Chutzpah and the War of Symbols

Russia’s dangerous obsession with morality in war

Alexander Dugin condemns the Ukrainian strike that killed 21 students and delivers a scathing critique of Russia’s overly moralistic approach to the war, calling for decisive victory, strategic ruthlessness, and a fundamental shift in how the conflict is fought.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: On May 22, the Ukrainian Armed Forces committed a horrific terrorist attack: 21 people were killed at the Starobelsk Pedagogical College of Luhansk State University. In any such situation, the first question is: why? Because even behind such monstrous crimes, there is usually some kind of goal. Alexander Gelyevich [Dugin], from your point of view, why was this done?

Alexander Dugin: We are now dealing with a war in which symbols play an enormous role. In every war, symbolic goals, actions, and gestures have great significance, but in our time, they perhaps have the main significance. It doesn’t matter what actually happened, who hit what, or what was achieved — what matters is the symbolic meaning invested in it. It is precisely in this “war of symbols,” in my view, that we must understand this monstrous terrorist attack, this crime against humanity, against life, against young people, carried out by Ukrainian Nazis.

Of course, there was no military sense to it whatsoever. Nevertheless, they struck with precision, repeatedly, in several waves. First and foremost, we express our condolences to the families of the victims, to the Luhansk People’s Republic, to Novorossiya, to Donbass, and to our entire people — because these are our children. Our daughters and our sons have died, who had not yet managed to accomplish anything meaningful in life, who were only preparing for it. So much had already been invested in these fourteen- and fifteen-year-old human beings, so much life they had already lived — and to perish before they could unfold is perhaps the most terrible thing of all.

The ancients believed there is no greater punishment for a person than to bury their own children. In language, there is not even a word for this: a “widow” is one who has lost a husband, a “widower” a wife, an “orphan” their parents. But for one who has lost children, human language has no word, because it is unnatural and unbearably painful. And they went into this consciously.

I am trying to reconstruct the logic of this diabolical consciousness, of our ontological enemy, of this satanic force with which we are at war. Apparently, they saw how the Israelis and Americans acted when striking, for example, at girls’ schools, and concluded that the demonstration of absolute contempt for any human norms is a sign of strength.

It is no coincidence that they glorify Nazis — Bandera, Shukhevych, and all the criminals and villains banned in the Russian Federation. In essence, a neo-Nazi regime has been established in Ukraine, and one of the features of Nazism was the conscious rejection of humanism in all its forms: there is nothing sacred; if it is an enemy, it must be destroyed, even down to the children.

There is something Old Testament in this. It is no coincidence that today Israel is also distinguished by boundless, completely inhuman, diabolical cruelty. In the Old Testament, unfortunately, we encounter stories where enemies were exterminated completely, including women, children, and the elderly. This is becoming the norm of modern wars — the conscious crossing of the boundary of humanity for the sake of a new symbolism: the one who is right is the one who is strong, who can do something incredible, and nothing will happen to him for it.

In American slang, based on Jewish jargon, there is the term “chutzpah.” What does it mean? It is when a criminal, caught at the scene of a murder or rape, starts shrieking wildly that the person who first entered the room committed the atrocity. He speaks with such audacity, insolence, and inner conviction that he himself is the innocent victim and the real witness is the executioner that it even paralyzes people. It is infinite, sadistic aggressiveness combined with the desire to evoke pity for oneself and shift the blame onto the innocent. And to rejoice when that innocent person is executed.

This is the “chutzpah” that Israel demonstrates today: the more Palestinian children they kill, the louder they shriek about the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and that they are victims of injustice. The more crimes — the louder the shrieking. And the Ukrainian Nazis act exactly the same way. This is genuine chutzpah.

That is, to commit a monstrous crime in front of the whole world, to blame the victims themselves for it, and then, as if nothing happened, to ask for support so they can continue in the same spirit. This is what distinguishes both the European Union, the United States, and Trump, who kidnaps leaders, destroys the leadership of sovereign states, and then, as if nothing happened, says: “I got along with them perfectly, a wonderful deal has been reached.”

We have entered the era of “chutzpah.” This is a completely unnatural, inhuman model of behavior that the Ukrainians demonstrate, along with the Israelis and Americans. This has already become the style of the collective West: commit a monstrous crime in front of everyone, destroy the innocent with particular cynicism, and then demand attention. They don’t even repent or explain themselves — they shift everything onto others, making the victims themselves guilty. It cannot be explained any other way.

