Trump, Decoupling, and the Etruscan Bride

Fragile peace, the rot of the West, and Russia’s need to break away

Alexander Dugin envisions a world at the breaking point: Israel’s grip on America slipping, Trump gambling at nuclear poker, and the West decaying like a rotting corpse as Eurasia gathers for its resurrection.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host Alexander Bukarev: Let’s begin with the most burning topic, since right now, at this very moment, Donald Trump is delivering a speech in the Knesset. One might say this marks a pause or even a turning point in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The first question is this: the agreement between Israel and Hamas, which Trump grandly calls “the end of the war” — how durable is it really, and above all, who stands to gain from it the most, speaking of events in Israel and in the Gaza Strip?

Alexander Dugin: It seems to me that, objectively speaking, this is a success for Trump. He went through a difficult election. His full support for Netanyahu implied the next step: to recognize the dismantling of Palestinian statehood — to postpone it indefinitely. Netanyahu and the Israeli government have demanded from the West and the world a total refusal to recognize Palestine in any borders — neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank — and the recognition of Israel’s right to establish “Greater Israel.” That was their position and, apparently, the trigger for the tragedy in Gaza — in fact, a genocide of the local population.

From the point of view of Netanyahu and his radical religious-political supporters — Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and other ministers — they follow the theories of Dov Ber and Yitzhak Shapira about preparing for the construction of the Third Temple and the sacrifice of the red heifer. The red heifers, by the way, were brought from America. This is an ancient Jewish ritual that precedes the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple. For this to happen, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Islamic holy site in Jerusalem, must be destroyed.

Recently, Ben-Gvir, the Minister of National Security, conducted a religious ritual there — violating the rights of Muslims and preparing the mosque for demolition — an initiation rite for the coming of the Messiah. Trump supported this line for a long time, against the views of his Western partners and his own MAGA base, which is largely anti-Israel. Because of Trump’s pro-Netanyahu policy, conflicts have arisen among his supporters in America. He took risks, but the next step would have meant agreeing to occupy Gaza, transfer the Palestinians, reject their statehood, and expand Greater Israel at the expense of Syria and Lebanon. Trump followed Netanyahu almost to the end, to the red line, along the path of Christian Zionism. Immense ideological, military, and diplomatic work was done to turn America towards supporting Netanyahu’s messianic project.

But today’s agreement is the opposite. When Special Envoy Witkoff spoke yesterday before Israelis and mentioned Netanyahu, the crowd protested and silenced him. This is not Netanyahu’s victory. The exchange of hostages, the release of thousands of Palestinians from prisons, and the withdrawal of troops from Gaza — these are compromises from Netanyahu. The conditions of Hamas and the Palestinians — an independent State of Palestine, supported by many countries and even by NATO, apart from America’s hardest vassals — have prevailed.

Trump made a turn: supporting Netanyahu 99%, he stopped short of the final step. This is not Greater Israel, not the Messiah, not the red heifer, not the Third Temple, not the demolition of Al-Aqsa, and not the transfer of Palestinians.

What, then, were the sacrifices for? The Palestinians are returning to Gaza under a Palestinian state recognized by the West. Hamas may lay down its arms, but this is its triumph — they fought for independence and have come close to it. The messianic logic of Netanyahu, who launched a war under the banners of the Messiah, has collapsed. Iran, despite the strikes, remains unshaken. Its patriotism has grown; demands on women have eased — women without hijabs are increasingly seen in Tehran. Most countries oppose Netanyahu. The West is divided: globalists, Soros, and the Democrats reject him; Trump supports him, though not unconditionally. He plays five or six games at once, never finishing one, but defending his own interests. Most importantly, he has proven he is not Israel’s puppet, as he was accused of being. He achieved a ceasefire in Gaza — but this is no stable peace. Netanyahu and the messianic lobby are unlikely to accept it — this is their defeat.

