The Dictatorship of the Open Society (Escalation)

From suspended democracy to cultural war

Alexander Dugin declares that Moldova’s elections unmask the iron hand of the liberal-globalist dictatorship, a regime escalating repression while Russia faces a decisive test of will.

Host: Today we will, of course, begin with the elections in Moldova: how they went, what they produced, what the results are, and what that means for Moldova itself and, naturally, for Russia. According to the country’s CEC, after processing 99% of the ballots the party “Action and Solidarity” lost 10 seats in parliament. Preliminary results show the following distribution of forces: PAS received 49% of the vote, which gave it 53 mandates; the Patriotic Bloc — 24%, or 27 mandates; the Alternative Bloc — 8%, or 9 seats; “Our Party” — 6% and 6 seats; the party “Democracy at Home” — 5% and also 6 seats. What picture emerges? The opposition parties nevertheless managed to outplay the ruling party, denying it an absolute majority. However, PAS retained significant support, receiving an impressive number of votes. Please tell us what these results mean for Moldova and for Russia, especially given how rhetoric toward us might change.

Alexander Dugin: We are witnessing how liberal globalism, defeated in most countries of the world — including the United States — is desperately trying to hold on to Europe. Where liberal, globalist regimes persist — like those that predominated in America before Trump — they have chosen a new path: direct liberal dictatorship.

Democratic procedures are being suspended or abolished entirely, at least temporarily. This is the so-called “suspended democracy” — a partial, sectoral suspension that creates exceptional conditions for the rise of leaders and parties serving the globalist strategy. To that end they commit violations: they imprison inconvenient candidates, like Evgheniya Guțul, head of the Gagauz autonomy, who is under arrest; they ban parties, like “Great Moldova.” Voting procedures infringe on rights: out of a 400,000-strong Moldovan diaspora in Russia, only 10,000 were allowed to vote. This is deliberate suppression intended to preserve the appearance of elections while guaranteeing total power to the liberals.

We saw this in Romania, where a populist candidate won in the first round but was removed and the results annulled. A similar tactic was used in France against Marine Le Pen, who is prosecuted on contrived pretexts and deprived of the right to run. What does this mean? Where liberals retain power, as in Moldova, they will not relinquish it even if their term expires. Maia Sandu is part of the Soros system. Soros opposes the USA; Trump opposes Soros; but in Europe Soros controls many political and geopolitical assets. Except for Slovakia and Hungary, Europe is under his influence. In the U.S. criminal prosecutions under the RICO law have begun against him, but his globalist empire continues to dominate. In Moldova, Romania, Germany, France — everywhere they can reach — they are moving toward explicit liberal dictatorship. We realized this too late. Now it is a question of civil war. Donald Trump, having understood what he faced, radically changed voting rules in America: now voting is only in person, with ID, not by mail and not for everyone, including illegal migrants as the Democrats demanded. Republicans, having seized power, will either hold it at any cost or they will be finished — there will be no next election. This is a confrontation between two forces: Soros’s globalist elites and disparate popular movements. The popular movements lack a unified platform and ideology. In Moldova people vote against the usurpation of power, guided by common sense, but they are not united. There are many parties whose leaders do not find a common denominator. The regimes of Voronin and Dodon lost the moment, failing to recognize the threat from Soros’s essentially totalitarian, extremist, and in practice terrorist structures.

Host: Are you saying the power in Moldova is already lost to the opposition?

Alexander Dugin: Yes, I believe it is lost, because this is no longer about democracy. Whoever holds power determines what will happen next. If power is not seized and established as the dominant force, as European populists intend to do — and that is not a given, it may lead to civil war — then nothing will change. American populists, despite hesitations, won with Trump. Whoever takes power — globalist elites or the disparate forces of the people — will not give it up. In our situation — never. There are many ways to suppress a fragmented opposition. PAS lost 10% [note: earlier said “lost 10 seats”; here Dugin seems to mean lost 10 seats or percent — I keep it faithful], but they have the president and a majority. They will push their agenda: they will drag Moldova into a war against us, annex it to Romania, or initiate an operation in Transnistria.

Host: And regarding persecution of the opposition in the event of such a victory — is that possible?

