Aleksandr Dugin: Any Major War Will Lead to “Israel’s” Demise

Translated by Staff

By Waleed Sharara - Al-Akhbar Newspaper

Is what some people call Turkey’s ‘strategic shift’ towards the Eurasian bloc and far from the Atlantic league over? The direct involvement of the Turkish army in the battles of northern Syria, the fiery statements of officials in Ankara, and the cordial US attitudes toward an ‘allied country’ are all elements that suggest the answer to this question is affirmative.

However, Aleksandr Dugin, a philosopher close to the decision-making circles in Russia and one of the pioneers of Eurasianism in this country, is convinced that we are facing a crisis that can be overcome and that will not stop this strategic shift.

Dugin, who knows Turkish leaders well and who previously revealed to Al-Akhbar that he had warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the coup attempt against him hours before it happened, asserts that the US exit from the region is accelerating and resolving the Idlib battle is a step in this direction.

Dugin has dozens of books, most notably: Theory of a Multipolar World and Eurasian Mission.

Through years of interaction with political and military elites in Turkey, Alexander Dugin facilitated the dialogue between Ankara and Moscow, leading to rapprochement between the two countries in recent years.

However, developments on the battlefield resulting from the intensification of clashes in Idlib and northwestern Syria where Turkey and Russia are in opposite camps, US affirmations of ‘Atlantic solidarity’ with Turkey as well as Turkish positions requesting such solidarity and support reinforced the conviction that the aforementioned rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow is fragile and reversible.

For his part, Dugin believes that a more accurate understanding of the current complicated situation and its potential consequences requires awareness about the nature of the “Russian general strategy in Syria, directed mainly against unilateral American and Atlantic control of this region.

“The ultimate goal of this strategy is to help drive the Middle East into an era of multipolarity that will allow its people to decide their own destiny and future and preserve their sovereignty. It is not about replacing US influence with a Russian one or a one-sided hegemony with another. Russia's goal is to create the suitable conditions for a multipolar regional system that includes countries and political forces opposed to American unilateralism.

“In Syria, Russia sought to destroy Deash and the extremist forces, supported directly by Saudi Arabia and indirectly by the United States and “Israel”, which served as agents of these countries. It also sought to support Syria in restoring its sovereignty and stability. To this end, it cooperated with the Syrian state and the Iranians and got closer to Turkey. Working to win Turkey over and remove it from the American project are two important challenges for Russia because its success in achieving its aforementioned goals depends on this.

“It can be said that the achievements made to date on the ground in Syria are the fruit of cooperation between Russia, the Syrian state and Iran, as well as the understanding with Turkey, which is leading to a gradual US exit. This would have been more difficult to achieve without these understandings.

“But these understandings have costs. And we are paying for them today in some way because Erdogan has obligations towards some factions in the Syrian opposition.

“Russia now finds itself in a difficult situation because without Turkey we will not be able to reach the goal of ending US unilateral hegemony in the Middle East. The current blazing confrontation may lead to a reconsideration of the understandings with Turkey. I do not think Erdogan can depend on the support of the United States or Western powers. They are hostile towards him, and the strategic relations between them and Erdogan have seriously declined. He is currently maneuvering because it is difficult for him to accept failure. He is also threatening to resort to allies who are not, in reality, allies at all. What is required is to persuade him regarding the futility of such tactics and to extend his participation in building a new regional system.” 

However, other developments – some of which are domestic Turkish developments that took place prior to the escalation in northern Syria – supported the hypothesis that Erdogan is attempting to reignite his relations with the Americans. One example is his removal of a number of military leaders in the Turkish army affiliated with the Eurasian movement who supported him during the coup attempt in 2016.

“I don't think this analysis is correct. I know very well the Turkish domestic situation, and the fact that the secular nationalist currents and Islamist sectors hostile to the West support Erdogan. As for the liberals – both secular and Islamic – as well as all the forces with Western sentiments, including those inside Erdogan's party are hostile towards him. The supporters of the Eurasian option, whether secular or Islamist, are the Erdogan support base.

“And we should not forget another important fact, which is the qualitative US support for the Kurds that are the greatest danger from Erdogan's perspective and the perspective of a great segment of the Turkish elites. Erdogan has enough intelligence and realism not to fall into the trap set for him. He wants Russia to show more flexibility in order for him not to lose face in northern Syria with its repercussions on the level of the Islamic world and the networks of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“What must be understood is that Putin is ready to take Turkey's strategic interests into account, but he will not accept meeting Erdogan's ambitions related to an Islamic ideological agenda. Nothing can be gained from Putin by using force. Anyone who knows Putin knows this well. Given his realism that I mentioned, Erdogan will have to take several steps back because he will not enjoy enough support from the West that does not trust him, nor from the Western allies inside Turkey, who want his immediate resignation and the end of his political role.

“A direct confrontation with Russia, Iran and the Syrian army will have catastrophic consequences for him and for Turkey. In addition, I suspect that he has not forgotten Russia’s support for him during the most difficult time in his political life, the coup attempt. It was decided to rescue him from a tragic end and to spare Turkey from slipping into a destructive end.

“The logical and rational analysis of the options available to him and the fact that he does not have any cards of strength are supposed to compel him to back down and accept dialogue with President Assad and to reduce the burdens of supporting groups, most of which are Salafis. He allied with these groups at an earlier stage based on considerations that are no longer relevant.

“The Idlib battle comes in the context of completing the process of the Syrian state restoring its sovereignty over its land. The intensification of the conflict with the United States across the region following the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani indicates that retreats are not possible and that this battle will be resolved.”

But is it not possible to read the Turkish position as an attempt to take advantage of the heightened intensity of this conflict and the frequent talk about the possibility of a major war?

“War is always possible. This is a rule in international relations. After the assassination of Major General Soleimani, we saw the Iraqi parliament vote to expel US forces, and many parties inside and outside this country announced their intention to resist these forces. In the end, Iraq will be liberated from the American occupation during the period in which Syria's sovereignty over its territories is restored after the defeat of the American project.

“We already see an increase in the intensity of the conflict. But any major war will lead to ‘Israel’s’ demise - whatever its effects may be on the opposite front - and to the end of the US presence in the region.

“It should be noted that US hegemony has entered a phase of crisis and atrophy in many regions of the planet. The high costs of any war will also mean the end of Trump politically.

“The assassination of Major General Soleimani set a dangerous precedent in the eyes of many, including Erdogan, for example. The Americans daring to assassinate a key official in a sovereign country means that they would repeat such an action tomorrow against a Turkish or Chinese official. US policy is spreading chaos, and the solution is a Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Turkish alliance that also includes the forces of resistance. This alliance provides the necessary conditions for a stable regional system that allows the aspirations of peoples to be fulfilled,” Dugin concludes.