Why, then, squander the moral capital of the Holocaust? The world now sees how Israel’s actions have undermined its moral superiority. This is not Greater Israel. Trump, joking on his plane about “Heaven,” reminiscent of Biden, broadcasts every thought on social media with extroverted spontaneity. This is no lasting peace, but a new turn that could lead to World War Three. A fragile, momentary victory for Trump — but a real victory for Hamas and the Palestinians, who discredited Israel and moved closer to statehood. It destabilizes the region and threatens new wars, possibly in even more terrifying forms.

Host: Recent polling in the U.S. shows that even Christian Zionists and Evangelicals, who once supported the Israeli lobby — especially the younger ones — are increasingly withdrawing their support. Not to mention Europe and the Muslim community in the U.S., which is also part of Trump’s electorate. In this context, since, as you say, Trump has not played out this game to the end — what do you think lies ahead for Israel, politically and existentially, if it has failed to achieve the goal for which it risked everything?

Alexander Dugin: The goal for which Israel risked everything is a metapolitical phenomenon: the anticipation of the coming of the Messiah. This is more serious than the failure of a political intrigue or a military operation. Israel’s only meaning lies in being a messianic project. Without the Messiah, it has no justification for existence. As an “island of democracy in an Islamic sea,” it will not endure. It faces a choice: either intensify messianic tension or collapse. Any step backward means non-being.

In America, an anti-Israel wave is growing, even among former supporters. The youth — especially the Groypers, the new nationalists who are not Trumpists — profess an antisemitism that reaches a cult of Hitler. This is a mass phenomenon. They ask, “Israel First or America First?” For any politician, the answer “Israel First” means the end of a career. Tucker Carlson criticizes Israel cautiously, opposing the Groypers while appealing to American patriotism. Charlie Kirk — possibly killed for refusing to support Israel — was an influential figure. Globalist and Soros-linked propaganda fuels anti-Israel sentiment, sending Antifa and LGBT activists to protests. Muslims try to push them aside, but Soros uses these forces — just as he once used our own opposition — for pro-Palestinian actions.

Pressure is coming from both sides: from the right — young nationalists; from the left — liberals. The Anti-Defamation League, anti-Trumpist by orientation, is losing influence. America’s attitude towards Israel has changed, and Trump senses it. He, Kushner, and other Zionists followed Netanyahu — but as a pragmatist and businessman, Trump understands the situation cannot be turned in his favor. The Islamic factor in the U.S. remains small, and the Jewish lobby still dominates. Yet the anti-Israel sentiment of tens of millions has become too strong to ignore.

Host: Who will pay for Gaza’s reconstruction? That question remains unresolved.

Alexander Dugin: It’s an open question. Nothing comes for free. Destruction is easy; creation is hard. They’ll try to shift responsibility onto Europe, with part borne by the U.S. Israel will not pay. Islamic countries might participate, but Gaza is turning into a bridgehead for Palestinian political processes — which threatens Israel. Geopolitically and messianically, Israel has been defeated. Before Gaza is rebuilt, the Middle East will go through tense moments. It’s possible Israel will again launch military action — this time against Iran.

Host: Let’s turn to another international topic related to Donald Trump — but now, of course, also to Russia. I’d like to ask not about the Tomahawk missiles themselves, but about the indirect dialogue unfolding in statements by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Recently Trump mentioned the Tomahawks, then Putin spoke of Anchorage, emphasizing that we remain within our agreements and that this course continues. Trump hasn’t commented directly, but said he intends to call Putin before deciding on the Tomahawks. It seems there are two currents: a hidden one, unseen to us, and a public one involving Zelensky, Macron, and others discussing the Tomahawks.

