This article is the result of reflections and observations accumulated over many years, during which time I have sought to better understand the figure of Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin — both in terms of delving into his work and the nature of his relationships with the Putin regime, as well as with dissident intellectual circles in the West. Personally, I have not communicated with him, his inner circle in Moscow, or the figures in the international network affiliated with Dugin's philosophy since 2023. In fact, I outlined the twists and turns of my relationship with this iconic Russian figure of recent decades in an article published some time ago:
https://arcaluinoe.info/en/blog/2025-01-22-n1hfgger/
Now, however, I believe the time has come to add a series of clarifications shedding light on matters concerning Dugin, who is viewed by some anti-System circles as a sort of beacon of anti-globalist resistance. In other words, the time has come to tear off the mask of respectability from the man whom I, too, once considered not only a formidable author but also a man of integrity, wholly dedicated to the cause of his own people and the ideals of the millennia-old Christian tradition.
Since, in recent years, my former friends in France have abruptly cut off all communication with me, have not published any of my articles on their media platforms, and never mention my name in their articles or video conferences, I have been seeking out contacts in other circles in that country who share the same perspective on global geopolitical realities and the current political situation in Russia. This has happened very recently. It is precisely thanks to my new friends in France that I am writing this article.
I will outline in detail a series of events that have taken place from 2013 to the present in order to organize the information in a coherent manner, which will allow us to navigate the “Dugin labyrinth”. This is because I consider this network to be perhaps the most successful at penetrating French intellectual circles (and, of course, those in other countries) among those that oppose US hegemony and globalism. We will examine how “soft power” operates in the case of Russia's “deep state”. But let's take it one step at a time, using a chronological account of events.
May 2, 2013. In Chișinău, the capital of my country, the Republic of Moldova, my book Moldova — The Part That Became the Whole: On the National Idea as a Unifying Force is being launched. You can watch a video of the event here: https://www.privesc.eu/arhiva/16479. The book was published in Romanian and Russian (PDF version: https://arcaluinoe.info/ro/carti/). The event took place outdoors, with a large, select audience, featuring speakers from academic, political, and expert circles, in front of the headquarters of the People's University — a think tank, school of national pedagogy, and publishing house that I founded after 2009.
May 3, 2013. I received a phone call from Victor Odolsky, a former intelligence colonel who had been retired for about 20 years and who regularly attended all the public events we organized: book launches, roundtables, and press conferences. I knew him as one of my supporters and didn't give his past as a KGB officer a second thought. Victor told me he wanted to come see me with a fellow countryman of ours living in Moscow, who wanted to request a few copies of the book launched the day before. I agreed without hesitation, especially since all the books I had published were offered free of charge to anyone who wanted them.
May 4, 2013. Victor Odolsky showed up at my office accompanied by a man around 45 years old named Roman Răileanu (the last name may also be spelled Railean). He asked me for a few copies of my book, including an autographed copy for Aleksandr Dugin. By that time, I had already read several books by this author. I asked him if he knew Dugin personally, and he told me that he did not, but that he was friends with one of Dugin's advisors named Aleksandr Bovdunov. I also learned from him that this advisor to the Russian philosopher is very familiar with the Romanian language and culture.
A few days later, I received a phone call from Roman Răileanu, who was already in Moscow. He told me that Professor Dugin had read my book, which he liked very much, and that he would like to meet me in person. Roman suggested that I come to Moscow, which I did.
So, I arrived in Moscow; Roman Răileanu put me up in his apartment — or perhaps his sister's (a rather luxurious one, by the way) — and in the evening we met with Professor Aleksandr Dugin, who was accompanied by Aleksandr Bovdunov.
