Back to MAGA, Against the EU

The New 'National Strategy' of the Conservative Revolution

On the Escalation show of Radio Sputnik, Alexander Dugin welcomes the new US National Security Strategy as a return to MAGA and an “order of great powers,” promising a withdrawal from globalist interventionism and unleashing a tidal wave to collapse the EU’s last ditch attempt at a liberal crusade.

---

Radio Sputnik, Escalation Host: Let’s start with the document that is currently the subject of heated debate in Russia, Europe, and even China. I am talking about the new National Security Strategy of the United States. In particular, the Swiss media are outright saying that this text largely echoes the Munich speech of our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Alexander Gelyevich, in your opinion, is this really the case?

Alexander Dugin: You know, with the publication of this US National Security Strategy, we are once again seeing Trump’s iconic vacillation between the MAGA camp and the neoconservatives — vacillation that we constantly talk about on our programs and closely monitor. And we can say outright: the current doctrine was written specifically on behalf of MAGA. This is the authentic “Make America Great Again” doctrine, the voice of the staunch opponents of globalism and harsh critics of the neoconservatives, the very core that enabled Trump to win the election.

In essence, this strategy is very close to what I called the “order of great powers” in my book on Trump.

---

---

Nowadays, this term is increasingly heard in the public sphere — “great power order.” It means that the West no longer considers itself the guarantor of democracy, does not engage in the spread of liberal values, does not take responsibility for all of humanity, and does not see itself as part of a single space with Europe. America is now on its own. It still strives for greatness, development, and domination, but clearly defines the territory of this domination — primarily the Western Hemisphere, both American continents. This is where the term “corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” comes from. A corollary is an addition, a development of a certain geopolitical project, and this very corollary of Trump’s is, in essence, the order of the great powers.

What are Trump and his supporters saying in this document? America is primarily concerned with two continents: North America (including, if you will, Greenland as a natural extension of Alaska) and all of South America. This is their zone, and they reserve it for themselves unconditionally. With regard to the rest of the world, the main globalist thesis that Russia and China are the main strategic adversaries has disappeared. Such formulations no longer exist. Russia is referred to in a rather neutral and even friendly manner — as a potential partner. China is seen as a serious economic competitor and a certain threat, but no longer as an enemy in the traditional sense. Intervention in the affairs of the Middle East and other Eurasian zones will be reduced to virtually zero. Africa has been declared indifferent, and India is not mentioned at all — that is, it is no longer considered a strategic partner.

The result is a genuinely multipolar world. Trump openly declares: yes, we remain the greatest pole, we will maintain and assert our hegemony, but we will significantly reduce it. The rejection of the globalist agenda objectively opens the way for other poles — Russia, China, India — to fully assert themselves. As for the rest, Trump simply says: I don’t care, create your own poles or don’t, as you wish. At the same time, of course, American hegemony is extremely wary of BRICS and any consolidation of other civilizations. This corollary to the Monroe Doctrine poses a direct challenge to all of Latin America and will force it to seek a common strategy in order to prevent the outright American domination of its continent. The same applies to Africa.

In fact, we are faced with a deeply anti-European strategy. Atlantic solidarity is mentioned only with sarcasm and ridicule. It proposes to “share the burden” of military spending in NATO: America is relinquishing its primary responsibility for Europe, leaving only key positions. This is, in essence, the end of Atlanticism as such. Europe is now forced to think for itself and create its own civilizational pole.

This doctrine reflects the very MAGA approach with which Trump came to power. Then he strayed far from it: he did not really get involved in the Ukrainian conflict, covered it up with a fig leaf instead of a real solution, bombed Iran, radically supported Netanyahu — he strayed very far from his original program. And in this strategy, he is returning to his roots: back to MAGA.

It is no coincidence that the document has caused real panic among globalists — both in Europe and in the US itself. They are hysterically shouting: who wrote this? If Trump’s first doctrine was written by neoconservatives and globalists — Pompeo, Bolton, Pence — now it is being written by true MAGA supporters: Hicks, Vance, Miller. The paradigm has completely changed. This is an emerging realism — aggressive, hegemonic, but still realism. The idea of promoting liberal values has been rejected once and for all.

