and a profound critique of Western liberal democracy, positioning him as a staunch advocate for a multipolar world order. Dugin’s work draws heavily on the philosophical underpinnings of classical and modern theorists, ranging from Carl Schmitt to Martin Heidegger, adapting their concepts to the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

One of the central elements of Dugin’s ideology is his advocacy of the “Fourth Political Theory,” which he presents as an alternative to liberalism, fascism, and communism — the dominant ideologies of the 20th century. This theory rejects the liberal notion of individualism and embraces a form of cultural and political particularism aimed at preserving distinct civilizational identities. Dugin’s theories are underpinned by a stark division between sea powers, which he associates with mercantile, liberal, and maritime nations (Thalassocracy), and land powers, which he connects with traditionalist, hierarchical, and continental states (Tellurocracy). He argues that the historical conflict between these two types of civilizations is pivotal to understanding global conflicts and stresses the need for a coalition of land powers to challenge the dominance of Western sea powers.

Dugin's views on the clash of civilizations extend this narrative, suggesting that contemporary global politics can be understood as a continuation of this ancient and ongoing struggle. By framing global conflicts as part of a broader existential and civilizational battle, Dugin’s work resonates with those in Russia and beyond who feel marginalized or threatened by the encroachment of global liberal norms. His influence is evident in various aspects of Russian foreign policy, particularly in the context of Ukraine and broader Eurasian integration initiatives, where his geopolitical fantasies often translate into strategic narratives adopted by political elites.

In summary, Aleksandr Dugin’s ideological contributions provide a framework through which many in Russia and other post-Soviet states interpret their place in the global order, their historical relationships with neighbors, and their future trajectory in opposition to Western hegemony.

Theoretical Framework

Aleksandr Dugin’s geopolitical framework is deeply rooted in the dichotomy between land powers (Tellurocracy) and sea powers (Thalassocracy). This distinction forms the bedrock of his theoretical approach to international relations and has profound implications for how global conflicts are interpreted and engaged.

Tellurocracy vs. Thalassocracy

Tellurocracy, or land power, is characterized by Dugin as rooted in tradition, stability, and a hierarchical structure. These powers are typically continental, relying on land-based strategies for defense and expansion. Historically, Dugin views countries like Russia, China, and Iran as tellurocratic states. They prioritize control over vast territories, derive their strength from resources found within their landmass, and maintain a focus on preserving cultural and political sovereignty against external influences.

Thalassocracy, on the other hand, is defined by its maritime orientation. Sea powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other NATO allies favor trade, globalization, and naval supremacy. These powers leverage their maritime capabilities to exert influence across continents, promoting open markets and liberal democratic values that Dugin argues are antithetical to the traditional values upheld by land powers.

Historical Context and Geopolitical Battleground

Dugin interprets history through the lens of this conflict, suggesting that major global conflicts can often be traced back to the friction between these two types of powers. For instance, the Cold War can be seen as a struggle between the Soviet Union, a quintessential tellurocratic power, and the United States, a leading thalassocratic power. Each tried to spread its influence and political ideology across the globe, often at the expense of the other.

Going further back, Dugin might cite the example of the British Empire’s colonial pursuits, which epitomized thalassocratic expansion, often clashing with land-based empires in Asia and Africa. In contrast, the spread of the Mongol Empire across Eurasia represents a tellurocratic expansion, relying on land-based military strategies and control over vast territories.

Dugin believes that understanding these dynamics is crucial for contemporary policymakers, particularly in Russia. He argues that Russia, as a tellurocratic state, must consolidate its land-based power and align with other land powers to resist the encroachments of sea powers, which he claims seek to encircle and diminish Russia’s influence in its traditional sphere of influence.

By framing geopolitics as a perennial battleground between land and sea powers, Dugin’s theory provides a paradigm through which current international tensions can be analyzed, from the conflict in Ukraine to the power dynamics in the South China Sea. His framework suggests that these are not isolated incidents but are part of a larger historical and civilizational conflict that defines world order.

Dugin’s View on Modern Conflicts

Aleksandr Dugin’s interpretation of modern international conflicts through his geopolitical framework sheds light on his perception of global strategies and tensions. He views these conflicts as manifestations of the deeper, underlying clash between land and sea powers, which he believes shapes the world’s geopolitical landscape.

The Ukraine Crisis

Dugin’s analysis of the Ukraine crisis is emblematic of his approach to modern conflicts. He views the crisis not simply as a regional conflict but as a significant battleground in the struggle between Russia, representing land power, and the West, representing sea power. According to Dugin, the West’s support for Ukraine during the crisis is part of a broader strategy to weaken Russia by pulling Ukraine into the sphere of Western influence, thereby expanding the reach of Thalassocracy into traditionally Tellurocratic territories.

