Recently, Vladimir Vladimirovich announced the successful tests of the Burevestnik missile—a new missile capable of circling the planet for months

"...potentially unsettling the West and any other country. Western media outlets like the New York Times dubbed this missile a "flying Chernobyl," saying it destabilized the situation and complicated arms control. The West's reaction was very strong."

Alexander Dugin:

First, I must admit that I'm no expert on weapons proliferation, and I'm hesitant to appear amateurish in this field. I'm a sociologist who studies geopolitics and political psychology, so I'll analyze the topic from those perspectives, perhaps with a touch of philosophy.

It seems to me that Trump, under the influence of neoconservatives, has created a misperception of Russia's position in the Ukraine conflict, our capabilities, interests, values, and what we are and are not prepared to do. We cannot find common ground with a Trump who is convinced that pressure, threats, or raising his voice are sufficient to end the conflict in Ukraine. He needs to abandon this belief and reshape his mindset.

This is difficult to achieve with words alone. There have been negotiations in Anchorage, meetings between our president and Trump. He is an impulsive man who lives in the moment, is angry and aggressive, but respects strength and decisive responses. We understand that we have tried different approaches to communicating with him, but he refuses to accept a "soft" approach. He sees any kind of politeness as a sign of weakness.

When we say, "We're open to dialogue," he thinks we're powerless to continue the war. When we propose a compromise, he replies, "Only on our terms: a ceasefire, then we'll sort it out." It's fundamentally wrong to view Russia, a major nuclear, military, and economic power, as a subordinate, like a protectorate like Europe, Ukraine, or Israel. We've recognized this. Neither politeness, nor declarations, nor reasonable formulas work for it. It perceives politeness as weakness, reasonableness as cowardice, and willingness to compromise as surrender. This is completely wrong, and it never has been. We must demonstrate our strength. President Vladimir Vladimirovich used the word oshelomlene ("shock," "stunning") when referring to this issue—the West must be shocked by our actions. The Burevestnik test, dubbed the "Flying Chernobyl," is a step in this direction. But this is not enough; we must go further.

We must intimidate the West because they have run out of rational arguments. Only something truly frightening can force them to speak to Russia on equal terms.

Presenter:

Isn't the fact that the Burevestnik can stay airborne for long periods of time and is nearly impossible to track or shoot down scary enough on its own?

Alexander Dugin:

The point is that the West views our statements with skepticism. I've studied the Western press: many describe the Burevestnik as a bluff, a fantasy weapon, doubt its merits, and are confident they'll find countermeasures. This will always be the case: our demonstrations of force are met with accusations of distrust and deception. Dmitry Seims rightly emphasizes: To overcome bluffing, a real show of force is necessary.

The West bluffs more skillfully: modest achievements are exaggerated as "great breakthroughs." Trump speaks in a bombastic style: "Great! Magnificent! Absolutely!" His rhetoric, full of power and confidence, captivates people like a cobra hypnotizes a rabbit. Our 35 years of diplomacy were based on a different foundation: "Let's avoid conflict, find compromises, and consider our interests." The response: "Great, we'll crush you!" Precise strikes that leave Iran's nuclear program untouched are presented as victories. The media seizes on this, and Trump himself believes Iran is "on its knees." These are self-fulfilling prophecies: they declare a "devastating attack," present a fabricated outcome, and it works in virtual reality. Our revelations and arguments are unimpressive. Trump's failures are declared victories and receive media coverage.

We need to attack a sensitive point that can't be ignored. I have no idea what that will be. The president is talking about oshelomelene: The West must be shocked. We launched the Burevestnik, but there was no reaction. Even if they're afraid, they claim Russia is bluffing, its economy is weak, sanctions are effective, and assets can be seized. We're facing hell. Trump, while looking better, is practically waging Biden's war. He keeps saying, "This isn't my war," but he acts as if it were his own. Soon, he'll say, "This is my war, and I'll win it in one day." We need to sharply temper our rhetoric. They're not observing formalities, while we're still politely accepting blows. Kirill Dmitriev, in the spirit of Gorbachev, is trying to normalize relations with the US, but they perceive this as a white flag, a surrender.

Presenter:

Next, we'll discuss the visit of Kirill Dmitriev, Chairman of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, and the normalization, or lack thereof, of Russia-US relations. I want to return to your remarks about Oshelomlenie. You previously suggested that this could be the beginning of "Operation Oshelomlenie," linked to attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine. What is this "Operation Oshelomlenie"? Do you mean a show of force with our missiles on the battlefield?

Alexander Dugin:

Again, I'm no weapons expert, but I do study the collective consciousness. Sometimes a small, precisely targeted drone can have a greater impact than destroying Ukraine's entire infrastructure, especially if that destruction goes unnoticed.