America is turning into a concrete, clearly demarcated military-political power with obvious interests that it will fiercely defend in its hemisphere. Anyone who gets caught in the wheel will be in for trouble. But there is no longer any talk of liberalism, democracy, or human rights. America First — period. Objectively, the multipolar world that our president spoke about in his Munich speech, rejecting the West’s claims to universalism and globalism, is now essentially being declared by Trump himself. Another question is whether Trump’s successor, for example Vance, will be able to maintain this course after the 80-year-old Trump. Or will the neoconservatives return after all? For now, this is a declaration of war — not against us, but against the global liberal-globalist elite.

Host: Speaking of Ukraine, there is currently talk that Trump is unhappy that Zelensky does not seem to be reading his peace plan. Trump’s son even suggests that, against the backdrop of all the corruption stories, America might cease its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict altogether in the coming months. How realistic is this?

Alexander Dugin: The plan that Trump is currently promoting is precisely the plan that suits us. We explained this to him very clearly: what is acceptable to us and what we categorically cannot have anything to do with. However, what we explained to him and what he apparently accepted will still not be a real victory for us. Unfortunately, it is yet another compromise. It is not a defeat — by no means — but it is not a victory in the full, profound sense of the word either. It can be called a certain success, it can be called a humiliation of the West, and it is undoubtedly a personal and final defeat for Zelensky — but it is by no means the end of Ukraine as a project and certainly not the end of the West as a civilizational force.

Trump has understood this perfectly well. He understood the main thing: if he really wants to save Ukraine — namely, to save the anti-Russia, the Russophobic bridgehead that has been built up against us for so many years — he must immediately accept our proposals. For globalists, for Europeans, and, of course, for Zelensky himself, this will be a serious, painful defeat. But for Ukraine itself, it won’t be. Ukraine will be saved. And it will be saved in the very capacity in which it was created: as an anti-Russia. And it is Trump who is saving it, sacrificing Zelensky and a whole cohort of European idiots who still cannot believe what is happening.

If Trump, having done everything in his power, simply removed himself from the conflict and left it to Europe and Ukraine — which, incidentally, he has repeatedly hinted at and even said quite openly — that would be the truly ideal option for us. Yes, we would still have to fight — perhaps for a long time and with great difficulty — but then we would have the real prospect of a genuine, complete, and irreversible victory. Any truce we can conclude now is only a temporary respite, and a very short one at that. Neither Ukraine, nor the European Union, nor even the United States will continue to observe this truce once they feel that they have even the slightest opportunity to violate it again.

Host: If Trump decides to take on Venezuela, and we are developing an alliance with Venezuela, how should Russia respond?

Alexander Dugin: That’s a difficult question. On the one hand, we do have an alliance with Venezuela, and if we were stronger, we would have to get fully involved in this conflict on Maduro’s side against American aggression. But, unfortunately, we are not in that position: all our forces are completely tied up in the Ukrainian war — as they are in Syria and Iran. After victory, we would definitely get involved. But now, alas, we are hamstrung.

Host: Let’s start this part of the program with a statement from our special representative of the Russian president, Kirill Dmitriev. He said that the best diplomats in the European Union are now in a panic. This was his comment on a report from Poland that Dmitriev himself and American businessman Elon Musk had decided to divide Europe. What is the reason for this kind of discussion about the division of Europe? Why has Musk become more active? He practically disappeared from the public eye for a while, and now he has resumed his polemic with the European Union about freedom of speech and European laws. What is this all leading to?