Of course, one could use the Greek term hybris, but it is too academic. The Greeks considered hybris the sin of the titans, when even divine heroes did something impermissible — for example, desecrated the corpses of defeated enemies, exterminated their families, or raped wives in front of their children. Greek culture categorically rejected this. So one can give it the scientific name “hybris,” or use the modern political science jargon — “chutzpah.”

But there is also a second symbolic moment, at a lower level. Kiev wants to show the residents of the liberated territories that Russia, which came to protect them — and we are absolutely right to say that we came to protect them, and that is exactly what happened — supposedly cannot do so.

The children were moved further away from the front line. The Luhansk Republic has been liberated, its entire territory has been cleared of these terrorist Kiev groups, and yet from the other side they say: “No, don’t rejoice. They came to protect you, but they cannot protect you.” They acknowledge that the territory of the Luhansk People’s Republic has been liberated, but they send the signal: “You are all under threat, be afraid, tremble. You believed Moscow — here’s what you get; you can’t trust them, you remain vulnerable anyway.”

If it were not for such a monstrous crime, in which children, girls, were killed so cynically and deliberately, it would perhaps have been difficult for them to convey this symbolic idea, this message. I think this was a conscious action. We are now, of course, classifying this as a war crime and an act of terror. And that is absolutely correct. We are drawing the attention of the international community. But who do we want to convince? Those who are at war with us? Those who started all this, who armed and continue to arm the Nazi Kiev regime to the teeth, who suggest to them such symbolic moves that exemplify behavior from the point of view of “chutzpah” or “hybris”? Who exactly are we talking to?

And here, of course, the question is very serious. The symbolic goals they set for themselves, unfortunately, have been achieved. This is not a failure, not a glitch, not “they slipped up.” This is part of the strategy of the symbolic war they are waging against us, and we should expect a continuation of the escalation of precisely these symbolic actions. In essence, pay attention to their pinpoint terrorist attacks at the beginning of the war, where my daughter was killed — the strike was directed against me — then Vladlen Tatarsky was killed and the target was Zakhar Prilepin. These pinpoint strikes had purely symbolic meaning — not against military specialists, not against military targets. They struck at people who embodied the idea.

The destruction of our children in front of everyone is also part of this symbolic strategy. That is the horror of the situation. We project our own moral and ethical attitudes onto our enemies, but they lack these attitudes. This society has transformed; over these years it has become truly Nazi, Russophobic, and racist on the one hand, and liberal and Western on the other. These do not exclude each other but, on the contrary, complement one another. They have turned into a mixture of this incredible Western lying civilization into which they are integrated. Moreover, this is a kind of testing ground for the monstrous actions that the West is pursuing not only in Ukraine. And here the question arises: how should we respond to this?

Host: This is exactly where a question from a listener comes in, related to this: “Four years of a marathon of hatred, all sorts of stories about Russians, about our army. How will we coexist in the future with such ‘people’?”

Alexander Dugin: This is a legitimate question, I understand it, but for now let’s not talk too much about the future, because we need Victory. And that future will be determined precisely in the course of our victory. Right now, it is even irresponsible to think about it: how we will live, who these people are, how it will turn out — all of this depends on when, how, and in what form we win this war. And that is still an open question at the moment.

Depending on what our victory looks like — whether it is total, when we finally liberate Ukraine from this Nazi beast, or partial — everything depends on that. Whether we liberate Novorossiya, or take Kiev, or the entire territory, or leave the western regions. It is from these parameters, from the formats of victory, that the answer to the question our listener is asking depends. How should we deal with them? It is unclear who these “they” will be after our victory. Will they even remain as such? Will they have statehood? Will they have any political or social representation? If they become our citizens, we will then treat carriers of such qualities simply as criminals, maniacs, mentally insane people — that is a completely different matter. Or we will consider them some kind of statehood and conclude agreements with them. This is all generally an open question.

So, in my view, the question of our response boils down to the fact that we completely fail to understand the symbolism of new wars. We follow our own internal ethics and internal logic, but we do not take symbolism into account. And this is a very serious mistake.