Dugin argues that the crisis in Ukraine should be understood as part of the historical struggle for Eurasian dominance. He sees it as a direct challenge to the multipolar world order he advocates, where regional powers like Russia maintain sovereignty and influence free from Western liberal democratic norms. In his view, the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy for larger geopolitical interests, with the U.S. and NATO using it as a means to contain and control Russia by extending their maritime strategy into Eastern Europe.

Broader Global Conflicts

Extending beyond Ukraine, Dugin connects his theories to other global conflicts, asserting that these too are not isolated incidents but are interconnected through the civilizational clash between land and sea powers. For example, he views the tensions in the South China Sea, where the U.S. (a sea power) and China (a land power) are in a standoff over territorial claims, as another manifestation of this global pattern.

Similarly, Dugin sees the conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Iran, through the same lens. He interprets Western interventions in these regions as attempts by sea powers to destabilize and reshape the political landscape to prevent the consolidation of land powers that could challenge Western hegemony.

Dugin’s perspective suggests that modern international conflicts should be viewed not just through the prism of national interests or regional security issues but as part of a broader, almost existential struggle between competing visions of world order. This civilizational clash, in his view, pits the liberal, maritime, globalist agenda against the traditionalist, continental, and multipolar ideals supported by countries like Russia.

In summary, Dugin’s geopolitical analysis provides a comprehensive and often controversial framework for understanding modern conflicts. By framing these tensions as part of an enduring struggle between land and sea powers, he offers a unique perspective on why conflicts emerge and how they are likely to evolve, emphasizing the need for a strategic response from land powers to preserve their autonomy and cultural integrity.

Implications for Global Order

Aleksandr Dugin's geopolitical theories have significant implications for the future of global politics, particularly concerning the structure of international power dynamics. His predictions and recommendations for Russia's role in these dynamics are rooted in his vision of a transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order.

The End of Unipolarity and the Rise of Multipolarity

Dugin has been a vocal critic of the unipolar world order dominated by the United States since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He argues that this unipolarity, which aligns with Thalassocracy, is inherently unstable and detrimental to the preservation of diverse cultural and political identities. According to Dugin, the future lies in a multipolar world where no single nation or coalition of nations can impose their will on others globally.

He envisions a new world order characterized by the emergence of several regional powers, each with its sphere of influence and internal governance models. This multipolarity would allow for a more balanced global power distribution, where conflicts are contained and managed through dialogue and mutual respect between civilizations, rather than through dominance and imposition of one universal model of governance.

Russia's Role in the Multipolar World

Dugin sees Russia as playing a crucial role in the formation and stabilization of this multipolar world. He casts Russia as the leader of the land powers, a natural counterbalance to the maritime hegemony of Western sea powers. In his view, Russia should not only resist the influence of Western liberal democracy within its borders and near abroad but also actively support other nations in doing the same to diminish Western influence globally.

Dugin advocates for Russia to lead a coalition of land powers, including states like China, Iran, and India, to establish a new geopolitical equilibrium. This coalition would work to reinforce the sovereignty of its member states, protect their traditional values, and promote a model of international relations that is decentralized and respectful of the cultural and political uniqueness of each civilization.

Furthermore, Dugin believes that Russia, with its vast resources, military capabilities, and strategic position spanning Europe and Asia, is uniquely positioned to challenge the maritime strategies of the U.S. and NATO. By strengthening alliances with other land-based powers and consolidating its influence in strategic regions such as the Middle East and Central Asia, Russia can ensure that no single power or group of powers dominates the global stage.

In essence, Dugin's vision for the future of global politics involves a fundamental rethinking of current international norms and power structures. His advocacy for a multipolar world order seeks not only to end the dominance of the United States and its allies but also to create a more diverse and balanced global system where different civilizations can coexist and cooperate on equal terms. This vision places Russia at the forefront of a significant geopolitical shift, proposing a role for it as a guardian of multipolarity and a leader in the fight against the imposition of a homogeneous global culture.

Criticisms and Controversies

Aleksandr Dugin's geopolitical theories and visions for a multipolar world order have not been without significant criticisms and controversies, both within Russia and on the international stage. His ideas provoke strong reactions due to their radical implications and the extreme nature of some of his positions.

