Defender of the Fatherland Day

Civilizational breakdown and the gathering storm

Alexander Dugin argues that the unity forged in Russia’s war effort stands in stark contrast to the moral and political collapse he sees unfolding in the United States and Europe.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: To begin—at the very start of our program—I would like to congratulate you personally, and probably all our listeners as well, on the holiday. February 23 is an important day for our country. Whatever one chooses to call it: today it is Defender of the Fatherland Day; some still remember it as the Day of the Soviet Army and Navy. In any case, it is a wonderful occasion to gather together, celebrate, and simply speak with one another.

And so perhaps we can also speak separately about this day itself: how does the significance of defending the Fatherland acquire new realities today? For a long time, it seemed to be merely a “holiday for boys,” contrasted with a “holiday for girls.” But recent years show that this is something that must never, under any circumstances, be forgotten. It cannot even be placed in the background.

Alexander Dugin: Yes, you are absolutely right. But first, I would like to congratulate all Orthodox Christians on the beginning of Great Lent. The first week of Lent is the most serious; the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete is read. Therefore, please, Christians, Orthodox believers, do not miss this—it is very important. It is the first chord of Lent, the first week, very strict. Strict abstinence: in the first days people usually do not eat at all, and some do not even drink. And be sure to attend the Canon. For Christ’s sake, forgive me: yesterday was Forgiveness Sunday. Forgive everyone, and forgive me.

Now to the 23rd. February 23.

For a long time, during the Soviet period, this truly was a men’s holiday. Because the memory of the war—above all the Great Patriotic War—gradually receded from our society, becoming something official, something important, something truly commemorative, but museum-like. It belonged to the past. And as something past, everyone felt that it had passed—it was gone. Therefore, the army as such, the defense of the Fatherland, was regarded as something abstract. Later, towards the end of the Soviet era, Soviet power itself began to evoke more ironic feelings. And so, in essence, it became simply a men’s day—a kind of gender holiday.

Now, of course, its meaning is changing. Because there is a war. The defense of the Fatherland is on the agenda. People are dying; people are giving their lives. People are at the front; they are forced to kill the enemy. The very image of the warrior, the nature of war itself, the heroism we now encounter constantly in the present—all of this changes our attitude towards this holiday.

Therefore, I would first like to congratulate our warriors who are now on the line of combat contact. If we speak of whose holiday this is first and foremost—it is theirs. It is the holiday of real people—not conditional, not from the past, not abstract—but entirely concrete individuals upon whose shoulders now rests the being of our people and our state.

Every person who is fighting now, who is at the front, who is directly involved in this war or supports it internally or plans it strategically—it is precisely the army today, and our people who voluntarily went to the front, that form our line not only of defense, but of our very existence.

Thus, perhaps more than ever before, this holiday has acquired very deep and concrete meaning. Today it is a holiday washed in blood. It is interwoven with death, loss, immense suffering of those who have lost loved ones, lost limbs, become disabled, who have faced horrific trials at the front. It is difficult to suffer, difficult to lose loved ones, difficult to die—and no less difficult to kill other living people, our brothers who speak the same language. That too is very difficult. It means stepping over something within oneself.

I think that war, heroism, defense of the Motherland and the Fatherland have now acquired a significance that truly has not existed since the period of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore this is a holiday of the present, a holiday of real people.

At the same time, this changes our understanding of whom we call men. It is very important now to distinguish the biological male from the warrior. Not all men should be congratulated.

There are those who fled abroad. There is a “sixth column” that sleeps and dreams of when this will all end so they can unfreeze their stolen money in the West. They are not men. They may be biological males, but they are not defenders of the Fatherland, and they should not be congratulated.

Nor should those who hold their own “special opinion” about the Special Military Operation be congratulated. They are cowards, scoundrels, traitors. This is not their holiday, even if they are biological males.

This is our holiday—the holiday of those who today are fighting in this same Patriotic War against the collective West.

In this respect, in order to be congratulated, one must deserve it. Being male is insufficient. One must be a real warrior, a real patriot, a real hero. And not merely inwardly or abstractly, but having proven it in action.

