How Russia Plans to Shock the West

Fear becomes diplomacy and escalation becomes art.

Alexander Dugin warns that only a campaign of shock and awe can shatter Western arrogance and restore Russia’s power.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: I’d like to begin with a truly major topic, whose importance is obvious to everyone. Yesterday Vladimir Vladimirovich announced the successful tests of the Burevestnik — a new missile capable of circling the planet for months, keeping the West or any other country on edge. Western outlets like the New York Times have dubbed it a “flying Chernobyl,” saying it destabilizes the situation and complicates arms control. The West’s reaction has been very vivid. I’m curious: how will this missile affect the balance of power? What advantages does it give us at the current stage?

Alexander Dugin: I’ll admit up front that I’m not an expert in armaments and I’m wary of appearing a dilettante in that field. I’m a sociologist; I study geopolitics and political psychology, so I’ll analyze the subject from those positions, perhaps with a philosophical tint.

It seems to me that, under the influence of neoconservatives, Trump has formed an erroneous perception of Russia’s position in the Ukrainian conflict — of our capabilities, interests, values, of what we are prepared to do and what we are not. With such a Trump, convinced that it’s enough to press, threaten, or raise his voice for the conflict in Ukraine to end, we will not find common ground. He must be disabused of that belief; his thinking must be reformatted. Words alone make that difficult. There were negotiations in Anchorage, conversations between our president and Trump. He is an impulsive man, living in the moment, hot-tempered, aggressive, but one who respects strength and decisive response. We understood that we tried different approaches to communicating with him, but he does not accept a “soft” mode. He reads all kindness as weakness.

When we say, “We are open to dialogue,” he thinks we lack the strength to continue the war. When we offer compromise, he answers: “Only on our terms — a ceasefire, and we’ll sort it out afterwards.” Treating Russia — a great nuclear, military, and economic power — as subordinate, as a protectorate like Europe, Ukraine, or Israel, is fundamentally the wrong approach. We realized that. Politeness, declarations, reasonable formulas do not work on him. He perceives politeness as weakness, reasonableness as cowardice, willingness to compromise as capitulation. That is absolutely false and has never been the case. We must demonstrate strength. President Vladimir Vladimirovich spoke about this, mentioning oshelomlenie (“shock,” “stunning”) — the West must be shocked by our actions. The test of the Burevestnik, the “flying Chernobyl,” is one step in that direction. But this is insufficient; we must go further.

The West must be made to fear, because rational arguments are exhausted. Only something truly terrifying will force them to speak to Russia as equals.

Host: Isn’t the mere fact that the Burevestnik can stay aloft for a long time and is practically impossible to track or shoot down frightening enough?

Alexander Dugin: The thing is, the West greets our declarations with skepticism. I studied the Western press: many call the Burevestnik a bluff, a fictional weapon, they doubt its characteristics, are confident they will find measures against it. That will always be the case: our demonstrations of strength are met with distrust and accusations of deception. Dmitry Seims correctly emphasizes: a real demonstration of force is needed to move beyond the realm of bluff.

The West bluffs more skillfully: their modest capabilities are inflated into “grand breakthroughs.” Trump operates in hyperbole: “Fantastic! Great! Absolutely!” His rhetoric of power and confidence mesmerizes like a cobra mesmerizes a rabbit. Our diplomacy for 35 years was built differently: “Let’s avoid conflicts, find compromise, take interests into account.” In response — “Fantastic, we’ll crush you!” Pinpoint strikes that did not touch Iran’s nuclear program are presented as triumph. The media pick it up, and Trump himself believes that Iran has “fallen to its knees.” These are self-fulfilling prophecies: they declare a “devastating strike,” show a fabricated result — and it works in virtual reality. Our exposures and arguments do not impress. Trump’s failures are proclaimed victories, echoed across the media.

We need a strike at a sensitive point that cannot be ignored. What that is — I don’t know. The president speaks of oshelomlenie: the West must be shocked. We launched the Burevestnik, but there is no reaction. Even if they are afraid, they pretend Russia is bluffing, the economy is weak, sanctions are effective, assets can be confiscated. We are facing hell. Trump, although he seems better, in practice continues Biden’s war. He kept saying, “This is not my war,” but acts as if it is his. Soon he will say: “This is my war, and I’ll win it in a day.” We should sharply harden our rhetoric. They don’t observe formalities, while we still politely take the blows. Kirill Dmitriev, in the spirit of Gorbachev, tries to normalize relations with the US, but they perceive this as a white flag, as capitulation.

Host: Later we’ll talk about Kirill Dmitriev’s visit — the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund — and about normalization or lack thereof in Russia–US relations. I want to return to your phrase about oshelomlenie. Earlier you mentioned that this could be the beginning of an “Operation Oshelomlenie” in Ukraine, connected with strikes on infrastructure. What is this “Operation Oshelomlenie”? Do you mean a demonstration of force on the battlefield with our missiles?

