The Rise of Russia, India, and China as Civilization-States
Three ancient civilizations step forward as independent poles.
Alexander Dugin notes that Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi embody ancient civilizations that now assert their sovereignty within their own value systems.
Our states are not identical: some hold advantages in demography, others in economic growth, others in geopolitics, natural resources, weaponry, or technology. Yet none is dependent on the others. These are three independent poles — that is multipolarity. At the core of each lies its own religion, identity, culture, and very long history. This carries enormous significance.
Russia has finally come to see itself not as a part of the West but as the center of an independent Russian world. The same is happening with India and China. At the heart of Chinese identity lies the Confucian idea of the Chinese Empire. Maoism and Deng Xiaoping’s liberalism were methods of modernizing society so it could defend itself against the West. Yet the core remains unchanged. China upholds its own principles and metaphysics.
India, too, with the rise of Narendra Modi’s conservative Bharatiya Janata Party, increasingly understands its opposition to the West as a Vedic civilization. Modi has set a course for the decolonization of Indian consciousness and firmly pursues it, knowing that the Western system does not fit Indian society, which is structured on other principles.
Russian civilization reaches deep into Indo-European society, into the times of the Sarmatians and Scythians, when the Slavs emerged. Yet we became a true civilization by joining Christianity and Byzantinism, with its Greco-Roman heritage. We are the heirs of the culture of the Indo-European code.
After the Great Schism of the Churches in the 11th century, our paths diverged from the West. We continued to carry the code, while the West drifted away from it. In the modern era, the West built a civilization on anti-Christian and anti-Roman principles, breaking with its own essence. We, despite deviations in the 18th and 20th centuries, remained bearers of the Orthodox faith into which Saint Prince Vladimir baptized us.
After the fall of Constantinople, we became the sole heirs of the code. The responsibility fell upon us to be the bulwark of Orthodoxy. It is no coincidence that we are called the Third Rome. We are heirs not only to a thousand-year tradition but to a far deeper legacy, extending to Persia and Babylon, as Konstantin Malofeev writes in his book Empire. For the last 500 years, we Russians have borne the Crown of the Empire, safeguarding the civilization that the West has abandoned.
We are not part of the West; rather, the West is a degenerate version of us. They split away from civilization, while we remained faithful to it. They are prodigal sons who strayed into hell. We remain the bearers of our ancient culture, just as the Chinese are of theirs and the Indians of theirs.
After less favorable epochs, we, three reborn civilization-states, meet again, having recognized the depth of our own essence. Before us stands a common enemy: the West. Trump might have become another sovereign pole if he had overcome the hegemony of the globalists, as he intended. Yet he has failed.
The three poles of the multipolar world already exist. But the club of the multipolar world is open. In BRICS, a broader format than the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, there is space for the Islamic, African, and Latin American worlds. The more the West attacks us, the closer we draw to one another. Even Trump contributes his part, making this process irreversible — under his pressure India joined us.
There is something eschatological here. We now feel our own selves and our destiny more piercingly than at any time in the last 300 years. The same holds true for the Chinese and the Indians. India, once a colony, is only now truly awakening, just as China returns to its Confucian core. What was at the beginning reveals itself again at the end.
We are entering the era of civilization-states, while the West, in trying to maintain its hegemony, collapses. It is already clear to all: its hegemony has ended. This is its agony.
(Translated from the original Russian version on Tsargrad TV)
Order Alexander Dugin’s The Theory of a Multipolar World.
 | A guest post by
|
👍👍👍 🔥🔥🔥 !!!
The results of an American public-opinion survey conducted in January revealed that most of the Americans polled who said they supported President Donald (Gimme’a Blow Job) Trump’s 25%-across-the-board tariffs on imported Canadian products (albeit a minority opinion) suddenly changed their minds if that tariff ends up costing them that much more for those products.
The Not In My Back Yard mindset is depressingly alive and well, even between close neighbours. In Trump’s twisted case, it may be more like: ‘... ESPECIALLY between close neighbours’. And his expectation of a rightful fair share (for the U.S.) will always be at least three-quarters of the pie.
The school-yard bully is especially angered by the relative weakling (nation) who in the least stands up to him. Yet, he can also be disgusted by the relative weakling’s (trade war) timidity or ‘elbows down’ response and behave even worse. He also fears appearing impotent by not unilaterally intimidating and/or exploiting via absurdly unjust tariffs against the comparably insubstantial nation that resists his skewed concept of ‘fairness’.
Also, it could be that more national governments around the globe are feeling and expressing a growing yet morally misplaced sense of foreign relations and power-politics entitlement toward militarily and/or economically weaker nations, including Canada — one that we are expected to simply get used to.
For Canadians, however, the bullying dynamic extends considerably beyond dealing with Trump’s America. Notably, China (via Beijing-centered rule) has similarly become an entitled, even smug, bully nation, not much better than Trump's America, if at all.
As a news-consuming Canadian, I've noticed there’s been an irritation especially expressed by China's government, and increasingly even India's, when our government — unlike with, say, mighty American assertiveness — dared to anger/embarrass them, even when on reasonable and/or just grounds.
The Beijing leadership of the People's Republic of China was/is annoyed by the relatively-weak Canada having been the one to detain (on Dec.1, 2018) and hold on (albeit luxurious) house arrest Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive and daughter of the tech corporation’s founder. Considering that a U.S. arrest warrant obligated Canada to detain her, why didn’t Beijing publicly express similar bluster towards Washington D.C. and, most notably, the then first administration of Donald Trump? Because size thus capability definitely matters.
Instead, Beijing took the more bullyish/cowardly path by arbitrarily detaining two Canadian men, commonly referred to by the news-media as “the 2 Michaels”, under bogus espionage charges effectively as human political hostages. Quite unlike Meng Wanzhou’s “house arrest” in a luxurious Vancouver mansion, the 2 Michaels did comparably very hard time in mainland China for a total of 1,020 days. The PRC could have more appropriately picked a couple of Americans to wrongfully imprison but deliberately stuck with bullying and taking hostages from the relatively militarily- and economically-weak Canada.
The 2 Michaels just happened to be released at the same time as the Trump U.S. dropped its charges against Meng Wanzhou, who was then released, for something political and/or economic in return from China. … Classic foreign-policy bullyish cowardice.
… With India’s government, Canada dealt (at least somewhat) firmly after Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Canadian Sikh separatist, was assassinated in Surrey, B.C., on June 18, 2023. Undoubtedly already aware of the diplomatic furor likely to come, even at Canada’s expense, an investigation nonetheless resulted in Canada charging three Indian nationals for the murder.