Therefore, I would like to congratulate precisely those who are worthy. Not everyone indiscriminately. Those who are unworthy—those who are not spiritually within this war—are simply unworthy of congratulations and unworthy of being called men. You are trash, not men. We will congratulate only the real patriots of our country—the heroes who responded at the necessary moment to the call of the Motherland and stood up in her defense.

Host: If you will allow me, I would also draw attention to another part of the holiday’s name: Defender of the Fatherland Day is also a wonderful occasion to reconsider how the Fatherland itself thinks about and cares for its defenders.

I have lived less than you and know less than you, but I have heard from my parents (my parents are military), and my grandfather went through the entire war and had a great number of decorations… And still, I heard conversations from them that periodically—and this happened earlier as well, and even in the recent past—there emerged a certain superficial attitude towards the defenders of the state.

And it seems that in recent years, across various areas and in different spheres, something like a reverse wave has begun. That is, it is not simply compensation—there is more attention, more care, more involvement, and (forgive the banality) more benefits for these defenders.

Why is this happening? Is it not because these are precisely the people who, with their lives, ensure what is sometimes hidden behind the words “sovereignty” and “security”—the physical security not only of the state, but of every specific individual

Alexander Dugin: You are absolutely right—this is a very accurate observation.

First of all, regarding the Great Patriotic War: although the memory of veterans and the memory of heroes—our ancestors—was sacred in our society, since absolutely everyone participated in that war—practically no men (and to a significant extent no women either) did not take part—it may have been difficult at the time, especially immediately after the war when the whole country returned from the front, to show proper recognition to each one individually. Perhaps one should not even have expected it.

As for other wars—Afghanistan, the first Chechen campaign, and to some extent even the second Chechen campaign—here our warriors who defended the Fatherland in Afghanistan and Chechnya, especially during the first campaign, certainly did not receive from society the respect and attention they had every reason to expect.

They sacrificed themselves. They risked their lives. They killed. They suffered. They lost limbs. And society did not greet them as heroes. Society did not bow deeply before them and say, simply: “God save you, our dear warriors.”

It was different. I remember it well. The Afghan veterans were abandoned, left to themselves, as though erased from public consciousness—and the war itself was erased.

As for the 1990s, I will not even speak about them—that disgrace, which is terrible even to recall. It was a black epoch in our history. And all the filth that then obtained the highest posts in the state—rulers worse than whom we had not known even in the Time of Troubles. With all the betrayals of the past, such hell, such vileness that ruled our country in the 1990s is difficult to imagine in our history.

And of course, it was impossible to expect a worthy attitude towards warriors from them. Everything was the opposite: in effect, the country was in full occupation, like “Epstein’s Island” in the 1990s. It was truly horror — impossible to recall.

Now, after 26 years of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s rule, it is even difficult for us to imagine that such a thing could have been.

But I want to support what you said: today, absolutely, I have many friends and loved ones—many have died. You know, Dasha [Daria Dugina] died. Many representatives of the Eurasian Youth Union, whom I have guided and mentored for many years, also died.

And yet the attitude towards the victims and towards the participants in the war is entirely different. Completely different. I would even say that it is better than the attitude towards veterans of the Great Patriotic War immediately after its conclusion.

Today there is attention from the authorities. There is attention from society. This war is not erased. It is not conducted behind the scenes. Its heroes are honored.

For example, from my own life: a monument to Dasha Dugina was erected in Zakharovo. A magnificent monument. Children come there; lessons of courage dedicated to Daria Dugina are held; people speak about other journalists, other girls, young men, adults who died on the fronts of this war; veterans come.

That is, the attitude towards them from the authorities, from educational institutions, from administrative bodies is truly worthy.

This must be emphasized, because this war—the Special Military Operation—has touched our people and our society as a war should touch healthy people: we empathize, we suffer, we live through it inwardly, we fight.

And this war has demonstrated unity between the authorities and the people in confrontation with a mortal enemy. This is truly rare—I agree.

Perhaps in such a human way, in a Russian way, our warriors—both the fallen and those who survived, the veterans—have never been treated like this before.