We live in a world of symbols and images, where there's no direct connection between our power and its perception. I'm not telling you what to attack—models must be calculated. For example, with Zelensky—that's one reality; without him—it's a very different reality. They're confident we won't be able to conquer it. Their goal isn't to liberate Ukraine, but to wage war on us through others. As long as Zelensky exists, even if he's alone, it's integrated into their propaganda, and everything becomes "fantastic, wonderful." Destroy infrastructure—they'll hide it. The military sees real maps and satellite imagery, but the public, which decides on sanctions or attacks, is shown manipulated images. Manipulating reality isn't new; it's the West's postmodern approach over the past 30 years. A military operation is ineffective without media support, without striking images, even without AI-generated images. A combination of military action, policy, explanations, visual images, and demonstrations is required to convince the audience. If it's not shown, it's as if it never happened.

We weren't prepared for this kind of war—this is a new challenge for us. We measure success by the number of killed and the territory liberated, pardoning our enemies, preparing a "goodwill gesture" for 20,000 murderers in a cauldron. What we need is an act of defiance that targets our opponents, not ourselves. This requires not only military strategy but also media mastery. To stun the West, especially in the context of Trump's escalation, you need to get them to shout, "This is terrifyingly fantastic, the Russians have crossed all the limits!"—while they continue to insist that we are weak, not advancing, avoiding decisive action, and making concessions.

But there are actions that rhetoric cannot distort. They must be taken. The methods exist.

Presenter:

You mentioned the attacks on Bankova [Street]. Is that the surprising factor?

Alexander Dugin:

The attack on Bankova has been discussed so much that it's lost all meaning. I don't know what it will be—a tiny drone, an electronic pigeon, an incomprehensible microscopic element, or a Burevestnik descending from the sky. Perhaps a tiny mosquito will eliminate Yermak and Budanov, or something more fundamental. I don't make decisions; I don't know our capabilities, and I don't offer advice. Those responsible must decide. But: it's dangerous to announce the oshelomene and not to stun.

Our rhetoric is sharpening, we're showcasing our capabilities, and people are waiting for our next move. We need to stun our enemies so they're truly shocked. I'm monitoring the West's reaction—they're staying quiet about Oreshnik and Burevestnik. Trump doesn't seem fazed.

In this terrifying game of clamoring for humanity's fate, I analyze its psychology, sociology, geopolitics, even its smallest gestures. But there's no stun.

We're not finished yet. Our goal isn't to convince them with our power, but to shake them. If Trump says, "This isn't my war," cuts off their support channels, and leaves the Europeans to fend for themselves, then we'll surprise some. We need to shake Albion, Paris, and Merz. The attack by unknown drones alarmed and unsettled them, but it didn't shock them. Something incredible is needed. We must stop harboring any illusions that they'll take us seriously. We're stronger, more dangerous, and more powerful than they think. We must prove it, and that's the oshelomlenie operation. So far, there are no results. We must continue.

Presenter:

Let me clarify: Kyryll Budanov is on the terrorist and extremist list. I'd like to add to your remarks: Trump said, "They don't play with us, and we don't play with them." What could this possibly mean?

Alexander Dugin:

Nothing. Like a little cough. We could say the same thing: "We're playing, they're playing." When Trump has nothing to say, he'll make some absurd comment that makes sense but doesn't make sense. This means we don't surprise him. When we surprise him, he'll speak coherently. For now, this is his usual trolling—interpret it however you like; he doesn't even understand what he's saying. His resolve to escalate to a new nuclear escalation hasn't been broken. Unfortunately.

Presenter:

I have one final question about "Operation Oshelomlenie." For example, if Ermak or Zelensky were removed, as you mentioned, don't you think European media and politicians would immediately use this to create a martyr image and explain to their citizens that there was now a direct threat requiring preparations for war with Russia? They're currently manipulating the facts to paint a vague picture, and this would provide them with the perfect tool.

Alexander Dugin:

Perhaps it will. But if someone wants to fight against us, they will start a war, whether they find a pretext or not. I'm not insisting on concrete decisions. Operation Oshelomlenie has been declared, and I believe it's a timely and correct decision. However, the nature of the operation is the exclusive authority of the Commander-in-Chief and the military-political leadership. I'm not suggesting or implying anything—I'm simply offering examples and examples.

But remember this: If we don't stun them, they will prepare for war more successfully and quickly. We say, "We'll stun them now," but we don't act. Then they will stage a provocation themselves—sending a "mosquito" to Zelensky, blaming the Russians, and blaming us for everything. False flag operations are the standard practice in modern politics. If we don't act, they will do it for us and use it against us.

Reality has lost its credibility—it no longer exists. Everything is determined by appearances. There's a lack of power imagery. They say the Russians are dangerous but insignificant. We threaten but are helpless. This paves the way for their aggression: the image of a ruthless but weak enemy like Saddam Hussein or Hamas. They lure us into this trap, and we don't resist. We repeat, "We are peaceful, we don't want to attack." They respond, "They are weak, they hide their threats, they are afraid of being exposed." This is one-sided information warfare.

There are rare opportunities—few, but they exist—that could undermine their information attack strategy. We must attack their information bubble, not the West or Ukraine. This bubble is dangerous: it creates an image that justifies a real war against us—like the Tomahawk missiles and nuclear submarines Trump mentioned. They believe that attacks like the one on Iran will force us to surrender. The more we declare, "We won't attack, we'll follow the rules," the stronger the impression of our weakness. We take 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers captive, exchange them, create conditions—that's perceived as weakness. How can we change that? I don't know. But it's necessary.

