Sunday, 26 April 2015


In the East, like a phoenix arising from its ashes, Russia is rising once again. After the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Republic, Russia is currently experiencing a renewal, a revival forcing us to rethink geopolitics.

For Western nationalists and identitarians, the rise of the country, led by its charismatic and unperturbed leader, Vladimir Putin, is an encouraging phenomenon. It means the end of the unipolar world managed by Uncle Sam. For us, this reshaping of the world means new possibilities, especially seeing that the Russians use a discourse opposed to the faux-human rights ideology so prevalent in the West. If America’s monopoly on power is currently being challenged, the same is true for its dominant values (democracy, secularism, individualism, etc.). Putin publicly justifies his actions with traditional values that are much closer to our own.

It would still be a mistake to consider Russia as the world’s saviour simply because it marks the end of American hegemony. But also the world cannot be divided into two camps: the “good” and the “bad.” If the Americans are the overt enemies of nationalists and identitarians worldwide, the rise of an expansionist Russia does not mean that Russia is siding with us, or that it defends the same interests as we do. As in the days of the Soviet Union, the Russian state is first and foremost concerned with its own power and national interests, and if these collide with ours in the West, Russia will not hesitate to choose its interests over ours.

Not everything can be judged according to geopolitics, however. To illustrate, any scission in NATO or loss of unity in NATO members would clearly be welcomed by Moscow. The recent issue of Scottish independence and the rise of the SNP to dominance in Scotland, and the potential impact of this on the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent, is watched with keen interest in Moscow. The SNP which favours nuclear disarmament serves Russian geopolitical interests. In a similar way, Quebec separatists could be accused of serving the Kremlin’s interests, although their motives are entirely intra-national and have nothing to do with geopolitics.

Choose both.
A similar mismatch between purely domestic concerns and geopolitical interests also occurred in the case of the Ukraine, where Ukrainian nationalists acted for their own benefit, but unwittingly clashed with Russian interests. Because many Western nationalists see Russia as a potential ally, they condemned the actions of the Ukrainians, and accused them of acting on behalf of Washington. They, who were once considered brothers in a common struggle, were quickly sacrificed for geopolitical reasons.

Modern geopolitical games are more in the news than ever before. Nationalist groups must avoid getting too involved in these transient situations and meddling in the affairs of those groups who are intrinsically involved. By doing so and adopting positions based on “ifs” and suppositions, Western nationalists simply create real friction and division among our ranks. The first objective for nationalist is and has always been to take power or to influence its application in order to ensure policies that secure the survival and development of our people in agreement with our traditions and collective soul.

Alexander Dugin, the well-known Russian thinker leading the Eurasianist movement, predicts that the years to come will see the struggle of Eurasianists and Atlanticists. According to him you are either with the first or the second. But this is a false dichotomy. My question might seem naïve, but why should independent and sovereign nations choose between following the White House or the Kremlin? Why couldn’t they, as Markus Willinger suggests in A Europe of Nations, follow their own path, make their own stand, and defend their own interests?

No comments:

Post a Comment