This does not mean it will always be so—though one would wish it—but today we must record the fact: it is indeed so, and it deserves every kind of praise. The relationships are becoming worthy. Although excesses exist, they will always exist.

Another question, of course, will arise when everyone returns from the front: will there be enough heart, enough humanity in the authorities to treat not just individual returning soldiers, but such a large stratum of our people with the same dignity?

Because I believe that by the time of victory, this war will have touched virtually every family.

Host: Yes, and to your words it is also worth adding: one should probably orient oneself towards the constructive majority. Isolated cases of something inadequate, unfortunately, do occur. The main thing is not to exaggerate them or highlight them excessively.

But let us move directly to the topics that unfolded over the past week and weekend, and which are still sending waves through the information space.

The confrontation between the U.S. president and the Supreme Court looks rather curious. For a long time I had a favorite question for Americanists and specialists on contemporary America: if the U.S. president wants to do something, can anyone stop him? In such a way that he definitely cannot do it? For example—if an American president wants to launch a nuclear missile, can anyone stop him by legitimate, legal means?

In this case, I received something of an indirect answer: the Supreme Court overturned Donald Trump’s tariffs. And over the weekend it began—Trump looked at this, invoked another law, and reinstated 15-percent tariffs. It seems that for now everyone is on parity; everyone is “satisfied” with each other. But for Trump this is not merely a slap on the wrist as president—it is also a personal challenge: someone dared to block the will of Donald Trump himself.

How are you observing this confrontation—both personally between Trump and the Supreme Court, and more broadly with America in the form it has taken?

Alexander Dugin: First of all, I think it is absolutely obvious that in America there now exist several parallel realities, several parallel worlds. And one of these worlds exists inside the head of Donald Trump himself.

This morning he congratulated everyone. He said that America is winning so much, that everything is going so well, that it is almost indecent how much it is winning. That is his picture of the world. In that picture, he is the master of the universe; he decides everything he wants. He can start a war; he can end a war; he can impose tariffs; he can cancel them.

But this exists only in his head.

It is a kind of paranoid universe in which events occur autonomously, independently of reality. I think that now almost no one has any doubt that Trump is a mentally unhealthy person. Previously this seemed like eccentricity, the excesses of a flamboyant personality who exaggerates everything, who speaks metaphorically. But now it looks more like a diagnosis.

And his words, in essence, produce nothing. In reality, nothing works for him—absolutely nothing.

The work of customs services was stopped by the courts. Lower courts overturned virtually all of his orders. Now it has reached tariffs. He has not accomplished anything that he promised his voters.

Politically, he is incompetent. Completely incompetent, in my opinion.

We did not want to think so. We believed his words, and it all seemed very promising. But in reality, over the course of this year, it has been a total failure. A total failure. Of everything he began, he has not brought anything to completion.

Only those things where he is pressured by the neoconservatives who manage him—both Christian and non-Christian Zionists—are implemented. He has turned out to be a complete nonentity.

What happens in his consciousness is one thing. But now the court has ordered that 172 billion dollars be returned to American taxpayers. Trump said he would not do it and instead imposed a 15-percent tax on everyone.

It is already obvious that we are dealing with a clash of universes. Reality contradicts his consciousness, but he simply ignores it.

Therefore, in fact, the situation is approaching collapse—political collapse—which will undoubtedly express itself in the so-called midterm elections, elections held in the middle of the presidential term.

And already people are saying that, in certain positions, the number of those who will vote against Trump—including his own supporters—is so large that impeachment may affect both him and JD Vance.

That is, over this year the Republicans have failed so completely in fulfilling expectations—including the expectations of their own supporters—that, in my view, the question is essentially settled. He has been written off. Everyone is simply waiting for him to go for treatment or retirement.

He has arranged a splendid pension for himself by creating the so-called Council for Peace, which he heads as lifetime president, demanding that various countries transfer billions into it. It looks like pure fraud combined with clear mental deviations.

Well, God be with him.

Can Trump be stopped in the event of nuclear war?