Alexander Dugin: In fact, here, as in the adoption of the new national security doctrine and in the negotiations on Ukraine, we are seeing the same general trend—a powerful swing toward a return to the original MAGA project. Because when Trump came to power, he essentially proclaimed a complete reboot of the entire global architecture, and the MAGA projects were indeed launched. And then he seriously and significantly backed away from it. For almost a year — eight, nine months — he was engaged in completely different things: hiding Epstein’s lists, wriggling out of the sudden, enormous pressure exerted by the Israeli lobby on American politics, betraying his loyal comrades. In a sense, he ceased to be MAGA. He distanced himself from MAGA, to a critically far distance. But it all started exactly the same way it is starting now. And now he is coming back — Trump is coming back, and, accordingly, Musk is coming back.

Because Musk has clearly been given the green light to start dismantling the European Union. The very “best diplomats” we are talking about in power in the European Union are ultra-globalists, absolute, irreconcilable enemies of Trump, the fiercest opponents of his course, his ideas, his vision of the world and society. Last winter, in January of last year, almost a year ago, Musk began this campaign against Starmer, in support of the AfD, against Macron. And in fact, Twitter — his network, which is banned in the Russian Federation — became a platform that consolidated the populist opposition in every European country, raising it in exactly the same way that Soros once raised the globalists, but only in a mirror-image, opposite direction. Now Musk has simply mirrored the same tactics, but in reverse. And he started doing this a year ago: supporting the AfD, supporting Starmer’s opponents in Britain, Marine Le Pen, Meloni — anyone who opposed the European Union, the European establishment, and supported European populism, if you will.

And then Musk himself was removed from his job at DOGE, the agency for government efficiency. In short, he parted ways with Trump, and at the same time, Trump himself took up completely different pursuits, which Musk only criticized. But Musk held back. First, he began to criticize Trump, then he paused. And he waited for the moment when Trumpism’s fluctuations entered the MAGA stage again. That is, it’s back to MAGA. We started today’s broadcast with this: in America, we see that Trump is returning to his original plan, to Plan A, to the MAGA plan. And, of course, Musk immediately got actively involved in this process and continues to bash the European Union.

This time it is much more serious. I think MAGA’s second attempt to dismantle the European Union will be much more decisive and consistent. It is confirmed by the new national security strategy and the European Union’s behavior in the Ukrainian crisis, which constantly thwarts Trump’s plans to save Ukraine. Right now, all the circumstances are in place to simply destroy the European Union. No one is hiding anything anymore. Musk openly says: no more EU, let’s destroy the European Union. He has every reason to do so: he is a supporter of a conservative-populist high-tech project, which the liberals in power simply prevent from living and breathing.

I think that America itself, Trump, and his team of Trumpists, where MAGA is beginning to emerge from its coma and play an increasingly important role, have indeed begun to dismantle the European Union. We should only applaud this and, if possible, push what is already falling. If we had the power and leverage to influence the European Union, I am sure that we could send these wonderful “best European diplomats” into oblivion from both sides. Because it is impossible to imagine anything more repulsive, despicable, aggressive, cynical, deceitful, toxic, rotting from within and spreading this rot to the rest of humanity, than the current European Union.

Host: And this fine that the X company received under the new EU law was just a pretext for Musk to unleash his campaign against Europe again. Everything actually happened at Trump’s behest, as it coincided with the publication of the new strategy.

Alexander Dugin: It’s just a pretext, but it fits perfectly into the general fluctuation of the American course — from MAGA to neoconservatives and back to MAGA again. A year ago, when our Escalation program set itself the task of closely monitoring these fluctuations in American politics, we described the logic of the formation of the new Trumpist regime quite accurately, as it now turns out: it will constantly swing between MAGA, approaching the MAGA project — the order of great powers — and moving away from it. Of course, I did not expect him to go so far, so shamefully and for so long, driving away all his closest supporters. But Trump is a truly unpredictable person. With the same ease with which he drove them away, he has gathered them back. Just as he banned everyone, and now he has allowed everyone back. The amplitude of these fluctuations turned out to be completely different from what we predicted when we were making our hypotheses, but the essence of the process is exactly that.

