In the post-Cold War era, the world has transitioned from bipolarity to a unipolar system, with the US emerging as the sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union and communism. However, unlike in the past, where states acknowledged the anarchistic nature of the global stage and pursued their own geopolitical interests, the US has maintained an ideological commitment to liberalism in its foreign policy. This has led to misunderstandings and flawed interventions, such as NATO expansion and attempts to transform Afghanistan into a liberal republic overnight.
Liberalism, like communism, claims universality and insists that non-liberals should be made to conform. It argues that we should all be part of a bourgeois and individualistic world, where trade and personal happiness take precedence. Those who reject liberalism are seen as against humanity and dehumanized, creating a justification for brutal forms of total war. However, these liberal values, which are often associated with the West, are not shared by the majority of the world's population, nor are they fully embraced even within Western societies. Many people reject liberalism in favor of their own nationalistic or collectivistic identities, as seen in Vietnam's successful resistance against Chinese, French, and American forces, or the ongoing challenges faced by occupiers in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Nationalism remains a powerful force, motivating groups to fight and defend their values against foreign ideologies.
Despite its economic and military might, the US has struggled to achieve significant geopolitical success in the post-Cold War era. Its belief that everyone desires a hedonistic pursuit of happiness and a docile life reflects a misunderstanding of the fact that the majority still value traditional principles like God, family, heritage, and authority. As Jean Baudrillard noted, the US tends to perceive and combat enemies in its own image, projecting its own way of life onto the world. It struggles to comprehend the "Other" and wages war against alterity, seeking to reduce or annihilate it. However, the US's war against humanity is proving untenable, as evidenced by its geopolitical failures, the rise of China, and the Russo-Ukrainian war, which highlights the continued relevance of mechanized land warfare. Moreover, an increasing number of individuals, from elites to average citizens worldwide, are rejecting the US's claims to universality and seeking alternative paths. They have witnessed the limitations of liberalism and democracy and desire to engage with the world on their own terms. However, this only adds to the US's list of enemies who are deemed "outside of humanity," posing a new challenge for the unipolar world.
Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin seeks to challenge the assumptions of Western and liberal unipolarity in international relations. He draws inspiration from American neoconservative scholar Samuel Huntington, who took a pessimistic view of the post-Cold War world order, foreseeing a clash of civilizations rather than the triumph of capitalism.
Dugin rejects the possibility of bipolarity, as there is currently no country or bloc capable of challenging the US on its own. With communism discredited, there is no universalistic force that can rally nations against the West. Dugin sees this as an opportunity for the emergence of a multipolar world, where civilizations become centers of power and influence, but lack the ability to impose their will on others. However, Dugin's interest in shaping the geopolitical landscape is not merely academic. His ideology, including the 4th Political Theory and Eurasianism, is at odds with the current global order. Western attempts at hegemony prevent Russia from leading an independent Orthodox and Eurasian bloc. Moreover, Dugin's illiberalism, which rejects capitalism, individualism, and humanism, clashes with Western liberalism that has been imposed on Russia.
Dugin also fears the posthumanist or transhumanist agenda underlying the liberal unipolar project. He believes that the essence of humanity lies in the symphony of past, present, and future working harmoniously together. If history were to end and only the present remains, humanity's temporal aspect would be lost, leading to the beginning of the posthuman stage. As a Heideggerian and Christian thinker, Dugin sees this as a threat to human existence and feels compelled to prevent it from happening.
Dugin argues that civilizations are not static entities, but rather dynamic and evolving. They can rise and fall, and their appearance on the world stage is not guaranteed. This is where Dugin's Eurasianism comes into play. He believes that the Eurasian civilization, rooted in Orthodox Christianity and encompassing Russia, Central Asia, and parts of Europe, has not fully manifested itself yet. It is in a state of becoming, waiting for the right conditions to assert itself. Dugin's framework also acknowledges the importance of geopolitics in shaping the world order. He draws from Carl Schmitt's concept of "institutional realism," which emphasizes the role of power and institutions in international relations. In this view, geopolitics and the struggle for power between civilizations play a crucial role in determining the course of history.
Overall, Dugin's ideology is not just a descriptive analysis of the current state of international relations, but also a normative framework that seeks to challenge and overcome the dominance of Western liberalism. He envisions a multipolar world where civilizations are the primary actors, and where each civilization can manifest its unique essence and pursue its own geopolitical interests.