That is more difficult to answer. Because, first of all, some people restrain Trump, and others push him, provoke him.

Those around him—Levin, for example, Ben Shapiro, the neoconservatives, the terrorist Lindsey Graham—they are pushing him towards war with Iran. Congress wants to forbid him, but the same lobbying structures push Congress as well.

So here we must understand that Trump is one component in a very volatile, very complex, very critical political game unfolding in America.

His individual universe exists somewhere between worlds, between collisions of real power groups. He is like a joker: sometimes one side throws him on the table, sometimes the other. An unpredictable joker.

There is no logic, no consistency in his actions. He constantly shifts the balance of forces.

Indeed, he has changed everything. Before, people said that under Biden nothing was happening. Now they are already pleading that under Trump too much is happening—but not at all what people expected.

There is dynamism. There is movement. Meaning has disappeared.

And this is very dangerous, because behind him increasingly stand very sinister forces—the same figures from Epstein’s list—who, in essence, govern America and the West.

And what might come into the heads of such people—cannibals, participants in Satanic pedophilic orgies?

If they decide, for example, to strike one side or another with nuclear weapons—that is dangerous.

Such an abyss of moral collapse in the collective West has been exposed that Trump is clearly neither the only nor the main character there. Many other sinister forces have revealed themselves in this situation.

And this truly makes the situation extraordinarily volatile and dangerous.

Host: Towards the end of the first part of the program, you more or less touched upon a situation that with each passing day appears more and more wild and insane. It looks like some kind of madness—although, if one reflects, nothing surprising is actually happening.

These are the consequences of the investigation into the Epstein island case—the outcomes, I don’t even know what word to use… The revelations—the outrages—that are becoming increasingly known.

And there is a feeling that they affect not only America, but this entire so-called “progressive” Western world. Perhaps some of the most shocking and significant stories involving participants in these activities are now unfolding in Europe.

Even representatives of royal families—for example, the British monarchy—are losing not only their regalia and honors granted by birthright. I saw reports that Prince Andrew—the very same one—may be, or could even be, removed from the line of succession. Of course, he was far from first or second in line and was unlikely ever to ascend the throne, but the very fact of removal from the list suggests that somewhere this matter is being treated seriously—and perhaps somewhere even more seriously.

Alexander Dugin: Everywhere except the United States, this matter is being treated more or less seriously.

At the very least, there are resignations. Lord Mandelson, incidentally—the right hand of Starmer—resigned over participation in Epstein’s orgies. And that happened even before they were legally proven: merely on the basis of the publication of files, he stepped down. Searches were conducted in his properties, his estates, his homes.

The same applies to the former prime minister of Norway—he is in a similar position. Even in some properties belonging to the Rothschild barons—the “untouchables,” who were directly connected with Epstein—certain investigative actions are being carried out.

Jacques Lang resigned from his post as France’s minister of culture.

In other words, in Europe there is at least some reaction to the publication of these files.

The only country where there have been exactly zero arrests after the publication is the United States.

And, of course, one must treat the significant political decline of President Trump with caution—he is still the president, the president of a nuclear power, we are engaged in negotiations with him. From a political standpoint, Russia observes a certain protocol of formality towards Trump, and that is correct. We must take into account the country itself, its people, and maintain proper etiquette towards the president.

But as for Americans themselves—especially his supporters—the situation is different.

His opponents disliked him from the beginning for everything; that can be attributed to political struggle. Now Clinton travels around Europe criticizing Trump. In the face of this monstrous, furious old woman from the Epstein files, one almost feels compelled to defend Trump.

But what has collapsed is the image that there exists a “Deep State,” and that Trump stands against it—that he would “drain the swamp.”

This image has collapsed in the eyes of Trump’s own supporters.

In Russia, strangely, this theme is interpreted in an odd way. Perhaps we are observing necessary diplomatic politeness towards the U.S. president. But if one looks at American politics directly, one sees that Trump simply no longer has supporters, except perhaps 15 percent of completely random people who may be unable to connect facts together.

The massive electoral base that brought him to power has distanced itself from him.