Criticisms of Dugin's Theories

One of the main criticisms of Dugin’s ideas revolves around their foundational premise, which some argue relies on a romanticized and overly simplistic view of global history and politics. Critics contend that his dichotomy of land and sea powers oversimplifies complex international relations and downplays the nuanced interdependencies of the globalized world. Additionally, his vision is seen as regressive by promoting a return to traditional values and rejection of liberal democracy, which critics say can undermine human rights and freedoms.

Dugin's alignment with far-right and nationalist movements has also attracted widespread criticism. His ideologies are often intertwined with authoritarianism, anti-Western sentiment, and sometimes overt xenophobia, which many in the international community find alarming. His views on creating a Eurasian empire led by Russia can also be perceived as expansionist and imperialistic, reminiscent of past Russian imperial ambitions.

Reception in Russia and Internationally

Within Russia, Dugin's ideas have found support among certain nationalist and conservative segments of the political elite and population who feel alienated by the West and its cultural and political influence. However, his influence on official policy and his position within the Russian intellectual and political landscape are subjects of debate. While he has been associated with some factions within the Kremlin, his direct impact on Russian foreign policy, such as actions in Ukraine and Syria, remains unclear and likely overstated by both supporters and detractors.

Internationally, Dugin's theories are received with caution and, in many cases, outright hostility. In Western academic and political circles, he is often viewed as a proponent of a dangerous and aggressive Russian nationalism. His calls for a multipolar world are interpreted by some as attempts to destabilize the current international order to Russia's benefit.

Influence on Actual Policy

The extent to which Dugin’s ideas influence actual policy is complex. While his theories align with some of Russia’s geopolitical behaviors, such as its opposition to NATO expansion and its efforts to strengthen ties with China and other non-Western powers, it is difficult to directly attribute these policies to Dugin’s influence. Most analysts agree that while he may articulate and philosophically underpin certain strategic directions, Russian foreign policy is shaped by a broader set of factors and actors within the state’s political and security establishments.

In conclusion, while Aleksandr Dugin's ideas contribute to the ideological discourse around Russia's role in the world and inspire certain nationalist narratives, they also provoke significant criticism and concern due to their radical nature and potential implications for global stability and democratic values. His work remains a controversial part of the conversation on global geopolitics, reflecting deeper tensions and divisions in the current global order.

This article has explored the complex and controversial theories of Aleksandr Dugin, a figure whose ideas have resonated within certain circles in Russia and raised alarms internationally. Through an examination of his geopolitical framework, interpretation of modern conflicts, envisioned implications for global order, and the critiques these ideas have attracted, we've uncovered a multifaceted view of a theorist who seeks to redefine Russia's role in the world.

Summary of Main Points

• Theoretical Framework: Dugin’s distinction between land powers (Tellurocracy) and sea powers (Thalassocracy) sets the foundation for his analysis of global politics, positing an inherent conflict between these two forces that shapes historical and modern events.
• Modern Conflicts: Dugin interprets events like the Ukraine crisis as manifestations of a deeper civilizational clash, suggesting that these are not isolated incidents but part of a broader struggle against Western hegemony.
• Global Order: He predicts the decline of unipolarity and the emergence of a multipolar world, advocating for Russia to lead a coalition of land powers to balance against the influence of sea powers and promote a more decentralized global structure.
• Criticisms and Controversies: Dugin's ideas are criticized for their simplistic dichotomy, regressive values, and potential to fuel authoritarian and imperialistic tendencies. His influence on actual policy is debated, with some viewing him as a significant ideologue, while others see him as one voice among many in Russian strategic thinking.

Significance of Dugin's Ideas

Dugin’s theories provide a lens through which to understand Russia's aggressive posture in global affairs and its resistance to Western influence. His advocacy for a multipolar world reflects a broader sentiment shared by other global powers who feel marginalized by the current unipolar system dominated by the United States. Whether one agrees with his analysis or not, Dugin’s ideas undeniably contribute to the discourse on global geopolitical restructuring and the search for alternative world orders.

Reflecting on the significance of Dugin's ideas, it becomes apparent that they tap into deeper currents within Russian and global political thought. In a world where tensions between major powers are escalating, understanding these perspectives can help policymakers and analysts anticipate potential shifts and challenges in international relations. While controversial, Dugin's vision of a multipolar world order raises critical questions about sovereignty, cultural identity, and the future of global cooperation.

In conclusion, Aleksandr Dugin's theories, while often polarizing, are undeniably influential in articulating a vision of the world that challenges the prevailing global order. His ideas offer a stark reminder of the ongoing debates about the nature of power, culture, and identity in a rapidly changing world. Whether his envisioned future comes to pass or not, the issues he raises will likely continue to influence discussions on global strategy and international relations for years to come.