Dugin says that civilization is a “pre-concept” which is:
“A political idea having a supranational scale and not yet fixed in legal codes, but capable under certain circumstances and a concrete balance of powers of acquiring legal status.”
— Alexander Dugin, The Theory of a Multipolar World
Civilizations exist, according to Dugin, as autonomous and distinct entities with their own essence and worldview. However, their full manifestation on the world stage is still a "pre-concept." This means that civilizations have the potential to become fully realized concepts, exerting their influence and pursuing their own geopolitical interests. Dugin uses the concept of a "large space" or "great space" to describe the spatial actualization of a concept. Just as the Monroe Doctrine became a concept and created an anti-European, anti-Logos large space in the Western Hemisphere, Dugin envisions a multipolar world where civilizations can fully actualize and create their own large spaces.
In this sense, the multipolar world and civilizations themselves are still in the process of becoming. They have not fully materialized, but they hold the potential to reshape the global order and challenge the dominance of Western liberalism. Dugin's ideology seeks to promote the emergence and empowerment of civilizations, particularly Eurasianism, in order to bring about this multipolar world.
“they can, by force or with resources be corroborated, they can be declared, they can be effectual and real. Under certain circumstances, they can even replace the Westphalian model, and then it will be natural to raise the question of the formal rejection of national sovereignty, transferring the concept of sovereignty to a different authority, to civilization, or to the poles of a multipolar world.”
— Alexander Dugin, The Theory of a Multipolar World
In the envisioned multipolar world, civilizations will play a central role as the main actors on the world stage. Each civilization will have its own unique epistemological empire, rooted in a shared mythological origin and a mission that guides its future. This allows civilizations to enter into history on their own terms and develop independently.
In this multipolar order, power will be distributed among different poles, each representing a civilization. No single civilization will be able to completely dominate its neighbors, as each will be able to establish local hegemony and draw strength from its own space in the world. While there will be dialogue, trade, intellectual exchange, and even conflicts between civilizations, they will affirm the friend-enemy distinction amongst each other. The concept of the state will undergo transformation in this multipolar world. The Westphalian nation-state will be eclipsed, and various pre-modern political entities may emerge, including city-states, theocratic states, and civilizational states. Borders will not be rigidly defined, and there may be multiple levels of jurisdiction based on ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliations. Transnational organizations like the European Union, Eurasian Union, or African Union may also play a role in coordinating the goals and interests of different political entities within a civilization.
Dugin proposes the term "politeia" to describe the diverse and flexible political entities of the multipolar world. Politeia refers to an ordered and organized society, encompassing empires, modern states, and societies of various sizes and scopes. The multipolar world envisioned by Dugin allows for a departure from the rigid borders and structures of the Westphalian nation-state, opening up new possibilities and forms of political organization. It is a world where civilizations have the freedom to develop and act in their own ways, without the imposition of universal claims like liberalism. Dugin acknowledges that the multipolar model may indeed lead to conflicts and violence. However, he argues that the current unipolar system also perpetuates violence, as it seeks to enforce its dominance and suppress any dissenting or "rogue" states.
Dugin rejects the notion that violence, war, and death are the ultimate evils, contrasting it with what he sees as the greater evil of imposing a post-human project on the world and eradicating culture and civilization. Dugin's anti-pacifism stems from his belief that striving for an end to wars is akin to striving for the abolishment of history and the disappearance of human society. In a multipolar world, conflicts and wars may arise, but they are rooted in a cosmic order and the defense of civilization and culture. This, according to Dugin, gives individuals a higher purpose to fight and die for, something that he believes liberalism has taken away from humanity.
Critics of multipolarity often argue that it is inherently unstable and leads to violence. However, Dugin dismisses these criticisms as being rooted in a bourgeois liberal framework, which he rejects. He contends that the cries of defenders of unipolarity about the potential for violence fall on deaf ears because they fail to recognize the importance of justice, dialogue, and the natural right of cultures to maintain their identities and pursue their own paths. In Dugin's view, the multipolar model offers the possibility of peace, dialogue, and conflict depending on historical circumstances, while rejecting the imposition of hidden hegemony that inevitably leads to future conflicts. He emphasizes the need to free ourselves from "pretend universalisms" and defend the justice and natural rights of cultures.