Alexander Dugin: Absolutely. They will not release Evgheniya Guțul. This is a totalitarian system for which laws are not written. They are fully aware that two opposing forces exist, and antagonism between them grows by the day. Whoever holds power will cling to it at any cost. We underestimated the scale of the threat.

When Moldova had a friendly and rational president, Igor Dodon, whom I know personally, we had an opportunity to change the situation. But our illusions about Western democracy proved stronger than those of its own adherents. Today the last ones who still believe in Western democracy are we in Moscow. In the West nobody has believed in it for a long time. Only forces of tradition remain — conservatives, populists. We are fragmented, lacking a unified ideology, but there is strength in us, since the people stand against the elites. Remember Huey Long’s party in America in the 19th century, which tried to give the people’s ideas political form against the elites. The current wave of populism may crystallize into a conservative, multipolar worldview. We are working on that, but we are catastrophically behind. We face liberal–Nazi regimes that must be overthrown and declared illegal. We have managed to do this, thanks to Vladimir Putin — they were declared illegal. But influence networks remain, especially in education.

Everywhere I encounter the branching network of Soros structures permeating our higher education: grants, criteria of scientificity — everything follows their templates. We are trying to create a white list of academic journals free from globalist influence, but toxic structures are everywhere.

In Moldova they are helpless against them. There the people are wonderful: Orthodox culture, sensible people, but they are divided. The Shor party, Dodon’s party, the Communists — they are all different, lacking a common platform. Common sense is present, but it is insufficient in the struggle against ideology. Obsessed with the myth of liberal democracy, we missed the moment when our forces were in power in Moldova — not pro-Russian, but pro-Moldovan, non-Soros, sovereign forces. Voronin was such. If we had held positions then, realizing that the next government would be undemocratic, rigged, with totalitarian persecution of dissent, we needed to act decisively, cutting toxic, extremist forces out of power. Otherwise, civil or non-civil war awaits us. If they, as in Ukraine, capture the whole society, that will become a war against the pole that embodies the alternative to liberalism.

Host: You said “if.” Will they succeed?

Alexander Dugin: They already have. Moldova is under their control. The opposition remains, but it will be suppressed, bribed, destroyed, or jailed under any pretexts. They own Moldova, and their further actions, alas, do not depend on us. We have essentially lost this. The post-Soviet space is slipping away before our eyes. I do not know who is responsible for this — it is opaque here.

The president acts impeccably, but those assigned to the post-Soviet space failed. This is not just my opinion. I do not know their names, I did not investigate, and naming them would be inappropriate. But the entire arc of the post-Soviet space has collapsed. A window of opportunity opens — we are missing it. Sovereign forces, not globalists, come to power — we support them weakly. When the West presses them, we do not provide help at decisive moments. Step by step we fail to grasp the seriousness of what is happening. In the post-Soviet space — in Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus — polarization reigns. Globalists support their people, giving carte blanche to violence, aggression, nationalist and neo-Nazi ideologies. They ban these ideologies at home, but here, along this belt, they cultivate them, providing political, media, military and economic support, using them to sever ties with us for subversive activity.

Moldova risks becoming a new front of war. Everything has moved to another level. Thirty years ago we let Ukraine go — that was a crime. We will not regain it without war, even to neutral status. The same applies to all countries of the post-Soviet space. If we did not secure control over their neutrality, they become a new front of war. We know that the Ukrainians, in collusion with Maia Sandu, plan a military intervention in Transnistria to cut off this pro-Russian enclave, depriving it of strategic roles and preserving Odessa for our southern offensive. From the standpoint of war, they act rationally — they seize what they can. They wage war against us, installing dictatorial regimes, falsifying elections, trampling on democratic procedures. And we chant that this is undemocratic, send notes to the UN, to human rights courts. It is useless. What was the use of saying that Hitler violated human rights? He did not care. He was strong enough to impose his policy in Germany and occupied Europe. The same is happening with liberalism.

Liberals have seized power in the collective West. Before Trump they fully controlled America. But there was a breakthrough of populist forces — under bullets, like with Charlie Kirk, under assassination attempts on Trump. This is a war of two blocs: Soros’s liberal elites and their agents, including some in Russia. In our country they were removed from politics — thanks to Vladimir Putin — but in culture, education, society they are entrenched. Only now does liberation begin.

