Eurasianism: The struggle for the multi-polar world

Shahzada Rahim

Three decades ago, American pragmatic commentator Francis Fukuyama wrote The end of History and the Last man, proclaiming the end of ideological war and celebrating the victory of the liberal order.

The proclaimed words were no different from General George Marshall’s famous speech at Harvard University, in which he said:

the world situation is very serious…with foresight, and a willingness on the part of our people to face up to the vast responsibility, which history has clearly placed upon our country. The difficulties can and will be overcome”.

Both proclamations have something in common, the role of American leadership in maintaining world affairs.

Whereas George Marshall explained the responsibility of American leadership in the context of the cold war, Fukuyama attempted to presume the unilateral role of American leadership in the post-cold war, especially in the absence any major adversary on the global scale.

But within a decade, after Fukuyama’s open proclamation of America’s liberal ascendance, American leadership began suffering from the disorder of doublethink that originates from the contradiction between theory and practice in the promotion of liberal values.

Indeed, the proclamation led by the United States and Europe was frenzied with the selective vision of creating a liberal world order.

Consequently, the west tried to execute this vision through Think Tanks, NGO’s, Supply-side Economic reforms, and humanitarian intervention that finally ended up in the apocalypse and exposed the failure of unipolar American leadership.

In the wake of the so-called humanitarian interventions, and failure of supply-side economic reforms in the form of 2008 financial collapse, the leaders of Russia, China, India, Turkey and other major powers began perceiving the west’s promotion of liberal values as a cynical ploy to subvert their rule and their ambitions.

This dissent vertical thinking was similar to the German school of thought about French revolutionary cries of liberty, fraternity and equality as a camouflage for the conquest back in the 19th century.

The failure of post-cold war socio-economic order stagnated the global economy and widened the gap between rich and poor, which fomented Identity crisis.

The birth of a new identity crisis was harried with moral guilt and hatred for the liberal centric world order that ignited the strong wave of popular nationalism across the globe.

In Moscow, Eurasianist scholar Alexander Dugin influenced the policy of President Vladimir Putin and diverted Russian policy towards Eurasianism. The ultimate purpose of this diversion was aimed at Russian revisionism in order to bolster Russia’s role for the creation of a multi-polar, and multi-stakeholder, world.

According to Dugin, European civilization has degenerated and it must be destroyed. However, to fight the European civilization, Dugin suggests the Eurasianist Federation based on the strategic unity and ethnic plurality with a principle judicial element of the rights of people.

For Dugin and other Eurasianists, the federation will be accompanied by the cob-web of connectivity ranges from ethnocultural to territorial level. What Dugin says:

The crisis of identity has scrapped all the previous identities—Civilizational, historical, national, political, ethnic, religion, and culture in favor of the universal planetary western style identity, with the concept of individualism, secularism, representative democracy, economic liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and the ideology of human rights”.

For Alan de Benoist;:

the existing west is an alien to European culture that is, in fact, the enemy of the Europe—Atlanticism, liberalism, and individualism are all forms of absolute evil for the indo-European identity, since they are totally incompatible with it”.

Today, there are three different policies that revolve around the Russian geopolitical thinking: the soviet, the pro-western, and the Eurasianist.

For Dugin, in order to revive the multi-polarity, Russia must uphold and pursue the Eurasianist policy with a vast responsibility of safeguarding the collective identities across the Eurasian continent. In this regard, Eurasianist policy is the only practical way of curing the ills created by the dystopian liberal world order.

Hence, it is this interconnection between the concept of multi-polarity and Eurasianism, which Dugin calls his “Fourth political theory” that envisions the new project for the Eurasian century.

Likewise, through his Fourth political theory, Dugin attacks Western civilization with the broader vision of creating a multi-polar world by resurrecting liberal Europe.

In contrast, Dugin perceived the concept of multi-polarity through the Oswald Spengler’s, “Decline of the west” together with the dissent philosophy of Fredrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.

Therefore, by using their nihilist approach, Dugin wants to overcome liberal centric Europe and its modernity, whose destruction he deems as necessary to create the multi-polar world.

Thence, the central theme of the Eurasianism transcends from the context of values of the traditional society and advocates the technical and social modernization without abandoning the cultural roots.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: Economics, latest
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jul 4, 2019 11:26 AM

Africa kisses butt again?