And now, I am sure, Musk simply used this fine as an excuse to get back to business. Trump gave him his silent blessing, and their relationship is gradually being restored. He was fined over a hundred million dollars, but in the first few hours afterwards, X — his network, which is banned in the Russian Federation — soared to the top spot in downloads in all European Union countries. In other words, he has already won. He has shown the real attitude of Europeans towards their governments — it is, in fact, a tacit vote for or against the European Union. No one stands up for the European Union today except the Europeans themselves, except for this Brussels gang — an international gathering of globalist maniacs and Starmer, who has joined them, also an absolute maniac. These maniacs are now feverishly trying to suppress any dissent in Europe. There is a meme going around right now: a photo of Starmer with the caption “We have complete freedom of speech. Anyone who questions this will be arrested immediately.” This is roughly the general state of Europeans today. And since X is not censored by them, they are trying to suppress this very area of freedom. But behind Musk and his network stands the power of the United States of America, and now Trump has openly supported Musk. Hicks supported him, Vance supported him. They said that censoring freedom of speech is unprecedented. In fact, this is a casus belli, a reason for war, for direct diplomatic and political conflict between the US and the European Union. I think that this time it is really very serious. Of course, we cannot rule out that Trump will again retreat from his MAGA strategy.

However, at the moment, we are seeing a new, powerful wave of back to MAGA. Everything is going strictly according to plan. Both the European Union and the US — specifically the US as a whole — are moving in this direction. Of course, the Democrats, liberals, and globalists have a completely different point of view. They are in a state of panic, in real terror. I read the comments of McFaul, one of the most dangerous globalists and architects of policy on Russia and Ukraine: they are simply terrorist, extremist calls for the overthrow of the government in Russia, for regime change, and so on. A former ambassador, a Democrat, a globalist — he is simply hysterical: ‘what is going on, instead of fighting Russia and China, we are at war with our main allies in Europe!’ There is total panic — both in Europe and among American globalists.

This is the wave we are currently riding. And we could rejoice in everything that is happening without looking back, if it weren’t for one extremely problematic moment for us — the peace plan for Ukraine that Trump is promoting. He is not doing this out of malice; he simply has his own agenda, his own vision of the world. He has indeed removed Russia from the list of main enemies and objects of hatred. We are not fundamentally important to him; he has other priorities. And in this he fundamentally differs from the European Union, which, on the contrary, is openly preparing for war with us. It turns out that there has been a real split in the camp of our opponents and — let’s say cautiously — enemies. If we had sufficient tools and sufficient strength to actively participate in this process, I am convinced that the collapse of the European Union, and contributing to its collapse, should become our main foreign policy task in Europe. Because the humiliation we have suffered at the hands of the European Union — not from the European peoples, but from this Brussels construct — is impossible to forgive. They are going to war with us; they are financing, arming, and morally and politically supporting our enemies. They are simply the enemy. We must call a spade a spade: the European Union is an enemy. It must be destroyed.

And we see that the United States today — specifically the MAGA Trumpists — has indeed begun to dismantle it. Everyone immediately cried out: look, they are together with Putin! I think they think better of us than we actually are. If we had such opportunities — unofficial representatives in all European capitals, handing out cookies, supporting everyone who is ready to destroy this structure — we could restore excellent relations with a new Europe: a Europe of nations, a Europe of traditions, a true European democracy, with its culture and its interests. It is not a fact that it would immediately become our automatic friend — I very much doubt it — but we must destroy the pathology that is the current European Union. The European Union must be destroyed.

Host: My colleagues are suggesting that McFaul is not on any lists...

Alexander Dugin: That is very bad. It is really bad because such figures cause enormous damage to our country, both diplomatically and politically. They constantly insult our president, stir up and provoke both the American political establishment and European and American societies against us. Of course, I was absolutely sure that he was on that list. I follow his statements closely, and for me it’s just amazing. I was sure that he was there, along with Soros or Lindsay Graham, that terrorist banned in the Russian Federation. Here, too, we are falling short somewhere. It’s good that you corrected that. We must definitely take this into account.