This does not mean it has moved towards the Democrats—absolutely not. Democrats are involved in the Epstein files just as Republicans are.

What had previously existed was a belief that there was a Deep State, and there were those who would expose it—who would prosecute it, conduct searches, make arrests, punish it for its global interventions, for betraying U.S. national interests, and for enabling monstrous elite practices, including among scientific elites who turned out to be involved in these orgies.

These are presented as horrific crimes against people. Now it is being revealed—according to these narratives—that they hunted people on estates, living people.

They even allegedly invented a special term—“moon cricket.”

Every day, according to this interpretation, an abyss of moral collapse among elites opens further, and in Epstein’s network were involved almost all major political figures, with rare exceptions, from both parties.

There are figures on the left—such as Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky—and on the extreme right—such as Peter Thiel or Steve Bannon.

Everything has collapsed.

American society now sees this—and at the same time, not a single arrest.

In Europe there are at least preliminary measures—as in the case of Prince Andrew. Not many, but some. In America—nothing.

One would have to arrest the entire White House—that is the implication.

There are only a few figures—Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene (a radical supporter of Trump)—who continued to demand publication of the Epstein files even after Trump refused to do so. Because of that, she was effectively sidelined.

There are a few Democrats like Ro Khanna and a few Republicans like Thomas Massie who allegedly have no connection to Epstein’s network.

All the others, according to this claim, “ate children, raped girls, hunted Black people, and worshiped Satan.”

This, he says, is unimaginable.

The degree of alleged crime and the complete absence of punishment, in this framing, undermines the legitimacy of the American ruling class in the eyes of the world.

Everything critics of the West said—that there is a dark underbelly, that elites are cynical and corrupt, that democracy is false—is, in this narrative, confirmed.

For the sake of distracting attention from the Epstein files, Trump recently announced that information about extraterrestrials would be published on July 24.

Thus, according to this argument, any measure is used to divert attention—war with Iran, alien files—so that Epstein’s revelations appear alongside speculative material.

This is portrayed as a completely compromised elite, a completely compromised Western ruling class.

And for Trump’s supporters, the disappointment is greatest. They voted for him, campaigned for him, fought for him, went to prison for him.

For outsiders, this may appear as simply “their morals.” For religious critics of modern Western civilization, it confirms long-standing warnings.

But the extent to which this has become documented—at least in the perception presented here—is shocking to many.

Host: This theme—the state of Jalisco, the CJNG cartel (Jalisco New Generation Cartel), and what is being called their “Ukrainian experience”—perfectly closes the circle of our conversation today about global chaos.

What you described are the consequences of Sunday’s special forces raid in Tapalpa, during which the cartel leader Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, better known as “El Mencho,” was mortally wounded and later died. This triggered a wave of terror across Mexico: 27 attacks, highways blocked with burning vehicles, dozens dead — including National Guard fighters.

But most important here is what you pointed out: the technological leap in criminal activity.

I would ask you to elaborate further on what is happening just south of the United States. Our colleagues in the news have extensively covered developments in Jalisco.

Government forces—the National Guard and special units—carried out a serious operation against the leader of one of the major drug cartels, CJNG. This cartel has been widely discussed for several years because there is reportedly confirmed information that its fighters participated in the Ukrainian conflict—naturally on the Ukrainian side.

If six months or a year ago experts warned that these fighters were gaining experience in Ukraine—at minimum learning to operate FPV drones and kamikaze UAVs—and that sooner or later they would return… it now appears they are returning.

The organized crime response to the government’s operation emptied city streets. There are dead and wounded. Footage from the region—whether encountered accidentally or searched for deliberately—is terrifying: this is no longer simple gang violence but full-scale combat using tactics refined on the battlefields of the Special Military Operation.

Alexander Dugin: Yes, it gives the impression that a civil war is underway in Mexico.

On one side stands the government of Claudia Sheinbaum; on the other, armed cartels—particularly the group led by “El Mencho,” head of CJNG.

But do you really think that thousands of representatives of Mexican criminal structures can be sent to Ukraine to learn terrorist tactics from the neo-Nazi regime of Zelensky—without the knowledge of the CIA?