We must put in place mechanisms that take the information dimension into account. Their lies are not harmless—they lead to missile attacks on our territory. Then we must respond forcefully. They integrate everything into their narrative—peacefulness, firmness, negotiations, decisive action. How can we disrupt their information warfare at this critical juncture? We must halt the aggression the West is increasingly approaching. The balance between rationality and force requires fine-tuning. Escalation or endless evasion is tantamount to surrender.

This is the art of war, high politics, the art of the struggle for sovereignty and national interests. Politics is a struggle for existence—a philosophical category. Some rulers possess this art, while others wreak havoc. We must not rest on our laurels—storm clouds are gathering above us. It is time to seek allies for a potential war.

I propose establishing a military alliance with China: If the West understands that an attack on us will provoke a reaction from our allies, this will deter them. If their attention shifts to Taiwan, we must support China. We are on the verge of doing so. Russia and China are powerful economic, geopolitical, and military powers. We must strengthen our ties with India and other countries. A litmus test of this is the US aggression against Venezuela and Colombia. If they change regimes there, it poses a threat to us. This is their Monroe Doctrine, their "Ukraine," and they will not stop. Success will increase their confidence in their ability to act against us and China. We must intensify our geopolitical efforts in Latin America. If we allow Trump to easily change regimes there, our position will worsen.

Presenter:

So should we provide weapons?

Alexander Dugin:

To everyone—Iran, Hezbollah, Venezuela. Actively, massively, unrestrainedly, as the US does. At the same time, say, "We're for peace, Trump, you're great, but this is business." Maduro paying for Oreshnik missiles and air defense systems—that's a deal. As Trump said, "That's a deal." If you live with wolves, howl like a wolf. That's oshelomlene.

And we say, "We will not support Hamas, Hezbollah, we will reach agreements in Syria, we will help Iran from afar, we will not form military alliances within the BRICS." That makes us "Cheburashkas"—not scary, crazy cartoon characters preparing for an attack. The West portrays the war against Russia as a cartoon.

Now we must disrupt their "cartoon" war plan. Trump is strong in his MAGA ideology, but he's acting monstrously, not at our expense. Our stake isn't just in the line of contact, but also in Russia's global position. We are a polar opposite, and in the Middle East, we must take a stand on our friends and enemies, forge alliances, and provide military and financial assistance with the expectation of reciprocity. This applies to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A great power cares about everything, even the Falkland Islands. Do we have the resources?

If our resources are insufficient, any displacement will cost us our sovereignty. We are surrounded, and the enemy will demand more—the colonization of Russia. The West is talking about this day and night, creating resources for our collapse—conspiracies, regime-change operations. If we show weakness—Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia will not be ours. Then they will say, "Siberia is not yours, the North Caucasus is not yours."

Western hegemony is a machine operating in new, networked realities. Artificial intelligence is a prime example. Like Elon Musk, we embrace it without understanding that it has liberal landmines planted within it. It could explode like Hezbollah's pagers. We don't grasp the scale of the conflict we're currently engaged in. We don't understand the technical side, the grant-based recruitment of our science, culture, and economy. The West has infiltrated us and left back doors in every institution—democracy, the free market. In the 1990s, we handed the keys to the city to the enemy. And we still haven't fully liberated ourselves. We're fighting at every level, including information, but we don't always know how. We think the conflict may be local, but it's a global one.

Presenter:

We're thinking in good faith, but the world isn't ready for this. You mentioned allies and China. I want to clarify: Donald Trump's current visit and his upcoming meeting with Xi Jinping on October 30th—what should we expect from this? Some outlets are reporting that Trump will try to divert China's energy away from Russia.

Alexander Dugin:

That's partly why he's going, but not only why. Trump has abandoned his MAGA philosophy and embraced a neoconservative stance. He's a tool in the hands of people like Lindsey Graham. His goal is to build alliances in Southeast Asia using threats, bribes, and offers that, in his view, China can't refuse. This is war. He says, "I'm competing with China," but he's fighting us. Biden, Obama, the neoconservatives—that's today's Trump.

Trump isn't just fighting China; he's making deals against us. Xi Jinping is unlikely to take radical measures against us, but we must work to prevent that from happening. We need to build a strong partnership with China. Our president is working tirelessly on this, but the mechanisms of Russian politics are sometimes unable to adapt to these challenges—they are too slow, bureaucratic, and cumbersome. Putin acts like a hero, as if the fate of humanity depends on him, but his instructions are drowning in paperwork, and the vertical structure becomes horizontal. We must accelerate our alliances with those who share a multipolar agenda—militarily, economically, and strategically. Operation Oshelomlenie has several phases: making positive strides in global politics, winning new friends, and supporting allies.

His visit is a hostile move. He's plotting and making deals against us. He thinks he's in control, but Russia is a sovereign state and will not obey him. He's caught up in our conflict while expecting an easy victory. Europe is also grumbling, but it's following the neoconservatives. And that's dangerous.

Plant Food Natural Health Contact