Alexander Dugin: Again, I am no weapons expert, but I study the collective consciousness. Sometimes a small, precisely targeted drone produces a greater effect than the destruction of all Ukrainian infrastructure if the latter goes unnoticed.

We live in a world of symbols and images, where there is no direct connection between our power and its perception. I’m not saying what to strike — one must calculate models. For example, there is Zelensky — that is one reality; without him — a very different one. They are confident we cannot get him. Their goal is not to save Ukraine but to wage war on us by other hands. As long as Zelensky exists, even alone, he is integrated into their propaganda, and everything is “fantastic, wonderful.” Destroy infrastructure — they will hide it. The military see real maps and satellite images, but the public that decides on sanctions or strikes is shown doctored footage. Manipulation of reality is nothing new; it is the West’s postmodern approach of the last 30 years. A military operation without media support, without striking images, even AI-created ones, is not considered successful. A combination of military action, politics, declarations, visual imagery, and demonstrations is required to convince the viewer. If it’s not shown, it’s as if it didn’t happen.

We were not prepared for that kind of war — it’s a new challenge for us. We measure success by the number killed, territory liberated, we spare enemies, prepare a “gesture of goodwill” for 20,000 killers in a cauldron. What is needed is an action of oshelomlenie that strikes the opponents, not ourselves. This requires not only military strategy but media mastery. To stun the West, especially in the context of Trump’s escalation, you must make them cry out: “Terrifyingly fantastic, the Russians have crossed all the boundaries!” — while they keep insisting we are weak, not advancing, shying away from decisive steps and compromising.

But there are actions that rhetoric cannot distort. They must be carried out. Methods exist.

Host: You mentioned strikes on Bankova [Street]. Is that the stunning factor?

Alexander Dugin: The strike on Bankova has been discussed so much that it has lost all meaning. I don’t know what it will be — a tiny drone, an electronic pigeon, an elusive microscopic element, or a Burevestnik descending like the sky. Perhaps a little mosquito will eliminate Yermak and Budanov, or something fundamental. I do not make decisions, do not know our capabilities and do not give advice. Those responsible must decide. But: to announce oshelomlenie and not produce a stun is dangerous.

Our rhetoric is getting tougher, we are demonstrating capabilities, and people expect a next step from us. We need to stun them so that adversaries are genuinely shocked. I follow the West’s reaction — they keep silent about Oreshnik and Burevestnik. Trump shows no sign of being shaken. I analyze his psychology, sociology, geopolitics, even his smallest gestures, in this terrifying game of escalation where humanity’s fate is at stake. But there is no stun.

We have not finished the job. The aim is not to convince ourselves of our own might, but to shake them. If Trump says, “This is not my war,” cuts off support channels and leaves Europeans to sort it out themselves, then we have stunned someone. We must stun Albion, Paris, Merz. The attack by unknown drones alarmed them — it made them uneasy, but they were not shocked. Something incredible is needed. Enough indulging illusions that they take us seriously. We are stronger, more dangerous, more powerful than they think. That must be proven — that is the operation of oshelomlenie. So far there are no results. We must continue.

Host: Let me clarify: Kyryll Budanov is on the list of terrorists and extremists. I want to add to your words: Trump said, “They don’t play games with us, and we don’t play with them.” What could that phrase mean?

Alexander Dugin: Nothing. It’s like a little cough. We could say the same: “We play, they play.” When Trump has nothing to say, he utters an absurd remark that sounds rational but is meaningless. It means we did not stun him. When we stun him, he will speak coherently. For now, it’s his usual trolling — interpret it as you wish; he himself does not understand what he’s saying. His resolve to move to a new round of nuclear escalation has not been broken. Unfortunately.

Host: I have one last question about “Operation Oshelomlenie.” Don’t you think that, for example, if, as you suggest, Ermak or Zelensky were removed, European media and politicians would immediately use that to create the image of a martyr and explain to their citizens that there is now a direct threat requiring preparation for war with Russia? Right now they paint some murky picture, manipulating facts, and this would give them a perfect tool.

Alexander Dugin: Perhaps that will happen. But if someone thirsts for a war against us, they will start it — with a pretext or without. I do not insist on concrete decisions. “Operation Oshelomlenie” has been declared, and I think it is timely and correct. However, its form is the exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the military-political leadership. I do not propose or hint — I only bring up images and examples.

But note: if we do not stun them, they will prepare for war even more successfully and swiftly. We say: “We will stun them now,” but do not act. Then they themselves will stage a provocation — send a “mosquito” at Zelensky, blame the Russians, attribute anything to us. False-flag operations are the standard of modern politics. If we remain inactive, they will do it for us and use it against us.

Reality has lost credibility — it does not exist. Images decide everything. We have a deficit of the image of might. They say: the Russians are dangerous, yet insignificant. We threaten, yet are helpless. This prepares the ground for their aggression: the image of a vicious but weak enemy, like Saddam Hussein or Hamas. They drive us into this trap, and we do not resist. We repeat: “We are peaceful, we do not seek to attack.” They reply: “They are weak, masking their threat, fearing exposure.” This is a one-sided information war.