I encounter them everywhere — not merely bought by Soros, but ideologically turned into carriers of the liberal globalist worldview, deeply recruited. Whole peoples, like Ukraine under a Nazi regime, are subordinated to them. Part of the Moldovans vote for Sandu — yes, elections are rigged, conditions unequal, but someone still votes. They captured part of our brotherly, Orthodox, fine Moldovan people, penetrating consciousness, manipulating souls. This is genuine zombification, propaganda of globalism and liberalism. Our response is sporadic. Moldovans vote for opposition parties, desire peace, balance with Europe and Russia, reject usurpation, gay prides, loss of sovereignty. But they are powerless until they unite. An ideology is needed, decisive, proactive policy in the post-Soviet space. The next step is war. Don’t want war? — Then radical political transformations in Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan are necessary. Otherwise war is inevitable — by other means.

Host: So there are still options in Moldova? Or are we left only to watch and wait until Moldova turns into present-day Ukraine?

Alexander Dugin: If we do not want war or active participation in the political life of the post-Soviet space, we have no choice — decisions will be made by others. If Soros decides that war is necessary, they will unleash it. We can oppose it, but they will provoke conflict. If we do not decisively intervene in these countries’ political processes, they will do it for us, suppressing sovereign leaders, killing, imprisoning, expelling and depriving them of rights — that is happening everywhere in the post-Soviet space.

Either we actively engage in the politics of these countries to prevent war, or we leave everything to their discretion — then we will have to fight, and fight to victory, seizing territory. We are in a difficult position, as if asleep, immersed in phantom pains of a world that no longer exists.

Maia Sandu embodies a totalitarian dictatorial regime. She pushes her candidates while hiding behind the image of an innocent dandelion. Soros has a new generation — Erasmus generations, identical, weak-willed figures who seem helpless and shallow. But they do not rule; a harsh system of global, terrorist, radical liberal control rules.

Host: There is additional information complementing your words: Moscow states that hundreds of thousands of Moldovans were deprived of the opportunity to vote on the territory of Russia, as Peskov said about the parliamentary elections in the republic.

We’ve covered Moldova for now. I propose to discuss events in the United States. I want to hear your comments on Donald Trump’s statements and the situation that occurred there. What exactly happened? I’ll tell our listeners. Last Sunday in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Michigan, during service, a shooting took place. An armed 40-year-old man opened fire on congregants and then set the church on fire. Later the attacker was neutralized and the fire extinguished. Initially one death and nine wounded were reported, but it later became known that there were four victims. Donald Trump commented on the tragedy, saying: “This epidemic of violence in our country must end immediately.” He wrote this on Sunday on the social network Truth Social. And here’s what interests me: how does Donald Trump intend to fight this epidemic of violence?

Alexander Dugin: When we discussed Moldova and the post-Soviet space in the first part of the program, we essentially arrived at the key question. The world we live in is one in which violence becomes the defining force. If you do not apply it against your opponents, they will apply it against you. One would like to find a way to avoid this dilemma, but it is impossible.

Liberal principles, set out in the “liberals’ Bible” — Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies — clearly state: there are enemies of the open society on the left and the right — conservatives on the right, socialists and communists on the left. For the open society to survive, it must strike these enemies first. What does it mean to strike? To destroy, to suppress, to neutralize, to behead, to subject to repression, to apply violence. Liberals consider this violence necessary so that the enemies of the open society do not strike first. Period. Our well-meaning aspirations for dialogue, negotiation, persuasion have no place in this model. If we do not attack, they hit first and destroy us to build their society.

Russia became an obstacle to their global state and liberal plans, so they provoked this war. We can shout about peace, friendship, democracy and negotiations until we are hoarse — war is inevitable. That is the law of today. This applies to us too. If we do not show toughness, do not use violence against supporters of the open society, they — theoretically, practically, infrastructurally, ideologically — are ready to strike us. The question is who holds power to apply this violence.

I speak of violence in a broad sense — not only killings, but also restrictions. How to restrict terrorists? How to restrict foreign agents? This is state pressure. Whoever is in power can seize the initiative. The same is happening in America. The coming to power of MAGA and Trump is a conservative revolution asserting principles directly opposed to Soros and his open society. The open society preaches many genders, the importation of illegal migrants, the blurring of national identity, repression of traditional confessions, especially Christianity, and denial of the patriotism of the American majority that created the state, in favor of liberal narratives. Before Trump, under Obama and Biden, forces were in power that were destroying American identity, promoting many genders, destroying everything. Christians — evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics — became targets of violence and persecution.