Alexander Dugin: The situation is extremely serious and cannot be underestimated. Trump, confident in his ability to pressure, blackmail, and force others into what he calls “peace,” manipulates various sides — including the powerful Israeli lobby and Netanyahu, a factor deeply rooted in American politics. His coercive methods often work — and that is alarming. On one hand, it pleases him — he’s a man of short cycles, not a strategist. He resolves problems instantly, taking profit immediately, cashing out. It’s a business approach: make money now, tomorrow doesn’t matter. You can lose everything in the casino — trade long-term gain for quick wins. This is the mindset of an American developer: the value lies in the deal here and now.

Consequences? He has no time for them — the rhythm is accelerated. And this is dangerous, because so far it’s working for him. He applies this method to Russia, but here it’s inappropriate. These are long-term projects, grand strategies — geopolitics — which Trump avoids. He acts instantaneously, and that’s risky. Trying to impose a trading principle — “Come on, Putin, let’s make peace on my terms” — he hears from Putin: “No, those aren’t my terms.” Trump responds with threats: “Fine then — we’ll cut ties, I’ll send Tomahawks, new weapons.” This bullying towards Russia, as towards China, is extremely dangerous and futile.

Putin, in my view, acts with utmost delicacy: he does not yield on any strategic issue, makes no compromises on vital interests, and defends them firmly — yet he is willing to continue this unpleasant and risky game. The Tomahawk story is like poker. Putin plays complex strategies; Trump plays poker, where bluff and quick gestures matter. But if, in harsh negotiations, the stakes soar, the appearance of “just a game” on our side will vanish.

Peskov stated this clearly, and our politicians have said the same: we have drawn red lines; the West has crossed them; and we have not responded. The West now falsely believes that we never respond. Delivering Tomahawks to Kiev, from a military-technical standpoint, means strikes deep inside Russia by U.S. personnel — there’s no other way, as experts confirm. Trump, in his “hard deal” style, is issuing an ultimatum that leads directly to military conflict with us. He clearly refuses to think about nuclear escalation, assuming it will play out as with Iran — U.S. strikes on Russia to force a quick Ukraine deal.

Host: Like with Iran?

Alexander Dugin: Iran, distant from Israel, supports the Shiites. For Iran, the situation was complex but not vital. For Russia, it’s different — this touches our direct interests. Playing poker with escalation, Trump is playing with fire. If we yield — if we fail to respond to Tomahawk strikes on our territory — and who knows what their warheads might carry? — that would nullify all our achievements, sacrifices, and suffering. This isn’t the threat of a Ukrainian counteroffensive, which we managed, barely. This is far graver. If we don’t respond to direct American strikes, then anything can be done to us.

The world is in chaos; everyone pulls in their own direction; there is no one to rely on. We stand alone: either we repel American aggression, which may begin at any moment, or it becomes a war with the United States. Trump, in his aggressive bullying, has reached a line even Biden and the globalists avoided crossing. This isn’t just Anchorage. This is geopolitical poker — where one side declares: “Now we move to Russian roulette.”

Host: Straight to Russian roulette — as a new factor?

Alexander Dugin: Yes. The Tomahawks are a new factor of escalation. This is not Ukraine’s victory or Russia’s defeat — it’s the beginning of direct military confrontation between Russia and the U.S. — the threshold of World War Three. We’ve approached this line many times and stepped back, but Trump is accelerating events, heating tensions. Melania Trump tries to refute fake stories about Ukrainian children, while Maria Lvova-Belova has convincingly shown Americans the absurdity of accusations against our President and herself. We managed that, but we cannot halt Trump’s manic escalation masked as peacemaking.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to an obscure Soros agent for a failed color revolution in Venezuela — an utter disgrace to the award. Why does Trump need this discredited prize? His peacekeeper image is false — born of senility and absurdity.