There are rare opportunities — few, but they exist — that can undermine their strategy of informational offensive. We must hit their information bubble, not the West or Ukraine. This bubble is dangerous: it creates an image that justifies a real war against us — tomahawks, nuclear submarines, as Trump speaks of. They believe that strikes like those on Iran will force us to capitulate. The more we proclaim: “We will not attack, we follow the rules,” the stronger the impression of our weakness. We capture 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers, exchange them, create conditions — that is perceived as weakness. How to change that? — I do not know. But it is necessary.

We must engage mechanisms taking the informational dimension into account. Their lies are not harmless — they lead to missile strikes on our territory. Then we will have to respond harshly. They integrate everything — peacefulness, toughness, negotiations, decisive steps — into their narrative. How to disrupt their information war at this critical point? We must stop the West from the aggression to which it is inching closer. The balance between reasonableness and might requires fine-tuning. Escalation or endless avoidance are equivalent to capitulation.

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

I would propose a military alliance with China: if the West understands that an attack on us will trigger responses from allies, that will deter them. If their attention shifts to Taiwan, we must support China. We are on the verge of that. Russia and China, as economic, geopolitical, and military powers, are a powerful force. We must strengthen ties with India and other countries. A litmus test is US aggression against Venezuela and Colombia. If they change regimes there, that is a threat to us. It is their Monroe doctrine, their “Ukraines,” and they will not stop. Success will bolster their confidence that they can act against us and China. We must intensify geopolitical work in Latin America. If we allow Trump to change regimes there easily, our position will worsen.

Host: So we should supply arms?

Alexander Dugin: To everyone — Iran, Hezbollah, Venezuela. Actively, in large volumes, unrestrainedly, as the US does. At the same time say: “We are for peace, Trump, you are wonderful, but this is business.” Maduro pays for Oreshnik missiles, for air defense systems — that is a deal. As Trump says, “It’s a deal.” Live with wolves — howl like a wolf. That is oshelomlenie.

And we say: “We will not support Hamas, Hezbollah, we will reach agreements in Syria, we will help Iran from afar, we will not conclude military alliances inside BRICS.” That makes us “Cheburashkas” — not frightening, crazy cartoon characters preparing an attack. The West is framing the war against Russia as a cartoon.

We must disrupt their “cartoon” war plan now. Trump is strong in MAGA ideology, but acts monstrously, not at our expense. Our stake is not only the line of contact, but Russia’s global position. We are a pole, and we should have a stance on the Middle East, friends and foes, enter alliances, provide military and financial aid, expecting reciprocity. This concerns Africa, Asia, Latin America. A great power cares about everything, even the Falkland Islands. Do we have resources?

If we lack resources, every displacement will cost us sovereignty. We are encircled, and the enemy will demand more — colonization of Russia. The West talks about this morning to night, creating resources for our collapse — conspiracies, regime-change operations. 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 an example. We take it up without understanding that at its core, like with Elon Musk, liberal mines are planted. It can explode like Hezbollah’s pagers. We do not grasp the scale of the confrontation we are already in. We don’t understand the technical side, the grant-based recruitment of our science, culture, economy. The West penetrated us, leaving backdoors in every institute — democracy, free market. In the ’90s we handed the enemy the keys to the city. And we still have not fully freed ourselves. We fight on all levels, including informational, but do not always know how. We think the conflict can be localized, but it is global.

Host: We think in terms of goodwill, but the world is unprepared for it. You mentioned allies and China. I want to clarify: Donald Trump’s trip that is happening now, and the meeting with Xi Jinping on October 30 — what should we expect from it? Some outlets write that Trump will try to push Chinese energy away from Russia.

Alexander Dugin: He is certainly going partly for that, but not only. Trump has taken neoconservative positions, abandoning MAGA philosophy. He is an instrument in the hands of people like Lindsey Graham. His goal is to create alliances in Southeast Asia using intimidation, bribery, offers that, in his view, China won’t refuse. It is a war. He says: “I compete with China,” but he fights us. Biden, Obama, neoconservatives — that is Trump today.

His visit is a hostile step. He weaves intrigues and negotiates deals aimed against us. He thinks he controls everything, but Russia is a sovereign state and does not obey him. He stumbled on our conflict, expecting an easy victory. Europe also grumbles, but follows the neoconservatives. And that is dangerous.

Trump is not merely squabbling with China — he goes for deals against us. Xi Jinping is unlikely to take radical measures against us, but we must work so that this does not happen. We need to build an intensive partnership with China. Our president works on this tirelessly, but the mechanisms of Russian policy are sometimes not tuned to these challenges — they are too slow, bureaucratic, sluggish. Putin acts like a hero on whom humanity’s fate depends, but his directives drown in paperwork, the vertical becomes horizontal. We must speed up — in alliances, military, economic, strategic, with those who share a multipolar agenda. “Operation Oshelomlenie” has levels, including positive steps in world politics, attracting new friends and supporting allies.

(Translated from the Russian)