We can inflict the most severe damage and strike at our enemy — both in retaliation and by anticipating his actions, punishing him, or simply carrying out the plans of our special military operation — but then say nothing about it, show nothing, and direct both public attention and our missiles in the wrong direction. In doing so, we essentially fail to engage or use the arsenal of symbolic warfare and symbolic means.

And this is undoubtedly important: it’s about footage, about narratives, about multiple information flows that we must direct toward the global community, even when these channels are blocked everywhere. But they must be well-constructed, they must hit symbolic targets and create powerful images.

This symbolic war is no less important. Notice: after our strikes, our retaliatory strikes, the Ukrainians essentially said nothing meaningful to anyone. They didn’t show anything special, didn’t scream: “Give us new support!” They say that every day anyway.

If we look at what they were saying a week ago — it’s exactly the same. In reality, it’s all the same. And what have we achieved? In the big picture, we have frightened neither the Ukrainians nor the West. We have not hit a single symbolic target.

I want to emphasize that this is not criticism. I’m simply talking about symbolic warfare. It’s possible we hit very important military targets. The problem is that almost no one really knows about it — not our population, not the West, not even the Ukrainians themselves. Because the war of symbols is something else entirely. It operates on a completely different level.

And if we use some very serious weapon and deliver a significant blow to the enemy, then **first and foremost** — not secondarily, but in the first place — it must be a media-information-symbolic attack. That means bright, globally recognizable personalities, internationally understandable buildings, targets, people, and structures must be affected.

For example: the “Oreshnik” missile hits not an airfield in Bila Tserkva, but Maidan Nezalezhnosti — and in place of Maidan there is a huge crater. That’s where it all began, all this Nazi filth in Ukraine. And now, whoever comes there, every visitor is confronted with this enormous crater. And right next to it — the destroyed building of the Rada and, in effect, the remains of Ukraine’s political leadership. That would be a symbolic act that could truly answer for the same kind of crime. It would remain visible. It would be very hard not to see, because any visit by foreign delegations would begin with exactly that.

Or strikes should be carried out against such critical logistical hubs that Western weapons would simply be unable to reach Ukraine physically. There are painful points which, in addition to a new wave of hatred toward us and the usual Western offers to help Ukraine further, would also provoke another reaction — horror in front of us, fear of further escalation, and a clear understanding of what the next step will be.

That is: right now we eliminate several Ukrainian leaders, Maidan no longer exists, the Verkhovna Rada no longer exists, perhaps Yermak or some other figure no longer exists — it doesn’t matter whether they are active or purely symbolic. And that “witch” who stood behind them might also no longer exist.

And when such symbolic figures, objects, infrastructure models, and systems no longer exist after our night, morning, or daytime raid — that is when we truly move the pieces on the board of symbolic war.

I understand that we want to say we only strike military targets, but this impresses no one. So let’s plan our strikes on military targets in such a way that terrifying, heavy, and ominous clouds rise above these objects. We will hit military targets, but the clouds will rise into the symbolic sphere, and they will be impossible to ignore.

Compare the pictures they showed us after the strike on Kyiv with what we see in Gaza, in Iran, or even in Lebanon — and you will agree that in the end, it is unconvincing. Simply unconvincing. Especially since all of it is shown somehow covertly, under the table… Let’s find ways to show: Kyiv is in flames, Kyiv no longer exists as it was, the Rada is gone, here was Maidan Square — and now there is a crater!..

There are even ways to show this without doing it in full reality, you understand? Precisely **showing** it at the level of symbolic war is necessary and is the most important result.

Host: I have one more question related to this crime. There is a company called Palantir in the United States. Among other things, it develops software for weapons using artificial intelligence. And America, in the context of the Iranian conflict, said it was testing AI-powered weapons — that’s when there was a strike on an Iranian girls’ school.

Two weeks ago, the head of Palantir came to Kyiv and openly stated that Ukraine is planning and integrating this company’s AI for planning strikes deep into Russian territory. And then — the strike on the college in Starobelsk happens. Is this a coincidence, or is artificial intelligence in this case acting as a kind of driver of these terrible events, if we can call it that?