At that time, I was searching for alternative conceptual approaches to American imperialist hegemony. Ever since the Soviet era I had been a staunch anti-communist, fully committed to the movement for national emancipation and the dissolution of the USSR. The specific context of that historical moment was as follows: Anyone who challenged the Soviet totalitarian regime was automatically considered a supporter of the Western model, with all its freedoms that seemed so attractive from beyond the Iron Curtain. And it was only about two decades after the fall of the USSR and the attainment of independence that I began to realize the true essence of the West — we had been colonized in civilizational, political, legal, economic, and cultural terms, transformed into a space that was destined to follow the same grim fate as the Third World. I have written numerous articles on this phenomenon, published a series of books, and made countless public appearances on TV and at academic conferences.
It is precisely for this reason that I became of interest to the centers of power in Moscow. Since I had become a radical opponent of all forms of expansion imposed on us by the West — through the invasion of corporatocracy and vassalization, and strategies to destroy national traditions imposed by the US and the EU — someone in the Russian capital decided that I should be integrated into their system of confrontation with the West.
My first conversation with Dugin was very cordial. I found that we had read the same works, shared the same conservative values, and were equally opposed to American hegemony. I would like to list here a few authors we referred to during our discussion at that time. We mentioned René Guénon and Julius Evola, who excelled in their critiques of Western modernity, commercial civilization, Cartesian rationalism, and opaque, self-sufficient anthropocentrism. We reviewed the leading figures of the Conservative Revolution: Moeller van den Bruck, Carl Schmitt, Werner Sombart, Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, Karl Haushofer, Ernst Jünger, and others. We agreed that the neoliberal policies imposed by globalist institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO had destroyed our countries' economies. In this sense, turning to the school of protectionist thought was a natural reaction to the influx of foreign capital and goods that were ruining the former communist bloc, transforming it into a consumer economy that supplied natural resources and cheap labor. I had just read his excellent book “The End of Economics” (https://www.labirint.ru/books/254079/), inspired largely by the economic nationalism theorized by Friedrich List, Alexander Hamilton, and others.
Unlike Dugin, I had considerable reservations about the solution he proposed for overcoming the subordination of post-communist economies to Western economic powers. He drew on Karl Haushofer's theory, which, in broad terms, posits the following: The theory of “large spaces” (or pan-regionalism), formulated by General and geographer Karl Haushofer, is a geopolitical doctrine of the interwar period. It holds that, in order to survive global economic domination, states must organize themselves into self-sufficient (autarkic) economic and political blocs, led by the great powers. Hence Dugin's pan-Eurasianism. I, however, was seeking solutions to protect the economy of a small country within a vast space that would have completely swallowed up my small country, turning it once again into a periphery. In fact, I articulated my vision for the economy in an academic lecture delivered at the Moldovan Academy of Sciences on July 23, 2013, titled “The Republic of Moldova: From Political Independence to Economic Independence.” (See the video and text of that lecture: https://www.privesc.eu/arhiva/17615/Prelegerea-publica-sustinuta-de-Iurie-Rosca-cu-tema--Republica-Moldova--de-la-independenta-politica-spre-independenta-economica-).
However, the most revealing part of my conversation with Dugin in May 2013 concerned Romanian culture. I was very impressed to discover that the Moscow professor was very familiar with the work of the philosopher Lucian Blaga, the historian of religions Mircea Eliade, a number of thinkers and writers, as well as the figure of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and the role of the Legionary Movement in the context of the right-wing movements of that era.
The discussion with Professor Dugin gave me a special sense of satisfaction. I was sitting across from a high-caliber intellectual with whom I could converse for hours on end at a very high intellectual level. And at that moment, that was exactly what I was missing. In Chișinău, I couldn't find a conversation partner of the same intellectual caliber.
It was precisely at that meeting that I proposed to Dugin that I translate his work “The Fourth Political Theory”, which I found to be an important contribution towards identifying political theories that would transcend the communist and liberal paradigms. This is how we began our collaboration, which lasted a decade.
At the suggestion of Roman Răileanu, I invited Dugin to visit Chișinău for a series of public meetings.
(to be continued)