Host: Now our listeners have also joined the discussion. One of them has anticipated the topic: “Which country will start the collapse of the European Union, or will there be a domino effect?”

Alexander Dugin: A wonderful term has now appeared — EUREXIT, meaning that Europe itself is leaving the European Union. It is not a single country that is leaving, but all of Europe, because the European Union is not Europe at all. It is an artificial, unnatural monster that has deprived all European countries of their real sovereignty. This phenomenon must be completely destroyed.

And so EUREXIT, it seems to me, is the most correct and accurate approach. Remember how the Bolsheviks said: it doesn’t matter which country starts the world revolution, the main thing is to start, to pull the string where things are in bad shape, and then the process will go on by itself. True, their prediction did not come true — no matter where they started, a world revolution did not happen. But in the case of EUREXIT, this is quite realistic.

Whoever leaves now — little Denmark or someone else, not to mention a big country like France, if Marine Le Pen comes to power (and she promises this to everyone), or the AfD brings down the Merkel government (and their forces are growing rapidly), — whatever country, large or small, leaves the European Union today under the current conditions — this will be EUREXIT. That’s it. The end.

Although, for example, Hungary and Slovakia should remain inside until the end — they are pursuing absolutely the right policy, and it is better for them to work from the inside than from the outside. But any other EU country, apart from these two, if it starts to leave — even from Eastern Europe (and they are considered second-class citizens there, simply spat on, for “old Europe” they are trash, not people, except, of course, for the Baltic Atlanticists, who will never leave), — so, if even one serious, large country leaves, it will be the beginning of the end.

It doesn’t matter where the collapse of the European Union begins. Only one thing matters — that it begins. Because then the global conservative revolution will truly triumph in the Western part of the Eurasian continent.

Host: At the same time, you just mentioned Germany. According to the latest polls, almost 70% of Germans are dissatisfied with the current government. Merkel’s disapproval ratings are also breaking all records. Against this backdrop, the process of renaming streets with Soviet names is beginning: Lenin Street and other streets associated with German communist figures who were active in the former GDR are being removed. We all understand perfectly well how such a process of renaming streets usually ends. Why has Germany decided to go down this path now?

Alexander Dugin: It seems to me that this is a completely dead-end path. It is absolutely impossible to prepare Germany — and indeed the whole of Europe — for war with liberal ideology alone. They will have to return to nationalism. But according to their current ideology, they themselves are radical, principled opponents of any form of nationalism. This creates a paradox: the liberal fascism, the liberal Nazism that they are now building throughout Europe, is severely restraining and paralyzing itself.

They want to make their society hate us in the name of gay pride parades, in the name of millions of dirty migrants who are deliberately brought in without any economic justification, just to dilute and dissolve the indigenous population. Europe has already been turned into a garbage dump. And at the same time, they want to raise the fighting spirit in this society. For a real fighting spirit, you need a mobilizing ideology — even if it is extremely nationalistic, even if it is openly fascist. And they are trying to cover it up with liberalism, democracy, and human rights. One absolutely excludes the other.

They cannot mobilize a society that they are simultaneously destroying. They cannot instill a revanchist, nationalist, Nazi spirit in it if they are simultaneously destroying all forms of collective identity, constantly cursing not only our history but their own. These are two mutually exclusive goals. If they pursue both at once, neither will be achieved. Liberalism will finally rot away, and fascism will never succeed.

Therefore, it seems to me that toady their main code is blocked. They need to simultaneously preserve globalism and liberalism and mobilize society for war against us. This task is objectively impossible. It is either one or the other. They are no longer capable of the former, and they are not ready for the latter.

That is why I see grounds for certain, and perhaps even serious, optimism here. If they continue to do what they are doing now — Macron will quarrel with China, Kaja Kallas will break the ceasefire agreements and so on — this will only strengthen our position and give us more and more reasons for real, deep optimism.

---

READ MORE by Prof. Alexander Dugin, brought to you in English by Arktos: