CODIGO PE/GP -

RUSIA Y EL NUEVO ORDEN MUNDIAL

EL PROYECTO GEOPOLITICO DE PAZ EUROASIATICA

NIKOLAJ VON KREITOR

Este artículo fue inicialmente publicado en forma abrevidad en el
American political journal "Telos", New York 1994-96  y en
diferentes versions han sido publicados en otros diarios.
La versióm completa fue publicada en alemán: "Rusland, Europa
und Washingtons Neue Welt-Ordnung. Das geopolitische Project
einen Pax eurasiatica"  ETAPPE, Heft 12/Juni 1996 

Para el periodo después del término de la II Guerra Mundial, los

Estados Unidos ganaron un incremento en su prominencia
liderando el poder de la reacción imperialista, tomando el lugar de
Alemania al respecto... y ello una predominante clase manejada,
particularmente durante la era imperialista, tener las formas
democráticas efectivamente preservadas que por medios
democráticamente legales, ello permitió conseguir un ................. del
capitalismo monopólico por lo menos tan firme como tal cual Hitler
se levanto por sus procedimientos tiránicos... y esta democracia
podría en esencia, realizar toda clase de cosas buscadas por Hitler.

 For the period after the end of Second World War, the United
States gained increasing prominence as the leading power of
imperialist reaction, taking Germany’s place in this respect... And its
ruling class managed, particularly during the imperialist era, to have
the democratic forms so effectively preserved that by democratically
legal means, it achieved a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism at
least as firm as that which Hitler set up by tyrannical
procedures...And this democracy could, in substance, realize
everything sought by Hitler. 

Gyorgy Lukacs(1) 
Resueltamente no toma primero conciencia de la situación y pone
esa situación después de misma; ello esta puesto ya en sí mismo.
Como resuelto, Dasein es ya tomando acción.

Gyorgy Lukacs(1) 
Resoluteness does not first take cognizance of Situation and put
that Situation before itself; it has put itself into that Situation already.
As resolute, Dasein is already taking action. 

1
 CODIGO PE/GP -

Martin Heidegger(2) 
Nosotros no tenemos enemigos en el Este
Bismarck 

Martin Heidegger(2) 
We don’t have enemies in the East. 
Bismarck 
 
El concepto de el Estado, presupone el concepto de lo político.
La específica distinción política a la cual las acciones políticas y
motivos pueden ser reducidos es que están entre amigo y enemigo,
escribió Carl Schnitt (3). La afirmación de lo político es un
reconocimiento de la realidad de lo político y así un reconocimiento
e identificación del enemigo. Sólo por afirmación de lo político y en
un acto de decisión, cual por necesidad es una selección de una
meta existencial, puede una nación como una entidad colectiva
asegurar ello su propia soberanía y así su política futura.

 The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.

The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives
can be reduced is that between friend and foe, wrote Carl Schmitt.
(3) The affirmation of the political is a recognition of the reality of the
political and thus a recognition and identification of the foe. Only by
affirmation of the political in an act of decision, which by necessity is
a meta-existential choice, can a nation as a collective entity assert
its own sovereignty and thus political future. 

En los resultados (desastrosos) de la disolución de la Unión

Soviética en 1991, lo cual redujo aquel gran poder a un Estado sin
política y entonces a una gran masa de terreno en caos, una suerte
de una república - weimar de los años 90, y en la fase del nuevo
expansionismo americano, la discusión ideológica y la búsqueda
para una orientación política viable entre aquella Unión Soviética se
intensificó. El profesor Nikolaj Zagladin puntualizo recientemente
que la competencia entre la Unión Soviética y los Estados Unidos
durante el periodo de la Guerra Fría debe estar caracterizado como
una guerra real durante la cual el poder militar actual ha sido usado
en una forma muy limitada, extendiéndose mayormente en las
guerras sustitutas. Esto fue así no por resultado de una pérdida de
voluntad pero a causa de la natural tecnología militar - la existencia
de armas nuclares hicieron la guerra imposible. La naturaleza de la
guerra entre los Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética, conocida

2
 CODIGO PE/GP -
como la Guerra Fría, fue ella en esencia específicamente
tecnológica. Pero la Guerra Fría fue en efecto la III Guerra Mundial,
afirma Zagladin (4). A una conclusión similar arriba Zbigniew
Brzezinski, el primer asesor de Seguridad Nacional del Presidente
Carter y presentando uno de los mayores ideólogos del
"Expansionismo de 1991", quien escribió parafraseando a Von
Clausewitz, que "La Guerra Fría puede ser definida como una
guerra por otros medios (no letales). No menos, ello fue una guerra.
Y las estacas fueron monumentales. Geopolíticamente la lucha, en
esta primera instancia, fue el control sobre la masa de terreno
Euroasiática y, eventualmente a nivel de preponderancia global".
In the aftermath of the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991 which
reduced the former Great Power to a state without politics and thus
to a landmass in chaos, a sort of a Weimar-republic of the 90-ties,
and in the face of the new American expansionism, the ideological
discussion and search for viable political orientation within the
former Soviet Union has intensified. Professor Nikolaj Zagladin
pointed recently that the competition between the Soviet Union and
the United States during the period of the Cold War must be
characterized as a real war during which actual military power had
been used to a very limited extend- mostly in proxy wars. This was
so not because of a lack of will but because of the nature of the
military technology— the existence of nuclear weapons made the
war impossible. The nature of the war between the United States
and the Soviet Union, known as the Cold War, was to its essence
technology specific. But the Cold War was in fact the Third World
War, claims Zagladin.(4) To a similar conclusion comes Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Carter,
and presently one of the major ideologists of the «Expansionists of
1991», who wrote, paraphrasing von Clausewitz, that «the Cold War
can be defined as warfare by other (non-lethal) means.
Nonetheless, warfare it was. And the stakes were monumental.
Geopolitically the struggle, in the first instance, was for control over
the Eurasian landmass and, eventually, even for global
preponderance».(5) 
Obviously the Soviet Union gave up much more in the settlement
than the United States, agreed to the dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact, although the military arm of American domination of Western
Europe, NATO, continues to exist and is steadily expanding. Soviet
Union unilaterally reduced its engagement in the Third World while
the United States escalated her interventionist foreign policies.
Soviet Union even supported the war in Iraq, a war that to its
essence was a war for the control of the oil in the Persian Gulf and
thus a war against the national interest not only the Soviet Union,

3
 CODIGO PE/GP -
but also of other European countries; a war that made it less likely
that an accommodation between the Soviet Union and Western
European countries could be reached. Soviet Union even agreed to
withdraw its military forces from Germany while the United States
intends to permanent her occupation of Germany, a fact that was
clearly stated by President Bush during the November 7-8, 1991
NATO summit meeting in Rome. 
And that brings us to the post Cold War settlement, its
consequences for Russia and for the international order. A critical
observer will characterize this settlement as analogous to a Second
Treaty of Versailles. Zbigniew Brzezinski point out that as a
consequence of the Second Treaty of Versailles, the defeated
Russia is passing into American receivership. 
«This is an outcome historically no less decisive and no less one-
sided than the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, or of Imperial
Germany in 1918. Unlike the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the
Thirty Years War in a grand religious compromise, cuius regio, cuius
religio , does not apply here. Rather, from a doctrinal point of view,
the outcome is more similar to 1815 or 1945; the ideology of the
losing side has itself been repudiated. Geopolitically the outcome is
also suggestive of 1918, the defeated empire is in a process of
dismantlement. As in previous termination of war there was a
discernible moment of capitulation, followed by postwar political
upheavals in the losing state. That moment came most probably in
Paris on November 19, 1990. At a conclave marked by ostentatious
displays of amity designed to mask the underlying reality, the
erstwhile Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachev, who had led the Soviet
Union during the final stages of the Cold War, accepted the
conditions of the victors by describing in veiled and elegant
language the unification of Germany that had taken place entirely on
Western terms as a ‘major event’. This was the functional equivalent
of the act of capitulation in the railroad car in Compiegne in 1918
(the capitulation of Germany) or on the U.S.S. Missouri in August
1945 (the capitulation of Japan).»(6) 
George Kennan remarked that «the collapse of the Soviet system
amounted to the unconditional surrender we envisaged-a voluntary
one if you will, but surrender nevertheless.»(7) And as a result the
United States is attempting to impose on Russia terms of surrender
stated in the National Security Council Memorandum 20/1 (NSC
20/1) which already in 1948 defined the American war aims in the
Cold War and envisioned a post Cold War settlement tailored after
the Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918(8) , leading to the partition of the
Soviet Union, disarmament, destruction of the national economy of

4
 CODIGO PE/GP -
Russia and establishment of American protectorate over large parts
of the territory of the former Soviet Union: 
(...)Such terms would have to be harsh ones and distinctly
humiliating...They might well be something along the lines of the
Brest-Litovsk settlement of 1918...(We) would have to demand: 
a. Direct military terms (surrender of equipment, evacuation of key
areas, etc) designed to assure military helplessness...
b. Terms designed to produce a considerable economic
dependence on the outside world.(9) 
NSC 20/1 stated further that the unified geopolitical space of the
Soviet Union—the «fortress Heartland»—had to be destroyed by
partitioning of the country and inclusion of above all the Baltic States
and Ukraine into a Shatterbelt of U.S.A controlled territory. 
Wolfram Henrieder has pointed out that de Gaulle wanted the
German issue solved- the unification of Germany, because it
constituted a decisive cause and justification for American
continuous military presence in Europe, a cause that would be
eliminated with the solution of the German question, leading to the
dissolution of the Cold War military alliances and speeding American
withdrawal from Europe(10) , creating an emancipated Europe to the
Urals. «The creation of unified Europe requires political decision
which is tantamount to a will of independence... A united Europe, in
this sense, could be build only in opposition to America.»(11) By her
dominant position within the alliance America has kept Europe in a
straitjacket, has made her fearful of speaking in her own voice.
Since Europe has lost its elan and has borrowed an American
personality, it must be forced to reassume an identity. As this
identity does not exists, it must be created. If Europe can be roused
only by instilling an apprehension over American hegemony, then
this must be done for the sake of Europe’s survival, claimed de
Gaulle for whom a truly emancipated Europe was an America-free
Europe. 
From this perspective Gorbachev’s foreign policy and the geopolitics
of implosion of Perestrojka negatively effected the possibilities for
emancipation of Europe. In the ongoing political debate in Russia
but also in France, it has been asserted that the defeat of the Soviet
Union begins to appear as a defeat for Europe as well. 
Lenin once characterized the original Treaty of Versailles in the
following words: 
“What is the Versailles Treaty? This unheard of, predatory peace,
enslaves tens of millions of people, including the most civilized. This
is not a treaty but dictates imposed by robbers with a knife in hand
on a defenseless Germany. Germany has been deprived from all
her colonies by virtue of the Versailles Treaty. Turkey, Persia and

5
 CODIGO PE/GP -
China have been enslaved. Seventy percent of the world population
live in conditions of enslavement...And that is why this international
order, which rests on the Versailles Treaty, rests in reality on a
volcano."(12) 
And while Russia at the moment is in the same predicament as
Germany after the W.W.I, the predatory New World Order,
proclaimed by President Bush and implemented by the present
Clinton administration, also rests on a volcano. 
The intensifying confrontation of Russia with the dictates of the New
World Order has led to intensive ideological debate about the future
of Russia. This debate has resulted in a renewed interest for the
writings of the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt whose book,
“The Concept of the Political”, has already been translated into
Russian and published in the sociological magazine Voprosy
Sotsiologij.(13) The known Russian politician and chief editor of the
influential magazine Elementy (Elements) Alexander Dugin must be
credited with the first comprehensive introduction of the works of
Carl Schmitt in the essay “Carl Schmitt- Five Lessons for Russia”,
published in the Journal of Russian Writers ‘Nash Sovremennik’
(Our Contemporary)(14) and with the creative applications of his
writing to the contemporary political and ideological chaos in
Russia. 
“For Russia the writing of Schmitt are of special interest and
significance because of his brilliant analysis of state of emergency
and exceptional situations in contemporary political reality and the
necessity of a decision to preserve the national existence of
people. ..People exists politically only if they constitute an
independent political community/entity and only if they as an entity
oppose other political entities in order to preserve its understanding
of the cultural specificity of its own community...The theory of
exceptional circumstances and with it related theme of decision are
of paramount importance for us today, because we are now in such
historical juncture of the history of Russian people and Russian state
in which the state of emergency has become a natural state of our
nation, permeating and constituting the Being of our nation...We
Russians must discover and understand our national essence and
existence because we live in a time of emergency which demands a
act of collective existential choice, an act of supreme decision.”(15) 
Here one can see a Heideggerian motif- the political identifies the
essence and existence of community; it is the empirical Russian
nation which in a time of national emergency must become fully
political in an act of self-choice and decision and thus choose itself
and its own historical destiny.(16) The act of self-choice
presupposes a nation that has become political because only the

6
 CODIGO PE/GP -
political being of Russia gives existential meaning to the friend-
enemy antithesis, what does not politically exist cannot consciously
decide(17) , political unity is grounded on political existence. Political
sovereignty is an existential question because it concerns the
resolution of an existential conflict. Not only does every politically-
existing people decide on the question of its own political existence
and any possible danger to it; it decides also on whether an
existential question actually exists- a question which is political by its
very nature. Since for politically-existing people there is always the
possibilities of an existential conflict, the question of sovereignty, i.e.
the ultimate existential decision, always remains open.(18) «Every
existing political unity has its value and existential justification not in
the rightness or usefulness of norms but in its existence. Juridically
considered, what exists as apolitical force has value because it
exists. From this stems its ‘right to self-preservation’, the
presupposition of all further considerations; it seeks above all to
maintain its existence , it protects its existence, its integrity, its
security, and its constitution - all existential values»(19) 
Carl Schmitt points out that «as long people exists in the political
sphere, it must itself make use of the distinction between friend and
enemy, at the same time reserving it for extreme conjunctures which
it itself judges as such. This is where the essence of its political
existence lies. From the moment it lacks the capacity or the will to
use this distinction, a people ceases to exist politically...If the people
should no longer have the strength or the will to continue in the
political sphere, this is not the end of politics in the world. It is only
the end of weak people...If the state refuses or is unable to make a
decision in an exceptional situation, it inevitable runs the risk that
other forces will make one in its place and establish their
norms.»(20) Building on this theme Alexander Dugin sees the
elements of will, decision and time intertwined in the quest for
historical existence of Russia: 
«Decisionism not only amplifies and focuses on the state of
emergency and the exceptional circumstances, but it is also a
defense reaction against those circumstances: in the moment of
historical decision for authentic national future, the people and the
nation actualize their past and decide their future in a dramatic
mobilization of the present. The present then becomes the focal
point and synthesis of three qualitative characteristics of time: its
source, i.e. the past when people entered into a historical existence,
the will of the people directed toward the future, and the political
self-assertion of the historically existing people in an act of decision
which at the same time is an act of authenticity, in the present. In the
supreme mobilization of the decision the historically existing Russian

7
 CODIGO PE/GP -
people reveals, recaptures and mobilizes its timeless historical
uniqueness and identity. Therefore the political and historical future
of Russian people is build on understanding and affirmation of its
historical past... 
If the Russian people can self-assert themselves and their historical
choice in this fateful and dramatic juncture, and if the Russian
people are able to reveal and designate friends and enemies,
recapturing from the flow of history its political self assertion, then
the supreme political decision of the Russian people would be an
authentic, historical and existential decision , an affirmation of
thousand years of history of Russian people and the Russian state.
If on the other hand political decisions will be taken by others, i.e. by
the United States in the guise of the insidious ideology of pseudo
universalism, which the United States is in the process of
establishing as the only legitimate ideology in the New World Order,
then our future will be un-Russian, i.e. the future will cease to exist
for us. The historical Being of Russian people, Russian state and the
Russian nation will became a Being without a future and thus a non-
Being. Thus also Russian past will loose its meaning, will dissipate
into nothingness: the historical drama of Russian history in the post-
Gold War period will became a tragedy of submission under the
dictates of the American New World Order, a tragedy of annihilation
of Russian future».(21) 
«Past, present, and future are existential characteristics, and thus
render possible fundamental phenomena such as understanding,
concern and determination. This opens the way for the
demonstration of historicity as a fundamental existential
determination.»(22) Alexander Dugin emphasizes that the essence
of a nation’s being-in-the world is a hermeneutical process of
questioning and problematization of a crisis situation, a state of
emergency. The concept of political existence of the Russian nation
is actualized in a time of radical disintegration and regression, a time
of emergency and outer and inner danger which creates awareness
of being situated in a crises which must take on a political form. The
understanding of the political roll of Russia in contemporary world
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is a power to grasp the
nation’s possibilities for being, which by necessity not only requires
a disclosure of the nation’s concrete potentialities for being, in a
sense of preserving itself and maintaining its own authenticity, but
also the revealment of the sources for an inauthentic national
existence. This revealment presupposes the identification of the foe
which in the process of a national self-understanding becomes
manifest; the hermeneutical circle thus closes - the reached
understanding leads to resoluteness and demands a political

8
 CODIGO PE/GP -
decision on the part of the Russian nation;(23) because the
potentiality for authentic national Being remains a mere potentiality
unless accompanied by political decisionism. It is the decision to
choose itself and thereby to oppose the foe and thus become
political, which is the supreme political act of the nation. 
Those are the issues that are entertained in the most recent issues
of Elementy (Elements), the ideological organ of the Russian
opposition, dedicated to geopolitical discourse and ideological
alternatives in the post-Cold War Russia, a period in which in the
words of Aaron Friedberg, Professor in political sciences in
Princeton, « the United States has emerged as a single,
unchallenged ‘Great Satan’, against whom all ideological energies
must be mobilized». The magazine is published by the Center for
Special Meta-Strategical Studies in Moscow and beside Alexander
Dugin, who is the publisher, lists among its co-editors the editor of
the most important opposition newspaper Zavtra (formely Den’),
Alexander Prochanov, the New European Right’s ideologists Alain
de Benoist (editor of the French magazines Neuvelle Ecole,
Elements, Krisis), Robert Steuckers (editor of the Belgian
magazines Orientations, Synergies Europeennes and Vouloir) the
Italian geopolitician Claudio Mutti, the Serbian geopolitician Dragosh
Kalajic, as well as the controversial Russian politician and member
of the former Parliament, colonel Victor Alsknis.(25) The interesting
issues contain a translation of Carl Schmitt’s essay on “Nomos and
the principle of Grossraum”, Karl Haushofer’s work on “Continental
geopolitical unity” as well as contributions of authors such as Alain
de Benoist and the Austrian general Heinrich Jordis von
Lochhausen, the foremost theoretician of contemporary geopolitics
and advocate of European liberation from American occupation. 
Alexander Dugin must be credited with both political imagination and
ideological creativeness. He introduces a new vocabulary of
resistance. In the tradition of a true iconoclast he identifies not only
the foe of Russia and, in the future, of Europe— the United States ,
but also exposes the most pervasive ideological mystification— Der
Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts— namely the Myth of American
Democracy and its claim of pseudo-universality. And finally he
argues for the establishment of a new Grossraum in Europe, Pax
Euroasiatica , opposing Pax Americana, and based on a coalition of
Russia with Central European powers such a Germany and France
—a new geopolitical continental block. In essence this concept could
be described as a Monroe Doctrine for Europe which will exclude
every American intervention in European affairs as well as
necessitate a dissolution of NATO and withdrawal of all American
military forces from European soil. A Monroe Doctrine for Europe is

9
 CODIGO PE/GP -
also a radical departure from the established American paradigm of
international order- defined by Zbigniew Brzezinski as »American
domination of Europe is axiomatic»(26) —,a paradigm that has been
transformed into oppressive political theology and exercise of
American hegemony. 
The relevance of Dugin’s writings as well as the magazine Elementy
lies in the formulation of the geopolitical doctrine of Eurasian
defense against American expansionism. The geopolitical discourse
translates itself into a vision of future liberation which, according to
Dugin, must become a categorical imperative for Russia’s-being-in
the-world. 
 
 
THE PRINCIPLE OF GROSSRAUM 

The most fundamental principle in geopolitics is the principle of

Grossraum formulated by Carl Schmitt in his book “Voelkerrechtliche
Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot fuer raumfremde
Maechte” and seen by him as a foundation for the science of
international law. A Grossraum is «an area dominated by a power
representing a distinct political idea. This idea was always
formulated with a specific opponent in mind; in essence, distinctions
between friend and enemy would be determined by this particular
political idea. As an example Schmitt cited the American Monroe
Doctrine and its concept of nonintervention by foreign powers in the
American Raum»(27) 
This is the core of the great original Monroe Doctrine, a genuine
Grossraum principle, namely the union of a politically-awakened
people, a political idea and, on the basis of this idea , a politically-
dominant Grossraum excluding foreign intervention.(28) 
According to the concept of Grossraum the national sovereignty of a
country depends not only on its military power, technological
development and economic base but also on the size and
geographical location of its land. The sovereignty of a country
depends on its geopolitical independence and self-sufficiency of the
geographical region. Countries that strive to achieve sovereignty
must resolve the problem of territorial self-sufficiency. The
Grossraum is a geopolitically unified and economically autarchic
space— a spatial power. It is a «territory with rounded-out
production and consumption which, if necessary, may exist by itself
within closed doors.»(29) As such it protects itself from intervention
by spatially alien states and from any other potential Grossraum,(30)
and above all from American «Open Door» imperialism—defined by

10
 CODIGO PE/GP -
Isiah Bowman as American version of Nazi-Germany’s Lebensraum
—in its geopolitical, economical or military manifestation. 
Prior to the dissolution, or as Alexander Dugin claims, subversion of
the Soviet Union in 1991(31) , in the bipolar world of two
Superpowers , there existed two competing Great Areas (Grossr?
ume) or two opposing political blocks, each with its sphere of
influence and ideology: the Atlantic Grossraum dominated by the
United States and the Eurasian Grossraum dominated by the Soviet
Union. The political competition between the two blocks gave a
substantial latitude for autonomy and independence for countries
included in the sphere of influence of the two blocks. However after
1991 a completely new world system has been created. The bipolar
world landscape of two superpowers has been transformed into a
mono landscape of one superpower imposing its will on the rest of
the world. 
«The existence of the socialist block and the Warsaw Pact was a
decisively positive factor for the prospective European unity,
continental integration and future sovereignty of Eurasia. The end of
the bipolar world and the emergence of the unipolar New World
Order, is a blow on Eurasia, a blow on the continentalism and on the
future of all Eurasian countries. If Russia would not immediately start
to reconstruct her Greater Area (confirmed by the Helsinki
Agreement) ...she would bring to a catastrophe not only herself, but
also all people on the World Island...Today Russia, situated in the
heart of the Eurasian continent, represents from a geopolitical point
of view Europe as a continental block. Therefore the geopolitical
interests of Russia and Europe not only confluence but are
identical.»(32) 
In order to understand the historical background of the conflict
between the Atlantic Grossraum and the Eurasian Grossraum as
well as Dugin's analysis of the American New World Order as a final
attempt by the United States for world domination, — a Monroe
Doctrine for the whole world as envisioned already by President
Wilson at the end of the WWI—, a short account of geopolitical
concepts is necessary. 
It was the British author Halford Mackinder who in 1904 proposed
the notion that the continental part of Eurasia, by virtue of its land
mass and geo-strategical importance, forms the world Heartland.
The power that controls the Heartland threatens the sea powers-
once Great Britain, now the United States—that control the World
Island— that is our planet. In 1919 he claimed the necessity for
control of the Eastern Europe by the sea power. After the Versailles
settlement the new Eastern European countries, concieved as
exclusive sphere of influence of the sea powers, had to form a

11
 CODIGO PE/GP -
cordon sanitaire between Germany and Russia preventing the
geopolitical consolidation of Eurasia. «Who rules East Europe
commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the
World Island. Who rules the World Island commands the
World,»(33) asserted McKinder. 
In 1943 MacKinder reformulated his theory— the state that controls
the Heartland will dominate the World Island.(34) At the same time
McKinder acknowledged that «The Heartland is the greatest natural
fortress on earth. For the first time in history it is manned by a
garrison sufficient both in number and quality»(35) The American
geopolitician Alfred Mahan formulated the idea that world hegemony
of sea powers can be maintained by control of series of bases
around the Eurasian continent. Sea powers could dominate land
powers by enclosing them in. The American geopolitician Nicholas
Spykman developed the concepts of MacKinder and Mahan but put
the emphasis on the control of Eurasian coastal regions which he
called the Rimland or Inner Ring. He maintained that the United
States could assert control over the Heartland by controlling the
Rimland. The Rimland can be seen as an America controlled buffer
zone or a huge Cordon Sanitaire, including the NATO countries,
Scandinavia, China, India and Indochina. In spite of prolonged wars
—the Korean War, the occupation of Taiwan, the war in Vietnam—,
the United States has never been able to fully dominate the
countries of the Rimland and thus to globalize her Grossraum. The
theory and practice of containment born of the Cold War—United
States creating NATO, SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization) and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization), putting
bases surrounding the Soviet Union, maintaining puppet regimes
around the world, are derived from MacKinder’s, Mahan's and
Spykman’s geopolitical ideas. If Soviet Union was a fortress, «then
to deal with a fortress is to surround it and seal it...This is known as
containment»(36) Heartland theory stands as the first premise of the
United States geopolitical doctrine and military though during the
Cold War. American containment policy «represented a validation of
MacKinder«(37) and acceptance of the necessity of destruction of
the Hartland. NSC-68 was a statement of this primary objective of
the American postwar foreign policy: world domination through
destruction of the fortress Hartland— the Soviet Union—and
imposition of preponderance of American power in Eurasia. Also
U.S. primary foreign policy objective in the New World Order —the
conquest of Eastern Europe through «inclusion» of the former
Warsaw Pact countries in the military instrument of the global
Monroe Doctrine— NATO, is derived from both MacKinders ideas
and identical objectives in NSC-68. 

12
 CODIGO PE/GP -
One can see the similarities between MacKinder’s and Frederick
Jackson Turner’s geopolitical ideas,(38) between the MacKinder’s
assertion that the geopolitical dynamics inevitable will lead to a
creation of one World Empire (an Anglo-Saxon) and Turner’s
«frontier thesis» , defining the essence of the United States as
perpetual expansionism. The merger of the Monroe Doctrine, the
«Open Door» imperialism and geopolitics in the frontier-expansionist
Weltanschaung which has defined the U.S. foreign policy during this
century, led after the end of the W.W.II to the grand design of an
American Century and an American World Empire enbracing the
globe.(39) NSC 68 was a statement of strategy and tactics to
achieve those objectives. 
However the contraposition between the Atlantic Grossraum and the
Eurasian Grossraum does have, according to Dugin, even a wider
and more profound context that transcends the geopolitical power
competition. In this conjunction one can recall de Gaulle objections
in the past to Britain’s entry into the Common Market based on his
perception of England as a type of civilization different from that of
Europe . The English, as he saw it, were lacking cultural and
historical identity with the Continent and were not interested in
building a Europe distinct from America. 
«England is, in effect, insular, maritime, linked through its trade,
markets and food supply to very diverse and often very distant
countries. Its activities are essentially industrial and commercial, and
only slightly agricultural... In short, the nature, structure and
economic context of England differ profoundly from those of other
States on the Continent.»(40) 
For Dugin the Atlantic Grossraum and the Atlanticism versus the
Eurasian Grossraum and the Eurasianism represent two different
paradigms of societal organization that can not be reconciled.
Halford Mackinders geopolitical theories as well as Carl Schmitt’s
work “Land und Meer” and to a lesser extend Oswald Spengler’s
“Prussentum und Socialismus” and Werner Sombart’s “Haendler
und Helden”, form here the theoretical framework. Dugin
distinguishes two types of civilization: sea-oriented Atlantian and
land-oriented Continental or Eurasian and sees the future
rapprochement between Russia and Western European countries
on the basis of the principle called Continentalism or Eurasianism,
which he opposes to English and American Atlanticism. The
antagonism between Atlanticism and Continentalism/Eurasianism,
between a seagoing civilization and land civilization, goes back to
ancient times, constituting the major tension of world history.(41)
Atlanticism, exemplified by the legendary Atlantis, by ancient
Carthage and by contemporary England and the United States, is

13
 CODIGO PE/GP -
characterized by the spirit of trade and profit and it values
mercantilism and cosmopolitanism. Continentalism, best
represented by legendary Hyperborea, and by historical Roman,
German and Russian Empires, emphasizes the organic unity of
people in their spiritual bonds with the earth and their fidelity to
national tradition. Thus the very form of the landmass supporting a
people influence the substance or their culture and national
character. 
«In ancient history a sea power that become a symbol for sea
civilization was Phoenicia-Garthage. The land civilization in
opposition to Carthage was then the Roman Empire. The Punic
wars reflected the irreconcilable differences between the sea-
oriented and land-oriented civilizations. In modern history the Queen
of Seas - Great Britain - raised as the sea pole of world politics, later
to be overtaken by the United States. In the same way as Phoenicia
and Carthage in the past , Great Britain used in the first place
commerce, trade and colonialism as instrument for her hegemony.
The geopolitical paradigm of Anglo Saxon sea orientation created a
particular ‘commercial-capitalist-market’ oriented civilization, based
primarily on economic and material interests and on the principles of
economic liberalism. In spite of historical variation, the most
common type of ‘sea civilization’ has always expressed the
fundamental idea of the ‘primacy of economics over politics’.
Mackinder clearly shows, that during the period of modern history
‘sea orientation’ meant Atlanticism, and today sea powers are
United States and England, also the Anglo Saxon countries. In
opposition to the Atlanticism stands the Eurasianism, the land based
civilization. In modern history the Eurasian orientation is above all
characteristic for Germany and Russia. Therefore the historical
tradition of those countries has been and would be in opposition to
the ideology and the geopolitical interests of the Atlanticist- the
United States. Whereas Atlanticism can be equated with capitalist
individualism, economic liberalism and commercial notion of
imperialism, Eurasianism means communitarianism, social welfare,
economic democracy , the precedence of general welfare over self-
interest, of the societal ‘whole’ over the parts, and the primacy of
politics over economics.»(42) 
Referring to the fundamental differences between the two paradigms
of societal organization, Dugin projects that the world will one day
witness a war between Eurasian continentalism, championed by
Russia, and the global Atlanticism—the New World Order—, upheld
by the United States, or, as Alain de Benoist writes: « Eurasia
against America would be the decisive battle of the future. The

14
 CODIGO PE/GP -
United States is the enemy of humankind-hostis humani generis-,
the Carthage that must be destroyed.»(43) 
 
THE NEW WORLD ORDER 

The essence of the New World Order proclaimed by President

Bush , and terminologically and conceptually borrowed from the
lexicon of Nazi Germany, as well as Woodrow Wilson’s expansionist
ideas of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world, is a new geopolitical
project to transform the world into a single Grossraum- in Carl
Scmitt’s thought a new Nomos of the Earth—, dominated, controlled
and orchestrated by the United States with the corollary of
subversion of international law, the United Nations and the
sovereignty of other countries except the United States. United
Nations is bound to loose all significance, becoming a disciplined
puppet and instrument of American expansionism and assertion of
global jurisdiction and system of interventionism, a sort of pseudo
legitimizing facade through which U.S. will unilaterally act to further
her expansionist interests. What seems to be in the future is a global
Latin-Americanization of the world with the United Nations reduced
to a sort of OAS (Organization of American States ) , i.e. a well-
behaved puppet in American hands. 
«It is obvious that the American concept of Atlantic Grossraum - the
American New World Order - totally excludes any form of real state’s
and political sovereignty on part of any other country and people.
The preexisting bipolar world prior to 1991 gave incomparably more
freedom and sovereignty to countries that were included in the
sphere of influence of the then existing Superpowers and competing
Grossr?ume. The emerging Atlantic Grossraum of the American
architects of the New World Order will lead to disintegration of the
very principle of state sovereignty because power suppression - by
military and economic means- will become the only instrument of
control. 
The new situation in the world puts other countries, and in particular
the countries that previously were members of the geopolitical block
opposing the Atlantic Alliance, before the following alternatives:
either a forced integration in the U.S. dominated New World Order—
the Atlantic Grossraum— with subsequent renunciation of their
sovereignty, or a creation of a new Grossraum which will be able to
oppose the United States and thus will give them chance to
preserve their sovereignty and cultural autonomy».(44) 
History in general and U.S. behavior in particular show us that
predatory countries abhor power vacuum. It is certain, and it is
happened, that the United States would hasten to exploit the

15
 CODIGO PE/GP -
withdrawal of Soviet Union from the word arena and impose
unilateral advantage over other countries until now protected by the
balance of power and the U.S. -Soviet competition. In retrospect one
may say that the end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the
Soviet Union have gone a long way toward decreasing stability in
Europe and elsewhere. 
A substantial part of Alexander Dugin’s geopolitical analysis is
focused on the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance , drafted
under supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s Under
Secretary for Policy, and provided to the New York Times in
February of 1992,(45) and which in all respects could be called a
blueprint for total domination of the world. In the 46-page classified
document the Defense Department asserts America’s political and
military will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to
emerge in Western Europe , Asia or the territory of the former Soviet
Union. American mission and strategy is summarized in the
document as follow: 
«Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival,
either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that
poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet
Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional
defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any
hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would,
under consolidated control , be sufficient to generate global power.
These regions include Western Europe , East Asia, the territory of
the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three
additional aspects to this objective: First , the U.S. must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not
aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to
protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defensive
areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced
industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our
leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and
economic order. Finally we must maintain the mechanisms for
deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role... 
... NATO is the primary instrument of Western defense and security,
as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in
European security affairs. While the United States supports the goal
of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergency of
European only security arrangements which will undermine NATO».
(46) 

16
 CODIGO PE/GP -
The document further outlines strategies to subvert the United
Nations by substituting it in reality with the United States dominated
and controlled NATO and also postulates the right of the U.S. to
sidestep United Nations in acting independently and unilaterally.(47)
The political development since 1991 can only be described as
determined implementation of the American master plan for world
domination, outlined in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance
which is a mirror image of identical objectives stated in NSC-68. 
The document is interesting, as Dugin points out, because it allows
for the obvious conclusion that the future enemies of the United
States could be her former allies and that the threat that U.S. poses
against the Russia now may become a threat against France,
Germany and Japan tomorrow. And it is just a matter of time before
the antagonism between Western European countries and U.S. will
surface and articulate itself as opposition between different national
interests. Despite the political transformation in Europe United
States has resolved that NATO and the U.S. military presence on
the continent should be a permanent geopolitical fixtures.
Disbanding of the Warsaw Pact in July 1991 was not followed by the
disbanding of NATO . The American alarm concerning the prospect
of creation of a Franco-German joint force is understandable since
such force will not only inevitably lead to assertion of sovereignty on
part of European countries (48) but also to articulation of European
identity and collective national interest different from that of the
United States. The difference in national interest’s is emphasized by
general H.J. von Lochhausen who in his article “The War in Iraq is a
War Against Europe” writes: 
«U.S. has understood that in order to maintain its worldwide
domination she must position herself against her enemies of
tomorrow i.e. Japan and united Europe. U.S. has chosen to take a
firm control of those oil resources on which Japan and Germany will
depend in the future ...The war in Iraq was such positioning and it
was made possible only because the Soviet Union was eliminated
as a player on the world arena and thus also as a deterrent to
American aggression. One must remember that the country that
controls the oil in the Persian Gulf controls also Western Europe and
Japan...And it is deeply disturbing that U.S. forced Germany and
Japan to finance the war which ultimately was aimed to their
weakening and control in the future».(49) 
To a similar conclusion comes Samir Amin who points out that »I
believe that the decision to go to war in the Gulf was taken
deliberately by Washington as a method of preventing the formation
of ‘European bloc’ :by weakening Europe (the supply of oil now
being unilaterally controlled by the United States; by revealing the

17
 CODIGO PE/GP -
essentially fragile political union of Europe...and by neutralizing
Moscow».(50) 
 
 THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

I would like to examine in more detail two issues that are central to
Alexander Dugin’s criticism of the New World Order namely the
framework of new international law it creates and its consequences
for Russia and Europe as exemplified by the war in Yugoslavia. The
issue of international law can be seen in the light of Dean Acheson’s
statement concerning the American concept of sources of and
obligations under international law. »Much of what is called
international law is a body of ethical distillation, and one must take
care not to confuse this distillation with law...Further, the law trough
its long history has been respectful of power, especially that power
which is close to the sanctions of law...the law simply does not deal
with such questions of ultimate power- power that comes close to
the sources of sovereignty»(51) , and the tendency on the part of the
U.S. to assert her will as the sole source of international law. In this
conjunction it is interesting to recall that already de Gaulle saw at
the end of the World War II in President Roosevelt’s grand design
for United Nations not only America’s bid for world hegemony
through creation of international body subservient to and controlled
by the United States but also «a permanent system of intervention
that he (Roosevelt) intended to institute by international law»(52) , a
design that re-emerged and came to realization in the New Word
Order. 
The war in Yugoslavia on the other hand is of particular importance
since it has been perceived in Russia not only as a contemporary
analogy to the Spanish Civil War with the U.S. assuming the role of
the former fascist powers but also as a general rehearsal to what
may happen to Russia in the event U.S. gains a strategic nuclear
superiority. And as before during the 30-ties in Spain a number of
Russians has volunteered to serve in the Serbian forces.(53) A
particular alarm in Russia has caused the so called Presidential
Directive 13 which outlines American plans for massive cover
operations as well as outright military intervention in Russia under
the familiar disguise of so called peace keeping operations in former
Soviet republics and formulated with the objective to prevent any
recognition of a Russian Monroe Doctrine in the former Soviet
Union.(54) 
A starting point for the analysis of the transformation of the concept
of international law must be a discussion on the nature and
development of the unilaterally proclaimed Monroe Doctrine which

18
 CODIGO PE/GP -
from its very inception has been the ideological basis of American
imperialism and assertion of an ever increasing extra-territorial
jurisdiction. The Monroe Doctrine designated an area far exceeding
the territory of the United States- The Western Hemisphere- as a
Grossraum with the U.S. assuming the role of imperial power vested
with absolute sovereignty in the region while depriving other
countries in the same region of rights to sovereignty and self-
determination.(55) U.S. unilaterally reserved for herself the right of
intervention in the Western Hemisphere creating a qualitatively new
form of colonialism with the right of intervention as a cornerstone for
political control and domination. The essence of the Monroe
Doctrine and its subsequent codification in the Rio Treaty, is the
repudiation of the main principle of the United Nations Charter
namely the principle of equality and sovereignty of nations on which
the body of international law rests. And already Hegel knew that
international law-jus gentium-presupposes and is based on
sovereignty of states. In a situation where only one state in the
international community is a possessor of absolute sovereignty, the
international law as such can not exist- it will be the application of
the domestic law of the dominating state disguised into an universal
principle.(56) 
After the conclusion of the W.W.I, at the Paris Peace Conference,
which resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and creation
of the League of Nations , president Woodrow Wilson presented his
Fourteen Points which proclaimed a new universalism as well as ,
employing what later will be called a Orwellian New Talk, the right of
self-determination as a foundation for the postwar world order. At
the same time his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, wrote a
memorandum explaining the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine : 
«In its advocacy of the Monroe Doctrine the United States considers
its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an
incident, not an end. While this may seem based on selfishness
alone, the author of the Doctrine had no higher or more generous
motive in its declaration.»(57) 
United States refused to enter the League of Nations unless its
"Charter incorporated the Monroe Doctrine - a demand less
concerned with the right of self-determination than with American
domination in the Western Hemisphere. As it turned out, even
though Art. 21 of the Chapter did incorporate the Monroe Doctrine,
the U.S. did not join the League. In Schmitt’s view, Art. 21
symbolized the triumph of the Western Hemisphere over
Europe.»(58) the grand design of President Wilson was to transform
the Treaty of Versailles and its creation, the League of Nations , into

19
 CODIGO PE/GP -
a instrument of American imperialism and dominance of Europe.
(59) 
Of particular interest are United States fifteen reservations which did
not provide for ratification but, rather, for the nullification of the
Treaty. Some of those reservations form a distinct doctrinaire body
concerned with the nature of U.S. obligations under international
law. 

1. The United States so understands and construes article

1 that in case of notice or withdrawal from the League of
Nations...the United States shall be the sole judge as to
whether all its international obligations and all its obligations
under the said covenant have been fulfilled... 
2. The United States reserves to itself exclusively the right
to decide what questions are within its domestic jurisdiction
and declares that all domestic and political questions relating
wholly or in part to its internal affairs ...are solely within the
jurisdiction of the United States and are not under this treaty to
be submitted in any way either to arbitration or to the
consideration of the council or of the assembly of the League
of Nations, or any agency thereof, or to the decision or
recommendation of any other power. 
3. The United States will not submit to arbitration or to inquire by
the assembly or by the council of the League of Nations,
provided for in said treaty of peace, any questions which in the
judgment of the United States depend upon or relate to its
long-established policy, commonly known as the Monroe
Doctrine; said doctrine is to be interpreted by the United States
alone and is hereby declared to be wholly outside the
jurisdiction of said League of Nations... 
4 The United States assumes no obligation to be bound by any
decision, report, or finding of the council or assembly arising
out of any dispute between the United States and any member
of the league.(60) 

Those reservations express the specific American dualistic position

in respect to international treaties: treaties are to be used as a
vehicle for other countries to assume obligations while the U.S. does
not assume any obligations.(61) Treaties were to be so designed
solely to promote United States interests by securing action by
foreign governments in a way deemed advantageous by the U.S.
and not for the U.S. to undertake any international obligations. The
purpose of this dualistic doctrine has historically been to solidify and
promote American hegemonical claims. Recognizing the true nature

20
 CODIGO PE/GP -
of the pseudo-universalism of the international law created after the
W.W.I which appeared not to rest on respect for existing
sovereignties but was merely a pretext for complete political and
economic domination by the United States, Carl Schmitt wrote that
«Behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in
reality, the system of Anglo-Saxon world imperialism»(62) 
After the W.W.II United States needed a further disguise to
unilaterally assert U.S. power and to underscore Washington’s
hemispheric hegemony. It resulted in a creation and signing of the
Interamerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed in Rio de
Janeiro in September of 1947, and a subsequent pact concluded in
Bogota in April of 1948, which established the Charter of the
Organization of American States (OAS). The significance of the Rio
Treaty goes beyond the formal codification of the Monroe Doctrine.
First, in view of the fundamental professed principle of the Charter of
the United Nation namely the principle of sovereignty and equality of
member states , a regional treaty which in substance repudiates the
very principle of sovereignty save for the sole sovereignty of the
United States , must be seen as incompatible with the U.N. Charter. 
Secondly OAS became a prototype of a pseudo-international
organization with a pseudo-universal ideological facade, an
instrument for American interventionism in the region. And finally it
must be seen as a paradigm of American concept of organization of
a Grossraum in particular and World Order in general the
globalization of which is the very essence of the New World Order.
Or as Noam Chomsky points out « For the U.S. , the Cold War has
primarily been a history of worldwide subversion, aggression and
state-run international terrorism, with examples to numerous to
mention. Secondarily , it has served to maintain U.S. influence over
the industrial allies, and to suppress independent politics and
popular activism.»(63) 
An additional aspect of the New World Order seems to be the U.S.
repudiation of one of the most fundamental rules of international law
namely that treaties must be performed in good faith; the rule of
“pacta sunt servanda”. The massive cover operations undertaken by
the United States in Poland during the 80-ties after President
Reagan signed a secret national-security-decision (NSDD 32)(64)
that authorized a wide range of subversive measures by the CIA to
destabilize the country , were motivated by the U.S. resolve to nullify
the Yalta Agreement.(65) 
The U.S. invasion of Panama in December of 1990 was based on
the Washington design to prevent the effect of the treaty that would
transfer the control over Panama canal to Panama. I can certainly
agree with Noam Chomsky’s conclusion that the Panama war which

21
 CODIGO PE/GP -
resulted in more than 20.000 civil casualties «is a historic event in
one respect. It is the first U.S. act of international violence in the
post-World War II era that was not justified by the pretext of a Soviet
threat.»(66) And finally the war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent
partition of the country which, historically seen, is almost analogous
to Hitler’s partition of the country: a Croatian puppet state has been
established by the neo-Ustachi. The general perception in Russia is
that the so called Bosnian forces, promoted by the U.S. , are no
more than the equivalent of the so called Contras in Nicaragua and
the war is the first example of Latin-Americanization of Europe. But
the partition of Yugoslavia, which in not so distant past was one of
the leaders on the non-aligned countries, is seen as a flagrant
violation of the Helsinki Accord of 1975 which essence was
inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrities of states as well as
guaranties of sovereign equality of nations and respect for the rights
inherent in sovereignty(67) and on which all security arraignments in
Europe were based. In pertinent part the Helsinki Accord states
that: 
The participating States will respect each other’s sovereign equality
and individuality as well as the rights inherent in and encompassed
by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to
judicial equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political
independence...The participating States regard as inviolable all one
another’s frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and
therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these
frontiers... 
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of
the participating States. 
Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against
the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any
participating State, and in particular from any such action
constituting a threat or use of force. 
While the partition of Yugoslavia must be seen as violation of the
Helsinki Accord, the issuing war and the U.S. outright military
intervention and occupation of part of Yugoslavia—Bosnia—,do
have wider implications since those measures involve and articulate
the relationship between the U.S. and the United Nations.
Summarizing the intentions of Washington William Safire in an
article in the New York Times(68) writes concerning the prospective
air-strikes against Serbian forces that the Clinton Administration has
adopted a new resolute policy vis-?-vis the United Nations- «Don’t
ask, tell Policy...Coercive diplomacy would become the order of the
day» A State Department spokesman, Michael McCurry, asserted

22
 CODIGO PE/GP -
that « The United States would be ready to carry out an air
campaign against advancing Serbian forces whether or not it
received the approval of European allies at a NATO meeting in
Brussels on August 2, 1993.»(69) He further omitted all references
to any necessary authorization by the United Nations. 
Although the Clinton Administration was rebuffed by the U.S.
Secretary General who rightfully asserted that the U.S. does not
have jurisdiction over U.N. forces and that furthermore, any decision
in respect to air-strikes must be sanctioned by the United
Nations(70) , United States has persisted in claiming that U.S. alone
can decide whether or not to strike. Or as the former State
Department official John Bolton correctly pointed out: 
«We are the central multilateralists. The idea that there is some
collective international will out there is just fairly land stuff. The true
measure of America’s diplomatic clout will always be the military
resources we are willing to commit.»(71) 
After a meeting in Washington with Alija Izetbegovic, the U.S.’s man
in Bosnia, and a former officer of the Waffen SS (72) , President
Clinton stated on September 8, 1993, that any military intervention in
Yugoslavia must be undertaken «by a peacekeeping force from
NATO — not the United Nations but NATO». The French reaction
was understandable. Richard Duque, a spokesman for the Foreign
Ministry, said France believed that any such operation should be
«under the authority of the United Nations».(73) The French reaction
must be seen also in light of the Defense Secretary Les Aspin’s
assertion that any peacekeeping forces should be under NATO
command, that is, under the ultimate direction of the Supreme Allied
Commander, a post always held by an American officer. France
however does not belong to the NATO’s integrated command and
apparently sees the American statements as an attempt to infringe
upon her sovereignty. 
The American objectives in Yugoslavia were fully realized. For all
practical purposes NATO tog over all the essential functions of the
United Nations, in fact replacing the United Nation. The Daytona
«agreement» seen by many as a Second Munich , embodied not
only the essence of the diplomacy of ultimatums but also the
American attempts to subvert the of international law. In fact the
Daytona Agreement is a nullity according the international law(74) .
The agreement, modeled after the Platt Amendment in regard to
Cuba, created a virtual American protectorate in Bosnia. 
The French geopolitician General Pierre-Marie Gallois, one of the
leaders of the Resistance movement during the WWII, the creator of
the military doctrine of France and one of the closest advisers of
General de Gaulle sees the war and the partition of Yugoslavia as

23
 CODIGO PE/GP -
an integral part of the American design for world domination,
embodied in the concept of the New World Order. And thus it serves
the geopolitical strategy of the ultimate extension of American
Lebensraum—the Monroe Doctrine for the whole world. In his words
one can hear the voice of General De Gaulle: 
«The pursuit of truth and justice made me involved in a resolute
struggle against the greatest absurd and evil which flow out of the
totalitarian idea of the New World Order. The partition and
destruction of Yugoslavia , the aggression against Iraq , the murder
of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, all those
abominable acts are all but pages of the same scenario: the
imposition of the evil will of one over all who are perceived as
obstacles for the imposition of American Weltherrschaft over
humankind...It is rather obvious that the partition of countries in
Europe has not ended yet. 
Our participation in NATO and the occupation of Yugoslavia is a
threat to the independence of France, a betrayal of our national
interests. The Balkan crisis is an expedient device to justify the
unjustifiable: the expansion of the American military presence in
Europe. And at the same time UN, rather than being an institution
for promotion of international understanding and peace, has been
transformed into an instrument for collective aggression. NATO is
not on a peace mission in Yugoslavia. NATO’s forces in Yugoslavia
are an act of aggression, an act of outright occupation.»(75) 
At the same time, points and emphasizes Galouas , the war in
Yugoslavia, serves an important geopolitical purpose, designed to
imperil the desire for geopolitical independence of Europe: 
«Germany will grow stronger and soon she would no longer tolerate
the presence of American military forces on her soil. Therefore a
reserve position for the American NATO forces is necessary, the
addition of an ideal geopolitical region for stationing and regrouping
of the military instrument of American foreign policy. Albania, Bosnia
and Macedonia form that region...The world according to American
recipes is an absolute and total negation of the old tradition of
respect for rights and freedoms. After the genocidal bombing of
civilian Serbian targets and the economic embargo serving the same
purpose—weakening of the Serbs—, United States created Bosnia
as her protectorate...That is abominable. But those atrocities serve
the overriding geopolitical goal of the United States: to remain in
Europe at any cost...Dayton Agreement is the latest embodiment of
the new American diplomacy, aggressive and uncompromising ,
confident in its power, the diplomacy that knows and uses only the
language of ultimatums... 
U.S. literally bombed to pieces Iraq, poisoned the nature and the

24
 CODIGO PE/GP -
ecological environment , with unparalleled barbarity killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, only in order to control the supply of oil and
dictate its price as it pleases Washington...As a result of the
embargo against Iraq 570.000 civilians were murdered....And this is
a crime against humanity par excellence.
And again and again decisions are made in Washington which will
result in murder of innocent elderly, sick and poor. And then
Washington dears to teach the world morality...Or take the so called
War Tribunal in Hague, allegedly set up to represent moral and truth
but in reality an instrument of war (war with other judicial means)
and continuous aggression against the Serbs.(76) What better
evidence of the absurdity of this tribunal than the fact that there were
no war crime tribunals for all war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed during the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg,
the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the massive
war crimes committed in Vietnam, an for the war crimes committed
in Iraq during the operation Desert Storm. It is as if all those massive
war crimes did not happen or were insignificant compared to the
Serbs resistance against the conquest of their country...I can not
accept such perverted American logic, and I am very sorry that my
country is forced to participate in those American atrocities.(77) 
The obvious conclusion is that the partition of Yugoslavia, and the
subsequent war, serve several purposes: 

25
 CODIGO PE/GP -
1. Expansion of the American Grossraum with the establishment
of a Bosnian puppet state controlled by the U.S., as well as, in
all probability, establishment of U.S. permanent military bases
on the Adriatic; 
2. Prevention of the emergence of any independent European
foreign policy initiatives and thereby the emergence of Europe
as an unified new Grossraum; 
3. Consolidation of the control over the Rimland; 
4. Abrogation, in fact, of the Helsinki Accord; 
5. Subversion and factual demise of the United Nations as an
international body and finally 
6. A rehearsal for, as it is perceived in Russia, an impending war
of aggression against Russia. 

In any event, it is quite obvious, that substitution of United Nations

with NATO will render the veto power of the permanent members of
the U.N. Security Council inoperative, which will effect the interests
of not only Russia but also France and China. 
If the incorporation of the Monroe Doctrine in Article 21 of the
Chapter of the League of Nations signified the subversion of the
universality of international law and Europe’s defeat by the U.S. , the
war in Yugoslavia and air-strikes against Serbian forces signifies
even more important historical event namely the subversion of the
United Nations and its transformation in the future , if U.S. is not
resolutely opposed , to a functional equivalent of the OAS i.e. to a
pseudo-international body serving as a rubber stamp for American
hegemony and wars of aggression disguised as so called peace
keeping operations in countries that, prior to the peace keeping
initiatives, have already been destabilized by the U.S. covert and
overt subversion. The partition of Yugoslavia can very well became
a second Munich for Europe. It is obvious that Washington is
seeking to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.
To achieve this aim United States will have to effect the complete
subversion and forcible destruction of the machinery of government
and structure of society in , above all, former socialist countries and
their replacement by an apparatus and structure subservient to and
controlled from Washington. 
Hitler left the League of Nations preparing for aggressive wars;
United States strategy on the other hand is much more dangerous -
the subversion of the United Nations to further the same end .
Recognizing the changing nature of the United Nations in the post
1991 era and the issuing crisis of legitimacy, one of the founders of
the National Salvation Front in Russia and the former editor of the
Military-Historical Journal general B. Filatov wrote that 

26
 CODIGO PE/GP -
«When the National Salvation Front comes to power and that will
happen very soon, we will leave the United Nations which has
become a fascist punitive organization, an instrument of CIA. We will
put our rockets on alert. Then we will see who will dare to attack
Serbia.»(78) 
The necessary strategy for Russia and other European countries,
Germany and France above all, must be a geopolitical project to
create a new Grossraum - Pax Eurasiatica- in opposition to Pax
Americana and its corollary , the New World Order, because only in
opposition to the United States can Europe begin an independent
geopolitical life and reach a genuine emancipation, writes Dugin.
The purpose of a new Kulturkampf is to problematize the American
hegemony as a threat to Europe as a historical formation in general
and to its culture in particular. Finding the authenticity of European
destiny and political life implies by necessity a rejection of any false
claims of universalism advanced by the U.S., which to its substance
is both an ideological facade and concealment of American
particular national interests. European revival is conditioned upon
the dissolution of NATO which today is solely an instrument of
American control over its alleged allies and a pretext to maintain
U.S. occupation forces in Europe /for more than one hundred years»
as President Bush asserted. The strategical objectives of the U.S.
controlled NATO have been defined by Wolfram Hanrieder in his
book Germany, America, Europe(79) as a strategy of «double
containment»: containment of the Soviet Union in the past on one
side and of American allies on the other. «The logic of this strategy
was put bluntly by Lord Ismay in his famous dictum about NATO’s
purpose in Europe (which could have described the U.S. policies
toward the Japanese) ‘Keep the Americans in, the Russians out,
and the Germans down.’»(80) 
Europe as a collective entity must enter the famous hermeneutical
circle and walking there must find the truth about its separate and
unique collective existence which during the Cold War years has
been concealed. As Heidegger has pointed out , the attempt to
achieve national authenticity is always expressed in resoluteness
and resoluteness is the true substance of Kulturkampf. 
Dugin proposes the revival of the concept of Mitteleuropa, originally
formulated by Friedrich Naumann, as an ideological platform for a
new geopolitical orientation opposing Pax Americana and creating a
competing Grossraum—Pax Eurasiatica— which will exclude and
oppose the United States. Closely associated with the concept of
Mitteleuropa is the specific political extrapolation of the
Kultur/Zivilization dichotomy as formulated by Thomas Mann in his
book “Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man”(81) in which he

27
 CODIGO PE/GP -
counterpoises German «culture» against largely Anglo-Saxon
«civilization». Dugin elaborates on that dichotomy reaching the
conclusion that not only Europe’s national interest differs from that of
the United States but that also its cultural tradition is the antithesis of
the hollow shell of «civilization» in the U.S. Whereas «culture» in
European countries is expression of national identities and of
organic historical tradition, the American «civilization» is the bearer
of an all-embracing commercialism and consumerism whose
penetration dissolves all national identities. A rather paradoxical
conclusion emerges from the revival of the concept of Mitteleuropa
namely an anti-West oriented Europe. Dugin sees the term West as
largely an American ideological construct, an Atlanticist mold thrown
over Europe, and regards de Gaulle’s decision in 1966 to withdraw
from NATO’s integrated command, which, as de Gaulle
emphasized, deprived France of her sovereignty, not only as the first
assertion of European identity separate and different from that of the
United States, but also as the first anti-West manifestation by an
European country in the U.S.’s sphere of influence. De Gaulle
emphasized that the American design has always been to transform
a cohesive European community into a larger and looser Atlantic
community under American control.(82) Recognizing that Atlanticism
was virulently aggressive as ever, he was compelled to look for
ways of resisting American hegemony in Europe. »There were two
options: he could either take unilateral measures to challenge
American hegemony or he could seek alternative partners with a
common interest in breaking down hegemonic control.»(83)
France’s withdrawal from the NATO’s integrated command become
de Gaulle’s ultimate gesture of anti-hegemonism. 
The failure of the Soviet Union, due to defeatist and de facto anti-
national foreign policy of the Gorbachev administration, to condition
the unification of Germany on her withdrawal from NATO, was a
major self-inflicted political defeat affecting not only Russia but also
Germany in the future. For Russia it means a weakening of its
strategic potential and for Germany a lost chance to gain full
sovereignty by not having foreign occupation forces stationed on her
territory. And for Europe as a whole it signifies a lost momentum to
replace NATO, i.e. American power projection and an instrument of
containment against U.S.’s former allies, with a pan-European
security system. 
In this perspective one must se the alternatives for Europe as
envisioned by the Maastricht treaty which may lead to gradual
unification: either a Federated Europe as a power projecting
Grossraum or as an even more divided and weakened Europe
under the oppressive and leveling effect of the American pseudo-

28
 CODIGO PE/GP -
universalism, which in substance will amount to an Atlanticist police
state with the NATO’s strategy of containment directed toward the
U.S.’s former allies. In the latter case the Maastrich treaty will lead to
deligitimization of national sovereignties and to weakening and
dissolution of national identities of member states. Instead of a new
European self-identity, the result will be the creation of an
amorphous space with obliterated national and cultural identities and
functionally integrated into the American Grossraum. Already de
Gaulle foresaw that possibility when he stated that if the United
States is not opposed «at the end there would appear a colossal
Atlantic community under American dependence and leadership
which would completely swallow up the European community.»(84)
Against the anti-European concept of Atlantic community, devised
as an ideological vehicle for subjugation of independent European
geopilitical existence, stands the concept of a Monroe doctrine for
Europe, claims Alain de Benoist : 
«What bothers me is that I do not see the Maastricht Treaty leading
to an autonomous, politically sovereign Europe determined to
acquire the equivalent of what the Monroe doctrine was for the
United States, but rather a phantom of Europe, a Europe a
unemployment, absent and impotent, a free trade zone governed on
the theoretical level by ultra-liberal monetary principles and, on the
practical level , by administrators and bankers who neither have a
political project nor democratic legitimacy...Nietzsche said: «Europe
will create itself on the edge of a tomb». For my part, I believe it will
create itself over and against the United States, or it will not create
itself.»(85) 
In historical perspective the Anglophone powers , Great Britain in
the past, United States now, have always been an obstacle to
consolidation of Europe and thus a true geopolitical adversary. 
«The urge to evict the Americans, and before us , the British from
the Continent has deep roots in reaction to the role of the English-
speaking countries in foiling every attempt to unify Europe since the
Renaissance. With the exception of the more misguided members of
the House of Stuart , every English-speaking head of state from
Elizabeth Tudor to Harry Truman opposed the consolidation of the
Continent. Elizabeth I fought Spain; from the time of Marlborough to
the time of Wellington the English fought France; from Asquith to
Churchill and Roosevelt the «Anglo-Saxon» fought Germany. Even
when American policy shifted under Truman to support the peaceful
integration of Western Europe , it was out of desire to fend off the
greater menace of the Soviets...The positive contribution to
European civilization of the old «divide and rule» policy cannot,
however, disguise its essentially negative goal. The British sought to

29
 CODIGO PE/GP -
keep the Continent embroiled in quarrels while they assembled a
global empire and grew rich. The United States relied on Britain to
maintain a European balance that kept the Europeans from
interfering in the New World while we, like our British cousins, traded
freely with all quarters of the globe...In the twentieth century the
Elizabethan realpolitik of the Anglophone powers acquired a
Wilsonian overlay...The Elizabethan and the Wilsonian policies
remain at the core of American interests today. As good
Elizabethans, we understand that it is not in America’s interests...for
European integration to take place under the hegemonic leadership
of a single power, whether this power is based in Moscow or Berlin.
Nor would it be in America’s interests for European integration to
proceed in such a way as to create a single hegemonic power
center in Brussels»(86). 
The grand design of the United States, particularly now, when
Washington is aggressively advancing the plans to globalize NATO,
and thus its Monroe doctrine, is the Latin-Americanization first of the
former socialist countries, including Russia and second, of her
former West European allies. And as long as United States is not
displaced from her position of hegemony in Europe and ultimately
driven out of Eurasia, European countries will never acquire that
which is necessary for independent geopolitical existence. A
federated Europe with American military forces on its soil is no more
than an obedient satellite. During the 60-ties de Gaulle warned
against a supranational Europe of the Common market which he
then considered a divided Europe under the mentorship and
hegemonial design of the United States. 
Reading Dugin one may paraphrase Bismarck and say that if the
power of Russia is ever broken , it will be difficult for the former
members of the socialist block to avoid the fate of Poland in the past
that is the destiny of divided and contested area to be claimed by
the United States as «glacis and perimeter of battle». By the same
token a weak Russia may spell weakness also for other European
countries. 
But does it mean that Dugin envisions a sort of a new Rapallo
treaty(87) as a political foundation for a new geopolitical orientation?
I can agree with Rudolf Barho’s assertion that »A new Rappalo
would break Western Europe from North America«.(88) However, a
new Rapallo can only be used as a metaphor for diplomatic and
political initiatives that may lead to a possible alliance between
Germany, France, Russia and China as central powers. A new
equivalent of Rapallo treaty is a geopolitical and existential
imperative for Europe, a fundament for future continental unity and
continental defense against American expansionism, against the

30
 CODIGO PE/GP -
pseudo universalism and totalitarian claims of the American
Imperium Monde. 
Dugin’s concept of a new European geopolitical orientation
resembles de Gaulle’s visions during the ‘60s. Rejecting American
hegemony de Gaulle conjured an alliance, an European coalition,
which, without infringing on the sovereignty of the member states
would constitute an alternative European Grossraum. He recognized
that the ideology of Atlantic unity is in fact the ideology of American
domination and counterpoised his concept of European unity which
today only can be seen as America free Europe. However de Gaulle
recognized that a genuine European alliance could not be created
without there being in Europe today a federator with sufficient
power, authority and skills.(89) At that time there was no such strong
federator. In his memoirs de Gaulle noted that «The American
President’s (F.D. Roosevelt) remarks ultimately proved to me that, in
foreign affairs, logic and sentiment do not weight heavily in
comparison with the realities of power; that what matters is what one
takes and what one can hold on to; that to regain her place, France
must count only on herself».(90) United States believed that the
Frenchmen «in a grip of sort of neurasthenia would gradually relax
into the status of an American protectorate...The alternative, as de
Gaulle constantly proposed it, was for Frenchmen to continue the
arduous struggle for national self renewal until they again became
masters of their own fate.»(91) 
In his advocacy of a new continental geopolitical orientation and in
his definition of Pax Eurasiatica, Alexander Dugin criticizes and
rejects the old ideology of Panslavism. The difference between the
Panslavism and Eurasianism is summarized by him as a difference
between two principles — «the principle of blood» and «the principle
of soil (realm)». For the Panslavism the emphasis is on the concept
of ethnic identity—in other words the primacy of blood over the soil.
For the traditional Eurasianism on the other hand, the land takes
precedence: as ideology it expresses the primacy of the soil over the
blood. «It presupposes the ideological choice of continental,
Eurasian values over narrow ethnic or racial values.»(92) 
A further differentiation of the concept of Eurasianism can be made
by distinguishing between two sub directions of the Eurasian
ideology. 
The first one is centered on the notion of a specific Eurasian identity
—the concept of polyphonic ethos of Russia—defined in terms of
ethos and land.(93) The second one defines Eurasianism in terms of
geopolitical realities and necessary geopolitical strategy, also in
terms of realm and Grossraum. The emphasis here is on the land
power status of Russia as opposed to the atlanticist sea power

31
 CODIGO PE/GP -
status of the United States. Alexander Dugin is a proponent of this
definition of Eurasianism. From a geopolitical point of view the past
observation of Halford MacKinder that the greatest danger to Anglo
Saxon hegemony would be a political union and a geopolitical block
of Russia and Germany, bears particular relevance. The concept of
Eurasian resistance against the dictates of the American New World
Order and the global American hegemony articulates the geopolitical
and the national meta— existential necessity to create such
geopolitical block able to stop the steamroller of the New World
Order. 
An additional aspect of Dugin’s analyses of geopolitical orientations
and strategies concerns the future relationship between Russia and
Islam. The starting point is Robert Steuckers view that Russia must
make a common cause with Iran against American interests.(94)
Continental, Islamic — revolutionary Iran is contrasted with the
Atlanticist secular Turkey and the Arabic theocratic variant of Islam
of Saudi Arabia. Turkey is the primary agent of American influence
in the region and a virtual colony of the U.S., an Asian forpost of
American geopolitical interests which serves as a cordon sanitaire
between the Asian East of Russia and the Arab world. A conflict
between Russia and Islam countries is the main purpose of the U.S.
foreign policy, a main conduit for which is Turkey. 
A similar roll serves also Saudia Arabia, a country which in fact must
also be seen as an American colony. The interests of Saudy dynasty
and of the American Atlanticism coincide, forming a bullwark against
creation of an Arabic Great Area. Through the control of Saudi
Arabia U.S. controls the supply of oil. And the U.S. controlls the
economy of Europe through control of the oil in the Gulf region.
Therefore, to counterbalance American hegemony in the region,
Russian foreign policy must be oriented toward Iran, asserts Dugin. 
In today perspective the events of 1991 are of paramount
importance because, as Dugin points out, 1991 is the year of
destruction of the Eurasian Grossraum, the only one that possessed
resources to withstand American expansionism and which consisted
of all countries belonging to the socialist block. Central Europe in
general and Germany in particular, as geopolitical entity are only a
pure potential at present time. Central Europe can constitute itself in
the future only in alliance with Russia which occupies a unique
position as a centrum of the Eurasian continent, as a Heartland.
Russia occupies also a key strategical and geographical position in
the world with its huge landmass and human potential. A new
geopolitical orientation must take into account the so called Atlantic
factor which Dugin in length discusses. 
The Atlantic factor is the United States strategy to impose her will on

32
 CODIGO PE/GP -
former Soviet republic and socialist countries and to transform those
into satellite countries in the American orbit, linking them into a
Cordon Sanitaire around Russia. Certainly one can already see the
shadow of the Atlantic masters over the Baltic republics. As the
Russian jurist Vladimir Ovzinski asserts the «CIA already works
totally in the open in Lithuania , not only through American Embassy
in Vilnius but also through American advisers to the Supreme
Council of the Republic. And the situation is similar in both Latvia
and Estonia».(95) The Atlantic factor is a geopolitical consequence
of what William Appleman Willams has called the American «frontier
thesis» —the perpetual expansionism in pursuit of new western
frontiers. 
United States has a perspective for real world hegemony only if no
competing Grossraum is allowed to arise. Therefore both NSC-68
after the end of the WWII and its mirror image—the Pentagon
Planning Guidance after the «end» of the Cold War, envision control
or destruction not only of any competing Grossraum but also any
geopolitical area which can consolidate itself in the future into power
projecting Grossraum. The conclusion is that the primary objectives
of the American geopolitics are to destroy any potential geopolitical
alliance as well as to prevent its building. To paraphrase
Clemenceau the American politics of peace vis-?-vis Russia are
nothing else but continuation of war with other means. The Cold War
has been replaced by Military Peace. Therefore creation of Cordon
Sanitaire around Russia, which by necessity mandates the conquest
of the second Europe—Eastern Europe—under the guise of
enlargement of NATO, is the most important objective of the
American foreign polic 
Cordon Sanitaire consists of territory of countries and people
situated between two geopolitical blocks. It is created by virtue of
hegemonic control or, as in the American creation of a puppet
Bosnian state in the failed attempt to create a Georgian state under
Schevernadze, and in the war in Chechnya, with outright force and
subversion. The countries that potentially will be included in the
Cordon Sanitaire are those countries whose unity or membership in
a competing Grossraum would constitute a geopolitical
disadvantage to the United States. 
United States is actively pursuing her double-edged foreign policy
objective of further expansion of her extra-territorial jurisdiction and
transformation of former socialist countries into a Cordon Sanitaire
through plans outlined by the Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the
NATO meeting in Travem?nde on October 21, 1993 to expand the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization by inclusion of former members
of the Warsaw Pact. 