The fragility of the situation grows, and the Tomahawks make it lethally dangerous. Zelensky would rejoice if America began fighting for him — that would be his triumph. For four years he’s sought to drag the West into direct confrontation with Russia; afterward he can retire, even if he’s destroyed. The global elite is degrading: some fall into dementia, others become addicts, change their gender, or turn into monsters. The West is losing its human face. Soros is one monster; Trump is another — incapable of distinguishing dreams from reality. The West decays, dragging us into the whirlpool of its civil war — with Antifa, Marxists, transgender people, furries. It exports this zombie apocalypse, infecting humanity with the poison of madness. This is mortally dangerous: the West has bases, weapons, and a desire to die with spectacle — like the Tower of Babel collapsing and shaking the earth.

Host: Allow me to touch on the philosophical context, since you mentioned the Peace Prize. There’s a view that the West’s decay benefits Russia only if it happens slowly — so that its centrifugal effects don’t destabilize the whole world. How do you see this?

Alexander Dugin: What matters is that the West rots without us. There’s a torture called “the Etruscan Bride” — tying a corpse to a living person so the rot seeps into the living flesh. Westernism, liberalism, globalization, digitalization — the desire to imitate the West — that’s the “Etruscan Bride.”

The West is dead, and the closer we are to it, the more dangerous it becomes. Whether it decays fast or slow doesn’t matter. The key is decoupling — cutting ties with this toxic monster. The West has always tended towards degeneration, but now it has reached the terminal stage of irreversible decay. If it rots faster — perhaps that’s even better. The main thing is to fence off this plague barrack called “enlightened Western society” with an impenetrable wall.

Humanity must save itself from the West. Whoever stays tied to this rotting “bride” is doomed — the poison will spread, fast or slow, but the sickness is inevitable. The decoupling should have happened a hundred, two hundred years ago. We keep delaying, thinking the West isn’t rotting, or that its decay is somehow pleasant. Elites infected by short-term thinking chase instant pleasure, ignoring consequences. The contagion has entered our culture and bloodstream. The question isn’t whether a fast or slow decay benefits us — it’s that it must happen without us. We’ve done much to detach ourselves, but there’s more work to do — the infection runs deep.

Host: Turning to what we have done and are doing — the last topic for today — the summit of CIS heads of state in Tajikistan and Vladimir Putin’s speech. Many issues were discussed. I’d like to ask about the prospects of the CIS from the standpoint of Russia’s cooperation with other Commonwealth countries. Putin mentioned Belarus as an exemplary case of cooperation with our geographic and historical neighbors. What did he mean by drawing an analogy between Belarus and other CIS countries in the context of joint projects?

Alexander Dugin: Putin meant the necessity of building, in place of the CIS, a single Eurasian Union state modeled on the Russia–Belarus Union State. That is our only path.

His words can be interpreted in different ways, but I see only one meaning: from what was said and unsaid, from the logic of geopolitical history, it follows that either we act together as a single pole — the peoples of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the inseparable part of Eurasian civilization: our people, our culture, our society — or we will find ourselves surrounded by hostile, non-sovereign, puppet states like Ukraine, under the influence of external players — not necessarily the West. It could be the Islamic pole, China, or other powerful centers. Sovereignty is possible only for large civilizational blocs: Russia, China, India, and the Islamic world. The sovereignty of the Islamic world, as we see in Gaza and Palestine, is weak. Yet it could reorganize — perhaps under the influence of the Palestinian factor — into a new type of caliphate. Then Central Asia would become a zone of struggle between the Islamic pole, Russia, and China — a grim prospect.

Putin is issuing a final warning: either the CIS transforms into a true Eurasian Union, or the fate of the post-Soviet semi-sovereign states will be tragic. Full unification like that with Belarus isn’t necessary, but a military, economic, political, and cultural partnership in union format should serve as an example for all CIS states, including Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is the result of rejecting this path — just as in Moldova and Georgia. One argument is still missing: the capture of Kiev. When we take Kiev, Putin’s words will gain weight. We must demonstrate the necessity of the Union State with a decisive, irreversible act. Otherwise, turning up the volume of rhetoric will achieve nothing.

(Translated from the Russian)