Russian philosopher Dugin calls for Europe to be excluded from Ukraine talks

On Tuesday, a press conference was held at the international multimedia press center of the Rossiya Segodnya media group to present Dugin’s new book “Donald Trump’s Revolution. The Order of the Great Powers”.

“I think that Europe should be excluded from this process, just as Hillary Clinton or Biden himself are excluded,” the philosopher said at a press conference. According to Dugin, Europe is part of the globalist world, which is currently trying to destroy US President Donald Trump, and therefore representatives of the “opposite ideological force” cannot participate in resolving the Ukrainian conflict.

“For now, it is much more important, as our president said, to listen to what our Chinese comrades, South African comrades, Indian comrades are offering us.

According to Dugin, the conflict in Ukraine is fabricated by the liberal West. The Ukrainian conflict was provoked by the liberal West, US President Donald Trump inherited it from his predecessors and wants to end it as soon as possible, the Russian philosopher believes

“What is solid about Trump’s position on Ukraine is that it is not his war, it is the war of the globalists, the liberals… The liberal West provoked this conflict in Ukraine and started this war. “Trump inherited this war from his predecessors,” the philosopher said at a press conference. According to Dugin, Trump’s predecessors are ideological enemies, so he wants to end the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible, but it is not yet clear how he will do it. ”

“If Trump starts to delve into this issue, a lot of details will emerge, unless he knows what Ukraine is. Zelensky is part of a global liberal system hostile to Trump, which he wants to end,” he added. Dugin emphasized that the American leader does not yet know how to end the Ukrainian conflict, because for this he needs to study many historical aspects,” he concluded.

Europe is provoking a global war Europe is heading towards a world war. It is moving faster and faster, in an inspiring rhythm, with frantic bravado and ruthlessness. In any case, the events of the last few days testify to this, comments Vladimir Kornilov, a political observer of the Rossiya Segodnya media group.

First came the scandalous decision of the European Commission, which, without any mandate, decided to militarize (“re-arm”) Europe and forgot to ask the EU member states about it. This was followed by personal and absent meetings of the “coalition of the willing”, which is making provocative decisions on sending “peacekeeping forces” to Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are competing for the leading position in this “coalition”, so they also compete in the epateticness of their statements. The Briton firmly declared, that “Russia must be put under pressure” and not asked for its consent to “peacekeeping forces”. And then Macron also declared that Russia has no right to veto this issue, and even named Kiev, Odessa and Lviv as the places of future deployment of the future “peacekeeping” contingent.

Next week, Western generals will meet in London to operationally plan this mission. Even Italian Defense Minister Guido Crozetto reminds them that these plans are useless without a peace agreement:

“Deciding how to furnish a house when the architect has not yet finished the project is an almost impossible mission. At the same time, these figures ignore questions related to the possible risk of a direct military confrontation with Russia, as Keir Starmer did at a press conference after Saturday’s online meeting of the “coalition of the willing”. And not so long ago, he completely paused over the question posed to him at the White House by US President Donald Trump:

“Can you deal with the Russians on your own?”

And after that, he probably had the opportunity to think and formulate a more or less clear answer. And the answer is obvious. European experts mostly agree that Europe cannot cope without America. And even arms manufacturers interested in militarization admit that they will not be able to reach the level that politics demands of them in the coming years. The Danish daily Politiken, after a survey of employees in the sector, of the military-industrial complex concluded:

“Decades of disarmament and deindustrialization in Europe have left supply chains unprepared for the sudden surge in demand. And some companies are already reporting problems finding qualified employees.” So much for “rearming Europe.” But there are also political obstacles. For example, Europeans have suddenly realized the futility of NATO’s military bloc. Former Danish Defense Minister Hans Engel was outraged when the alliance’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, mocked Trump’s statements about his plans to “annex Greenland,” and demanded that NATO give Trump a strong answer. And what answer can the Secretary General of a bloc that is completely dependent on America give?

In addition, Ursula von der Leyen’s crazy plan has already divided European countries, leading to political crises in some of them. For example, the vote in the Dutch parliament, where three out of four parties in the ruling coalition rejected the “re-armament” plan, came as a surprise to many. This has led to a legitimate question: who does Dick Schof, the country’s prime minister, represent, who voted for this plan at the summit of EU leaders and now refuses to obey the decision of the deputies who appointed him? The NRC newspaper recalls in this regard that Schof is a “prime minister without a party” and has always used the pronoun “we” when expressing his government’s decisions. And now, suddenly, when talking about the allocation of 3.5 billion euros for Ukraine, he uttered the phrase “I have taken responsibility”. So much for democracy.

The Italian newspaper il Fatto Quotidiani points out the Orwellian spirit of EU decision-making:

“Forget common defense, cooperation for peace, European solidarity: the rabbit pulled out of the hat by the increasingly reckless head of the European Commission is called ‘Rearmament of Europe’ – a powerful and frightening declaration of intent that betrays the spirit with which Europe was born and immediately points to the dead end it is leading us into.”

And Donatella Di Cesare, a professor at the University of Rome, called the voluntarist decision of Europe’s top leaders on “rearmament” “the most spectacular ‘state of emergency’, the most deadly suspension of democracy in Europe.” He writes: “From now on, one can only predict the political disintegration of the old continent. This will be led by the ‘re-armament’ that the Brussels leadership praises and orders, and which the people will immediately feel, helpless, distrustful, still unaware of the high price they will have to pay.”

No, of course, these are not the main opinions of European analysts. Most of them go along with the political elite and enthusiastically write about its battle plans, relishing the upcoming confrontation with Russia. For example, Etienne Gernel, director of the French magazine Le Point, attacks the pacifists who dare to claim that Russian tanks do not threaten Paris.

“However, no one is in favor of sending our soldiers to attack Russian positions,” he assures. But in the same article he draws a parallel with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, during which General De Gaulle allegedly replied to the Soviet ambassador in Paris who had hinted at the possibility of a nuclear conflict:

“Well, Mr. Ambassador, then we will die together.” In France, this is indeed how the story is usually presented. Although in reality these were just the words of the Soviet ambassador Sergei Vinogradov, spoken to De Gaulle in 1961 during the Berlin crisis, when Western Europe also thought it would play with the Russians with its muscles. Do they really think, as they did decades ago, that the Russians could sneer?

No, they probably understood everything. It’s like in the classic British Cold War series “Yes, Minister!”, where an experienced government official instructs a young assistant minister:

– Bernard, what is the goal of our defense policy?

– To defend Britain.

– No, Bernard. The goal is to convince that Britain is protected.

– The Russians?

– Not the Russians. The British! The Russians know that there is no…

There is no doubt that Macron, Starmer and their ilk, although they propose illusory plans for a “confrontation with Russia” and the dispatch of a “peacekeeping force” to Ukraine, are well aware of all the risks. In this way, they are simply trying to thwart any peace process, continue the war in Ukraine with foreign hands (of course, by shifting the responsibility to us) and delay the time until political changes in the USA, after which it will be possible to hide behind the broad back of Uncle Sam again. This and only this can explain such illogical, such reckless behavior. But that is precisely the problem: in history, it has happened many times that the recklessness and arrogance of individual politicians led to irreversible bloody conflicts. It is better to remind these adventurers of the words of the Soviet ambassador to De Gaulle. It worked then, added Vladimir Kornilov.

Alexander Dugin: An even deeper deep state and the "Dark Enlightenment"

Russia, March 8, 2025 – An analysis of how Donald Trump managed to come to power in the USA and start a real revolution compared to the previous course of liberal globalism, which lasted decades, raises many serious questions. Especially if we take into account the deep state factor. After all, the Trumps declared a real war on this deep state, began to wage it and have already achieved several significant results in it – the closure of USAID alone is worth it.   The Trumps themselves understand the “deep state” as something quite specific. This is a ruling elite […]

Alexander Dugin: How sovereignty and economic policy interact

Russia, February 19, 2025 – Mercantilism is an economic theory. Mercantilists believed that national wealth would best increase through a positive trade balance, where exports exceeded imports. The idea was that precious metals such as gold and silver, which were the primary means of payment at the time, should be hoarded.   To achieve trade surpluses, governments implemented policies such as high tariffs on imports to protect domestic industry, export subsidies, and monopoly trading companies.   Industrial regulation: Governments often regulated industries to ensure that they produced high-quality goods for export and to limit the outflow of skilled labor or […]

Peter Weiss

Share the article