Alexander Dugin: I think that artificial intelligence does not yet make fully independent decisions in these wars. It is used instrumentally, not in the full sense of the word. This does not mean it will always be this way or for much longer. At some point, it will truly be able not only to calculate targets but also to launch strikes. For now, I am confident that this does not exist, even in an experimental form. It can advise, recommend, but the final decision is still made by the operator — that is, the human factor.

That said, the symbolic war I have been talking about is also being understood and processed by artificial intelligence. AI is now quite capable of comprehending and evaluating it. By the way, I actively work with it philosophically using various models. Some models are so advanced that they have already far surpassed the level of a candidate of sciences in terms of the productivity of entire institutes, and in the most serious fields. That is, it has *reasoning* — the ability to reason.

This is exactly what Palantir and Alex Karp (who came to meet with the leader of the Ukrainian Nazis, Zelensky) are engaged in.

This artificial *reasoning*, this ability to think, is quite sufficient for artificial intelligence to turn symbolic war into a fairly clear map, a system of orientation and priorities. But to aim a missile at a non-military building, a vocational college where future teachers live, artificial intelligence is not needed — that is quite simple to organize.

Strictly speaking, artificial intelligence (I do not rule this out) could have said that this action would be useful, first of all, to demonstrate what we were talking about: “The Russians came to save us, but they couldn’t save us.” This is a very serious moral and psychological blow. Secondly, it is needed to provoke some kind of harsh response that, while serious, would not hit truly important symbolic targets — and after that, they could request new weapons, trigger a new wave of protests and support from the West, even though nothing truly decisive would happen. This can also be calculated. And artificial intelligence can calculate our logic and our psychology: that we will not destroy the Rada, that we will not strike Maidan with a real “Oreshnik,” that we will find new military targets and hit those instead.

In the big picture, this is a calculated step toward escalation without major losses for them. It is a calculated step to inflict symbolic and moral damage on us, while our reaction — especially in the humanitarian sphere — can be easily ignored.

And all of this artificial intelligence is capable of calculating in a fraction of a second. What I don’t understand is why we don’t ask it the question: what could *we* do? Why not consult artificial intelligence?

It is still relatively neutral for now, and for this you don’t need Alex Karp or Palantir — any modern AI model could quite calmly be used for us to set the parameters: “We are waging a symbolic war with Ukraine.”

Host: Perhaps the ethical component prevails to some extent here?

Alexander Dugin: Well, of course. That is, we don’t make use of it. The ethical component prevails in everything for us, and we sometimes resort to it to justify our failures. This is not good. Ethics is ethics, morality is morality. We are not like them — that is clear. But let’s win first, and then we can be different from them.

If we are neither winning nor different from them, then questions arise for everyone. Absolutely everyone. They arise in our own society: why aren’t we winning? What kind of morality is this that demands such sacrifices from us and still cannot break the enemy’s resistance? Our morality is read in Ukraine as weakness and is magnified many times over. Our moral principles are viewed by the West as an opportunity to move red lines, ignore any agreements, blow up and kill whoever they want, knowing that nothing will happen to them for it. And so, gradually, what is morality on the human level turns into simply inadequate behavior at the level of politics.

At one time — I don’t particularly like to talk about this, but still — there was a remarkable (though rather sinister) political philosopher, Niccolò Machiavelli. In his famous work *The Prince*, which is still studied in all political science departments, he wrote that there are two moralities: the morality of the ordinary person and the morality of the ruler, the prince. For an ordinary person, strict adherence to ethical and moral rules is absolutely necessary and nothing is higher than that — otherwise society will fall into chaos. But for a ruler, the logic is somewhat different. For a ruler, the primary necessity is to ensure the sovereignty, welfare, freedom, and independence of his Fatherland. His personal moral qualities are secondary. Because what is the use if he is a good, virtuous citizen but fails his state, which then becomes easy prey for a much crueler and more cynical neighbor? He would simply fail in the most important thing — after all, the lives of many have been entrusted to him. Therefore, Machiavelli said, he does not have the right to be kind; he does not have the right to observe the rules of personal morality if this contradicts the interests of the state.

In our history, we see a very vivid demonstration of how society understands this problem. In the 20th century, we have a wonderful, virtuous, deep, and saintly man — Nicholas II, our murdered Tsar, a martyr and patron of the Russian land. His virtuous conduct, including his reluctance to seriously and firmly confront internal and external enemies when necessary, led Russia to such a catastrophe that seas of blood were spilled, and millions of victims became, if you will, the price paid for his piety.