Jul 4, 2019 10:48 AM

Eurasianism is not an isolatable reductionist ‘thing’: it is an element and sub-class within a larger set of dialectics …the dialectics of ‘Atlantic Integrationism’ and ‘Eurasian Sovereigntism’ (Eurasianism). This is obviously the Saker’s conceptual framework: but I feel that it is well worth establishing the historical context in order to understand Eurasionism within the global historical dialectic. 1991: the collapse of the former Soviet Union (FSU). Too complex to go into: but important to note that it was more to do with internal contradictions than anything the Cold War or the ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ could do. One of those contradictions was that the Nomeklatura wanted to convert power to wealth [Sources: Aleksandr Zinoviev; Aleksandr Buzghalin; Sergey Kurginyan]. 1993: the Yeltsin Years – important to note that this was an internal ‘civil war’ in which 26.5mn people died. The Oligarchs emerged from a period dubbed “Jurassic Park Capitalism” by Aleksandr Buzgalin. The… Read more »

Jul 4, 2019 1:46 PM
Reply to  BigB

Globalisation is a function of capitalism, it follows inevitably from international trade on a massive scale. But US hegemony-unipolarism-is something different a particular form of globalism with the vicious object of subordinating humanity to the rule of the US oligarchy and its collaborating compradors, such as Merkel, Macron and Hunt-Johnson. There is a considerable difference of the type that Richard Neville once explained, between a world run according to the Monroe Doctrine, in which Washington, ripe with corruption, dictates and a balance of power involving various blocs, states and aggregated interests including class movements. There is no need to labour under illusions as to the essential natures of the governments of these various blocs, they check each other and, in doing so, afford humanity the possibility of liberating itself not just from the Empire but from capitalism and the suicidal folly of large scale international trade in commodities. The differences,… Read more »

Jul 4, 2019 9:54 PM
Reply to  bevin

Exactly: imperialism, monopoly/oligopolisation, and globalisation are the highest forms of capitalism. Mercantalism developed from pre-capitalist, to capitalist, to world capitalist, to globalist forms in distinct phases …colonising and then re-colonisising the same populations in colonialist, post-colonialist and imperialist waves. The globalisation phase started in the early 60s; and rose in lockstep with the burgeoning of the offshore euromarkets (unregulated markets denominated in dollars/euro$; yen/euro-yen; and confusingly – euro-euros. The yuan/RMB failed as an offshore form. It’s share of the reserve is >2%.) The mythology of ‘de-dollarisation’ is wildly exaggerated. Like it or not – and most don’t – the dollar is still king with investors/capitalists. Even VVP endorsed the dollar in his keynote speech at SPIEF – whilst maligning the “weaponisation” of the reserve status. But, and it is a big but – the dollars reputation has taken a nosedive with the GWT and the 2007 Global Financial Crisis (GFC).… Read more »

Rhisiart Gwilym
Rhisiart Gwilym
Jul 4, 2019 3:24 PM
Reply to  BigB

One phenomenon; several phenomena. Surely anyone over thirty can still remember this?

Also ‘sustainable growth’ will prove to be a geo-physically impossible oxymoron, in any version of globalism; or indeed in any other economic-moonshine theory. The Limits are here now, and they’re already beginning to press…

Jul 5, 2019 3:17 AM
Reply to  BigB

Ah, so Africa does kiss butt again. As I thought.

Jul 4, 2019 4:00 AM

The biggest contributor to creating a multi-polar world and bust the US monopoly was Obama/the Obama administration.

Did they really think that sanctions on Russia would NOT bring the neighbours Russia and China closer together? They complement each other in a close to perfect way.

Obama talked about peace in the ME; instead he brought more wars and in the process wrecked Europe through refugee waves which spawned Brexit. Before Obama there was Bush II, not all that bright and he lied of course with WMD in Iraq.

But Obama lied constantly and lacked good judgement so his 8 years did the damage and the slide started. Anybody who believed that the US monopoly would be there forever was dreaming. Dethroning the Greenback is in motion and is slowly eating away to the point that Trump seems to think in terms of Dollar devaluation.

Jul 4, 2019 3:54 AM

One problem … suppose Alexander Dugin is not at all close to Vladimir Putin as Shahzada Rahim seems to think he is?

Jul 4, 2019 1:50 AM

Let us give credit where it is due: the eurasian bloc that will finally bury the maritime European empire, now centred on Washington was born of geography and sired by imperialist ineptitude. And Fukuyama’s obsequious triumphalism was partly responsible for the arrogance and sense of invulnerability that led to the Empire’s blind, drunken ineptitude. None of the major constituents of Eurasia today actually wanted to leave the comforts of the imperial mainstream and go into opposition. Russia certainly did not, in the face off rebuffs, insults, sanctions and military provocations it kept turning the other cheek until the blood was dripping from its face. China was even more invested in the system that it took them so long to penetrate-the system of alliances designed to marginalise and impoverish them. Eurasia consists largely of US allies spurned and driven together for survival. Iran being the perfect example of a state that… Read more »

Jul 4, 2019 6:26 AM
Reply to  bevin

The three Daffy Ducks…