Active MAGA member and Christian Charlie Kirk was recently killed for his faith, conservatism and commitment to traditional values — in their eyes he was an enemy of the open society.

Returning to Popper: liberals say — kill the enemy of the open society before he kills you. They brand everyone as fascists, communists, Putin agents, new racists — any label. That is how they operate. The murder of Charlie Kirk consolidated the populist MAGA forces, but on the other pole it consolidated liberals. Their reaction was monstrous: they rejoiced. It’s like Ukrainians celebrating after an attack on the Crimean bridge or their terrorist successes. An innocent person is killed — and all of Ukraine exults. That is their essence. They have power, media, influence on education. In America liberal bloggers could not contain their delight: they squealed, laughed, rejoiced, jumped, shouting “Hooray! Hooray!” — a Christian was killed. Such an attitude in a significant part of American society is incitement to terror. Targets become all enemies of the open society, including Christians.

Host: So am I correct in understanding that for Democrats the murder of Charlie Kirk became a manifestation of the possibility of using violence?

Alexander Dugin: Exactly. They realized this is quite possible. Democratic press, in particular Jimmy Kimmel, the well-known TV host, openly supported it. Trump fires Kimmel, but he is immediately reinstated on ABC — and everything continues. So it is possible. So — destroy the enemy. Trump makes a clever move: realizing that the country is sinking into a spiral of escalating violence, he restores psychiatric clinics. Democrats closed them, declaring mental disorders to be a free choice, just “difference.” From DEI’s standpoint — diversity, equity, and inclusion — the mentally ill were equated with the healthy, and psychiatric institutions were liquidated. Imagine millions of mentally ill people roaming the United States? They are not registered, they are sold weapons, given salts and drugs that are spread almost uncontrollably. Democrats perform monstrous experiments on children, changing their sex from an early age: a child says “I am a cat” — and, instigated by mad Democrat parents, they stitch on a tail, without any medical oversight.

I suppose Trump is taking a strategic step, restoring psychiatric clinics to sanitize a society that under Democrats has lost the line of normality. That is why they kill Christians, conservatives, shouting “beat the fascist!” they attack anyone who dares to even mildly criticize the existing order. This is a psychiatric civil war, where crazed liberals and Democrats, raised on cancel culture, persecution and demonization of opponents, act extremely recklessly.

Recently published data show: 73% of Democratic senators and congresspeople consider Trump a fascist. If he is a fascist, he is illegitimate. Their culture says: a fascist must be destroyed, his supporters — destroyed, Christians — destroyed, enemies of the open society — destroyed. After 2020, in states ruled by Democrats, Republican supporters were sometimes refused plane tickets. In such a reality — with psychiatric clinics disbanded, free access to weapons, a campaign to stir up hatred against “fascists” who have nothing to do with fascism — you are called a fascist. You say: “I am not a fascist,” but their logic is: you are a crypto-fascist and may be killed. That is how they act, branding all enemies of the open society as fascists. Ukrainians, being overt Nazis, do the dirty work for them, killing Russians, and they are spared the label of Nazism — they are “children.” Their opponents, not linked to Nazism, are declared fascists — on Wikipedia, which cannot be corrected. Even Elon Musk has encountered that lies, slander and insults of ideological opponents permeate Wikipedia. He offered huge sums to rename it “crappypedia,” because it is false, but people believe it. Try to correct it — liberal censors replace neutral information with the opposite if it casts a shadow on their ideology or rehabilitates enemies of the open society. This is dictatorship.

How to stop this violence? Trump threatens to start counter-violence from day one, but he does not launch it. Take James Comey, former FBI director, who was summoned under arrest, but he can, using the law, fail to appear for nine days — and does not appear, and then cannot be found. MAGA supporters say: “Trump, you have plenary power.” In the U.S. presidential power is by law extremely great, despite limits. There are ways to assert that power, uprooting sources of the terrorist liberal network. To imprison George Soros, his son Alexander Soros, who brought Maia Sandu to power — this anti-Moldovan, essentially totalitarian sect in Moldova — put him in jail, and the results would be different. But Trump hesitates. It is a powerful force, and he understands he may not cope. The escalation of violence in the U.S., growing daily, may push the authorities to decisive action.