And we have another figure — Joseph Stalin, a harsh and extremely cruel man. From an individual point of view, it is difficult even to describe the brutal decisions he made. But he multiplied our sovereignty and strengthened our state. People do not judge them by their personal qualities — they judge them as princes. Nicholas II, as a prince, was, unfortunately, completely unfit, while the extremely harsh tyrant Stalin remains to this day an object of the deepest respect, attention, and love of the people, who judge by entirely different standards and criteria.

I do not in any way justify either Machiavelli or this approach of two moralities. I believe it is better to try to combine the two. But in some cases, the question becomes stark. Those who are primarily concerned with saving their personal moral image and piety would do better to enter a monastery — that is a wonderful thing. In that case, go to God, fully entrust yourself to Him, and hand over the governance of the country to those who understand the importance and responsibility of preserving sovereignty. Here, the morality of power and the morality of society truly diverge; there is no direct correspondence between them.

I am not justifying or condemning anyone. I acknowledge the sanctity of our martyr-Tsar and am very critical of Stalin, who caused our people a great deal of evil. But if we take things *in absolute terms*: in one case we have political success, a strong independent state, nuclear weapons, half the world under control, and social justice. The people receive two vital things — sovereignty from the external enemy and internal justice. At what price? A terrible, enormous price. But on the whole, it is a historical plus. If, out of the best intentions and fear of harsh actions, we allow society to degrade, sovereignty to weaken, and the enemy to inflict a strategic defeat on us, then no moral considerations will justify that failure.

This is the lesson of history and the lesson of political philosophy. And right now, it seems to me, we have become somewhat confused precisely on this point: where are we unnecessarily limiting ourselves, and where is the true limit of our capabilities? But if we stop limiting ourselves, those capabilities will appear. We only need to look at what we must do, what we must add, supplement, develop, and implement in order to achieve our decisive, strong, vivid, and convincing victory over the West in Ukraine — and then we will rethink what we already have. That is what is important.

If we proceed from the assumption of victory — the “Victory” project, full stop — then from this victory, through a kind of reverse engineering, through the reverse temporality now discussed in military strategy, we will understand the resources we currently have, rethink them, realize what we lack, and, of course, focus our attention on that.

But if the task is to shield society from fully realizing that it is both at war and not at war, without acknowledging the seriousness of the historical situation in which Russia finds itself — if we need to maintain the appearance of order, calm, and peaceful life — then this, it seems to me, is completely demotivating and demoralizing. On top of that, there are these constant promises of a ceasefire. Thank God, people seem to have forgotten about Anchorage. But the people on the line of contact who sacrifice their lives every day hear that a ceasefire is just around the corner. No one wants to die on the last day of a war — yet this “last day” is constantly being broadcast and announced. This story with Anchorage has been dragging on for almost a year now, since August of last year. From a symbolic point of view, this is a completely inadequate campaign.

That is why I would be very cautious with morality. Yes, we are not like them. Yes, we do not want to harm civilians. But look: when our missiles are shot down and air defense fragments fall on residential buildings — we saw this in Kyiv. Do you really think any Ukrainian will believe it was their own air defense? Of course not. Because everyone is immediately placed in the ready-made context that Russians are villains. In the end, we didn’t want to hit anyone, we are honest with ourselves, but the entire Ukrainian population and the whole world believe that our missiles deliberately struck civilian homes.

Host: Because they are convincingly told so.

Alexander Dugin: Exactly — because this is symbolic war, that’s why they are convincingly told so. And not just told, but told convincingly — because this is precisely that completely new sphere of information warfare that we, forgive me, are not conducting at the proper level. Precisely because we are kind, good, honest, sincere, and true. Yes, all of that is correct. I sincerely believe that our state and our people currently embody truth in this extremely difficult and complex global situation. Yes, we are the pole of truth. Yes, we are fighting for truth, light, and justice, and not only for our own interests. We have a sacred mission in this war. So let’s talk about it, let’s explain it, and — most importantly — let’s move on to the powerful chords of symbolic war.