That is absolutely impossible, he argues.

Throughout Latin America, those who are following events closely increasingly believe that this cartel in Jalisco—and in several other Mexican states—is an instrument of CIA leverage in Mexican domestic politics.

Mexico’s political tradition, he says, is largely oriented against the United States; it leans more leftward, towards social justice. And in order to maintain pressure, the CIA allegedly developed and supported the system of criminal cartels through which narcotics trafficking operates.

Now, he continues, we see that they are equipped at the highest level. Ordinary bandits—even wealthy ones—cannot simply transform themselves into fully trained armed units having completed a full training cycle in what he calls “terrorist Ukraine.”

This, he argues, is not an initiative of Zelensky or the cartels themselves. He suggests they were sent there. He claims there are many indications and pieces of evidence pointing in this direction: they were allegedly directed by the CIA precisely in preparation for destabilizing Mexico’s political situation.

He calls it an uprising.

But what he finds especially striking is the ideological dimension.

He says he has watched extensive footage and listened carefully to what these fighters say, what slogans they voice. According to him, they are armed like a professional military force—heavy equipment, drone systems—a real army.

But when these individuals—outfitted according to the latest network-centric warfare technologies, wearing tracking suits, equipped with advanced American-made equipment—are asked about their political demands, the response is simply profanity.

He says he understands Spanish: when asked what they want, they respond with obscenities. When asked about their goals, they respond again with profanity.

He interprets this as emblematic of how the United States sees its proxies. In essence, he argues, they cannot articulate what they are fighting for. They cannot explain their grievances. They cannot define who they are.

He describes this as a rebellion of chaos itself within Mexico—“the new soldiers of the West,” as he puts it. Unlike earlier insurgents—leftist or right-wing—these fighters do not even cloak themselves in rhetoric about freedom, democracy, or human rights.

They do not claim that Sheinbaum is insufficiently humane. They simply shout, threaten violence, promise destruction.

He characterizes them as Western proxies stripped even of ideology.

And this, he says, is frightening: an entire army rising in Mexico in the name of human trafficking and organ trafficking.

He goes further, suggesting rhetorically that such individuals appear as though they were “raised on Epstein’s island” through biological experiments.

He argues we are witnessing something new: a militarized criminal structure that may foreshadow broader trends. He compares this to what he claims may eventually occur in Ukraine—fighters reduced to remote-controlled, enraged, weaponized proxies unable to articulate coherent political purpose.

According to him, the terrifying element is not merely criminal violence, but the combination of moral degradation and access to advanced military technology.

Host: I would like to add one point.

First, the Satanism you mentioned is an extremist phenomenon, prohibited and unacceptable in any form.

Second, I was recalling—whether it was a presidential candidate or perhaps it was during election day—a mayoral candidate was shot.

There was a statistic that in Mexico, during the 2024 election campaign, nearly 300 people were killed. These attacks sometimes occurred almost live on air: a candidate speaks to voters, then suddenly falls—later it turns out he was shot.

I hesitate to use the word, but perhaps this is some kind of Latin American tradition—and this is nothing new. I do not disagree with you, but one must make allowances for Latin America: people there perceive political struggle and human life differently.

Alexander Dugin: He responds that this, too, is a distorted image promoted by the United States—the narrative that Latin America is inherently wild or radical.

According to him, the true source of terror and criminal destabilization lies in CIA networks operating throughout Latin America.

He argues that portraying Latin Americans as culturally predisposed to violence is itself a racist and dismissive narrative.

He describes Latin American societies as rich, authentic, and culturally distinctive.

While acknowledging that crime exists everywhere, he insists that transforming criminal structures into instruments of political pressure requires external intelligence coordination.

He claims this has been occurring for decades.

He suggests that Russia once openly supported global justice movements and criticized such interference, but later adopted Western narratives after integrating into capitalist structures.

He concludes that Russians, as he characterizes them, are compassionate and should not abandon what he describes as a moral mission to support oppressed peoples — including Latin Americans—against what he calls the predatory global elites governing the collective West.

(Translated from the Russian)