We, in our sacred belief in democracy, are deeply mistaken. That is testimony to our naivety, the illusion that we live in a kind, Soviet world where everything is decided by agreements and procedures. That makes us vulnerable, turning us into victims. They kill us and then accuse us of our demise, saying we deserved it, and — the wheel turns.

Trump probably underestimates the threat of liberal democracy. In America everyone believes in democracy, but it has long ceased to function. The deep state, liberal elites, have usurped its instruments, seized them and deprived the people of the ability to use them. This is an ideological dictatorship of liberals. Either apply harsh measures as Trump threatens with RICO against Soros. RICO is a law against deep corruption, introduced decades ago, allowing extraordinary measures: arrests, searches, interrogations without formalities, because the mafia and racketeering penetrated the system so deeply that ordinary methods did not work. Trump threatens to use RICO against Soros and the globalists, but for now he only shakes his fist. Documents, I suppose, are already disappearing. They change locations, erase computers, disks, phones — they are not stupid.

Host: However, one gets the impression that in fighting liberal forces Trump is unexpectedly changing his rhetoric on Ukraine. I noted your words about the epidemic of violence: if he realizes that violence is directed at him, he must use it first. It turns out that perhaps Donald Trump is insufficiently informed about the real situation in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? Because of that he probably thinks that violence comes from Russia, and now changes course, supporting Zelensky and supplying weapons. MAGA seems ready to give him credit for that. There are, admittedly indirect, reports — as Kellogg reported — of an agreement allowing Ukraine to strike with long-range weapons into Russian territory. Against this background remarkable statements have appeared from Kirill Dmitriev, head of the RDIF and special representative of the president of Russia for investment-economic cooperation with foreign countries, who stressed the importance of creating a special intelligence unit to provide Donald Trump with reliable and objective information. These news suggest that Trump may not fully understand what is happening and perceives Russia as the source of violence, leaning toward Ukraine. Or is that not so?

Alexander Dugin: No, I think that is not so. Trump perfectly understands who his real enemy is. He realizes that Russia is ideologically more on his side. Russia, Putin — these are a stronghold of traditional values. We are not an imperialist power. We simply defend our national interests. Our president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin had the opportunity in Anchorage and in private conversations to convey our position to Trump.

The escalation of violence that Trump faces is an attempt by certain forces around him to shift the vector, to blame the sick head on the healthy one. This is a classical globalist strategy: to arrange conflicts between Russia and Germany, Russia and Europe in the interests of a third force, so that then that third force triumphs. They artificially shift the Trump aggression in our direction. The idea is sound, but who will allow us or anyone else to convey objective information? There are people — Tulsi Gabbard, Hegseth, JD Vance — rational politicians. Trump knows.

Host: But JD Vance said that Russia needs to wake up and accept reality in the context of the conflict in Ukraine.

Alexander Dugin: JD Vance cannot express his thoughts openly because he aims to become the next U.S. president and does not want to be excluded from Trump’s team by contradicting him on principal issues. That is a sure way to lose prospects. Therefore he is not free. He is by nature a rational politician. If he says something we do not like, that does not mean he is bad or the initiator.

In the Russian Federation Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, Mark Levin have been recognized as terrorists — representatives of another wing. These are not Vance or Hegseth. These are classic neoconservatives seeking to shift blame onto Russia. They are globalists, only of the right wing rather than the left, and for them Russia is the enemy.

We must be patient, but our only path is victory; there is no other way out. In Ukraine we will persuade no one: no deals, no treaties, no demonstrations of peaceful intent will change anything. To the main theme of our conversation: if we win by force in Ukraine — with missiles or without, with Tomahawks or without, under strikes on our territory, with Western permission or without — defeat will be our end, victory — our beginning. We will prolong our historical being for an indefinite period and secure minimal conditions for full sovereignty. Only victory, based on force and reason.

But for this it is necessary to revise our policies — internal, ideological, and toward the post-Soviet space. We must awaken. That is what is necessary. We should listen to Vance. Russia must realize its national mission.

(Translated from the Russian)