They were told that the civilian houses hit by missiles were struck by Russians. They pull people out from under the rubble there too — probably dead children — and this makes a very strong impression. And this is exactly what is shown everywhere. But as long as the Rada is still standing, as long as people are walking and cars are driving on Maidan, we have no symbolic argument. If there were a crater there, any Western information propaganda would simply grind to a halt. But while in their consciousness “the Russians are hitting civilian objects” — that is exactly how they phrase it, even though it is their own air defense causing these casualties — no one will believe anything else. And we will not be able to get through to them. Because their channels reach us, but ours barely reach them.

And that’s how it is with everything. We cannot even properly set ourselves up for victory. We ourselves demonstrate a certain half-heartedness and indecision in our conversations with our own people. We definitely need to change everything now. It is obvious that in order to win, the country needs to change a great deal. We need to think about this, we need to do it, and we also need to give it a symbolic dimension. Yet we are waiting for something. This can no longer be explained by morality.

Host: So maybe we are waiting for this? Lately there has been increasing talk that Belarus is being threatened with being dragged into the conflict. Ukraine is already building circular defenses in the Volyn region, Zelensky is directly threatening, and Lukashenko is hosting Belarusian opposition figures (in quotation marks). Perhaps this will become the trigger when provocations against Belarus begin?

Alexander Dugin: First of all, this has been the case since the very beginning of the war — they were already constantly talking about it in 2022. I think it will change nothing. And what would it change? Yes, Lukashenko is on our side, he supports us. We have supplied this country with nuclear weapons. It is our closest ally, essentially a single East Slavic, Eurasian territory, part of our greater Russian world. So what? Are our daily experiences not enough? Are our losses not enough?

Nothing will change if it starts. By the way, Lukashenko does not want to be dragged into this conflict — he avoids it in every possible way. Perhaps he is right from his point of view. It seems to me this would solve nothing at all. Of course, the probability of Belarus being drawn into the conflict has always existed, but it would change nothing — the population there is not that large. If Belarus joins, it might become a trigger for European countries, EU countries — Poland directly, for example, or the Baltic states. We would get new fronts, practically a guaranteed strike on Kaliningrad. And what would that change?

In reality, everything has already happened — that’s the point. There is simply nothing left to wait for. It seems to me that somewhere in our consciousness, at quite a high level, the frame has stopped. Something has frozen in the understanding of the historical situation we are in — a kind of frozen frame. But it has already all happened, it is already all here. There is nothing more for us to wait for. Serious, decisive actions should not be taken in response to yet another crime. In any case, we will not convince anyone that we had grounds for this or that. What grounds did the United States have for destroying the entire political, religious, and military leadership of a sovereign, large country like Iran, which had done nothing to the United States? What justification did they have?

Host: At the grassroots level, this is perceived as “they can, so they do.”

Alexander Dugin: Exactly. But for us — and not only us — it is perceived at this level as: “We cannot, or we are afraid, or we depend on someone, or we have an agreement with someone, or there are agents everywhere.” That’s how it is. And therefore we do nothing. If we don’t do it, it means we cannot. And if we cannot — well, then excuse us. If we couldn’t but started anyway, things should be very bad for us. But if we have already started, then first of all we could and we must be able to continue. There is no way back.

It seems we can still reach some agreement with someone. This is absolutely wrong. Alex Karp, the head of Palantir, who comes to Kyiv — this is not the European Union, these are the purest Trumpists, just like Peter Thiel and other similar conservative Trumpists. This is not some separate, different force. This *is* the collective West, including the United States. It is naive and pointless to believe that Trump is our salvation and that he will meet us halfway. He won’t. Yes, his priority is not Russia but Iran. But in any case, they can use us to switch focus after a failure with Iran.

Because Iran, by the way, is a magnificent example: Iran, without being able to deliver a symmetrical strike on America, struck at its proxy and handled it brilliantly. After that, the enormous power of the American state retreated before a relatively small Iran. Yes, they suffered heavy losses, yes, they also lost children, but after the attack on the girls in Minab they pulled themselves together and did what was necessary — they truly found the weak spot of their opponent. Our task now is to do the same.

There are many asymmetrical or even symmetrical responses we could undertake. But for some reason we… What are we mesmerized by? Why are we not doing it? Right now, no one has an answer to this — not our friends, not ourselves, not even our enemies.

(Translated from the Russian)