33
 CODIGO PE/GP -
Cordon Sanitaire in the beginning of this century consisted of
countries situated between Russia and Germany and were
controlled by England. Those countries, being an agent and tool of
the Anglo-Saxon West, were breaking the Grossraum of
Mitteleurope and the Grossraum of Russia. In present days the
perfidious Albion has been replaced by the perfidious Washington
and the American objectives can be summarized as assertion of
hegemonic control and transformation of former Soviet republics into
virtual American colonies in which, with employment of coercive
measures: subversion, terror, aggression, economic warfare, United
States will install marionette rulers without any trace of political
independence. Or as Noam Chomsky puts it «One consequence of
the collapse of the Soviet block is that much of it may undergo a
kind of ‘Latin-Americanization’ , reverting to the service role, with the
ex-Nomenclatura perhaps taking the role of the Third World elites
linked to international business and financial interests»(97) 
In conjunction with this it is important to bear in mind that American
attempts to partition Russia and gain control of her huge natural
resources predate the Cold War period and NSC-68. In October of
1918 the American government drafted secret commentaries to
President Wilson’s 14 points which outlined U.S. plans to partition
Russia into small regions in order for the United States to assert her
hegemony and gain control over Russian territories and natural
resources in Siberia and Caucasus. On the map prepared by the
Department of State titled «Proposed Borders of Russia» and
presented by President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference, all
that is left of Russia is her central part , the Mid-Russian Plateau. In
an appendix to the map it was stated that «All Russia must be
divided into large natural regions, each with its own economy.
However none of those regions should be sufficiently independent to
build a strong state».(98) Those long-standing American plans make
it even more urgent for Russia to make a decisive geopolitical
orientation. Of course, if President Yeltsin turns out to be a Russian
Quisling,(99) and his September 21,1993 coup with subsequent
destruction of the Russian Parliament most certainly suggests this
possibility(100) , then the prospects for a new geopolitical orientation
will become more difficult to realize. 
In his 1938 study “Ueber das Verhaeltnis der Begriffe Krieg und
Feind”, Carl Schmitt, anticipating the future of the Cold War,
described the world as moving toward an ‘intermediary situation
between war and peace’, a kind of a bellicose peace which is neither
war nor peace, which Carl Schmitt called military peace, i.e. a world
condition of global confrontation which tends to take the form of a
total war. In “Totaler Feind, Totaler Krieg, Totaler Staat”, published

34
 CODIGO PE/GP -
in 1937, Carl Schmitt related the idea of total war to the idea of total
State, a war that 
«will be total for two reasons. First because it would not be localized
in the sense that it would enfold in on a battle field, but it would be
spread across the entire planet including sidereal space. Next,
because it would not only be military, given that all the activities
-scientific, technological, economic-and all of the material and ideal
aspects of existence will be directly implicated in this gigantic
conflict. Protected zones will no longer exist since both the military
and the non-military will be engaged in this conflict. Politically
speaking, there will no longer be a distinction between those who
fight and those who do not».(101) 
During the Cold War two kind of Grossraum confronted each other-
the existential categories of friend and enemy applied also to the
concept of Grossraum- and out of that confrontation a world order
build on plurality of Grossr?ume was maintained. However the end
of the Cold War did not lead to revival of the concept of state
sovereignty but to renewed attempt to universalize the ordering
principles of the American Grossraum and establishment of a
Monroe Doctrine for the whole world- an overriding objective of
American foreign policy since the time of President Willson- under
the slogan of a New World Order. Alexander Dugin equates the New
World Order with American world wide hegemony, which, in order to
be established, requires the totalization of the ‘intermediary situation
between war and peace’, i.e. a new Cold War with different
ideological justification but with the same aim: total American world
domination. 
«The total war, previously localized in the Cold War confrontation
between U.S. and the Soviet Union, is the essence of American
universalism. Military peace is the present substance of the New
World Order with which Russia and other countries are confronted
now and the American implementation of this New World Order can
only lead to a new total war.»(102) 
As a paradigmatic figure of Russian resistance to the New World
Order, of what he calls the Endkampf, Alexander Dugin takes the
symbol of the Russian partisan. The phenomenon of partisan is for
Carl Schmitt «a paradigmatic figure for the decomposition of the
classical Nomos and for the appearance of bellicose peace. The
figure is remarkable because it still has a landlocked reality-
described by Schmitt as its ‘telluric character’»(103) The partisan
embodies the concept of Resistance, his physical existence is
overshadowed by his political existence- Existenze des
Wiederstand- and he takes his law from hostility, i.e. from his sense
of supreme distinction between friend and enemy. His struggle is

35
 CODIGO PE/GP -
against the New World Order, its dictates and its total claim of
annihilation of Russian future. For Dugin the American New World
Order is a triumph of global totalitarianism. The Partisan is the
answer to the illegitimate legality of the New World Order. 
«In the condition of the state of emergency, in the intensifying
atmosphere of ‘military peace’ or ‘peaceful war’, the defense of
national soil, history, people and nation are the sources of his
legitimacy. He heralds the beginning of a total war with the total
enemy...In Russian history his prototype is the partisan during the
war against Napoleon, the partisan of the World War II, the resister
to the Nazi German New World Order. Now he is the resister of a
new New World Order- the American. The partisan is the harbinger
of the healing power of national soil and historical national space of
the Russian people. In the post-Cold War period of intensifying
‘military peace’ only the Russian partisan can show the way to a
Russian historical future». (104) 
However the only viable alternative to the totalitarian globality of the
New World Order is the reconstitution or creation of a new
Grossraum opposing American world empire and the emancipation
of the principles of international pluralism. The pseudo-legality of the
New World Order must be confronted by a new alternative legality.
Against the all-embracing American pseudo-universalism must
stand the will-formation of national particularism and mobilization of
geopolitical resistance. Against the steamroller of the American New
World Order and the American invasion in the geopolitical vacuum
of Eurasia after the destruction of the Soviet Union a new
continental geopolitical unity must be consolidated resulting in
proclamation of a Monroe doctrine for Europe. Therefore, referring
to the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance, Alexander Dugin
writes: 
«The overriding objective of the United States is to prevent the
creation of any real geopolitical alternative. Therefore our main
objective must be the creation of any new geopolitical alternative.» 
This is a good point of departure because it presupposes the
concept of the political. And after all, to paraphrase Heidegger, the
political is the house of Being. 
 

ENDNOTES
(1) Gyorgy Lukacs -The Destruction of Reason (Humanities Press,
Atlantic Highlands, 1981 at pp.765,770. 
(2) Martin Heidegger -Being and Time (Harper and Row, New York,
1962) at p. 347. 

36
 CODIGO PE/GP -
(3) Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political (Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, 1976) at p.p.19, 26. 
(4) Nikolaj Zagladin -Pochemu zavershilas ‘holodnaja vojna’ -
Kentavr, January/February 1992, Moscow, pp. 45-60 
(5) Zbignief Brzezinski -The Gold War and Its Aftermath -Foreign
Affairs, Fall 1992 (Council on Foreign Relations, New York) - at
p. 32 
(6) Zbigniew Brzezinski - ibid. at p. 34 
(7) George F. Kennan-The Failure in Our Success -New York
Times, March 14, 1992, p. A17 
(8) The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , signed March 3, 1918, ended the
war between Soviet Russia and Germany. As a result of the
treaty Soviet Russia was partitioned and lost 34 percent of the
population and 54 percent of the industrial production.
According to the terms of the treaty Germany, enlarging her
Lebensraum, was to occupy Ukraine , Byelorussia, Caucasus ,
the Baltic provinces etc. With the defeat of Germany the treaty
was repudiated. 
(9) Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis Containment.
Documents on American policy and Stategy, 1945—1950
(Columbia University Press, New York, 1978) p. 196. NSC 20/1
was subsequently incorporated in the infamous NSC 68. On this
subject in Russian debate see Nikolaj von Kreitor Geopolitika
holodnoj vojny , Juridicheskaja gazeta No. 26, 1996, Moscow. 

(10) Wolfram Henrieder -Germany, America, Europe (Yale

University Press, New Haven, 1989) - at p. 17 
(11) Here quoted after Ronald Steel -Pax Americana (The Viking
Press, New York, 1967)- at p.p. 79-80. 
(12) Lenin Collected works, vol. 41, p.p. 353-354 
(13) Voprosy sotsiologij , nr 1, 1992 (Moscow )
(14) Alexander Dugin -Carl Schmitt –piat’ urokov Rossii (Nash
Sovremmennik, nr. 8.1992, Moskow) 
(15) Alexander Dugin - ibid , at p.p. 129, 130,135 
(16) Agnes Heller has analyzed the problem of a meta-existential
choice of a nation in a context of friend\foe dichotomy in the
essay The Concept of Political Revisited , published in Political
Theory Today , edited by David Held (Stanford University
Press, Stanford, 1991). 
(17) Carl Schmitt -Verfassungslehre (Duncker&Humblot, Berlin
1970) - at p. 50. Schmitt writes further that «because every
being is a particularly-constituted being, every concrete political
existence has some sort of constitution. But not every politically
existing force decides in a conscious act concerning the form of

37
 CODIGO PE/GP -
this political existence and succeeds in consciously determining
the concrete type of its political existence as did the American
states with their Declaration of Independence and the French
nation in 1789. ibid. p.23 .See also G.L.Ulman -Anthropological
Theology, Theological Anthropology (Telos, Nr.93, Fall 1992,
New York) at p. 71. 
(18) G.L. Ulmen Anthropological Theology...ibid p.71,72; Carl
Schmitt Verfassungslehre -ibid.p.372. 
(19) Carl Schmitt Verfassungslehre ibid. p. 22 
(20) Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political 
(21) Alexander Dugin- Carl Schmitt, pjat’ urokov Rossii- ibid. p. 131,
132 
(22) Herbert Marcuse «Contribution to the Phenomenology of
Historical Materialism» (Telos, Number 4, 1969), here quoted
from Richard Wolin «Introduction to Marcuse and Heidegger»
(New German Critique, Number 53, 1991, New York) p. 23 
(23) For a discussion on Heidegger’s concept of hermeneutics in
Being and Time se Richard Palmer Hermeneutics
( Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1969) 
(24) Aaron L. Friedberg-The Future of American Power (Political
Science Quarterly, Vol.109, Spring 1994) at p. 17. 
(25) Colonel Victor Alsknis’ father general Jacov Alsknis has been a
close friend of marshal Mikhail Tukhachevski; in 1937 general
Alsknis participated in the military commission investigating the
treason charges against Tuchachevski.The transcript of the
commission’s proceedings, classified secret, has never been
released. First in 1990, after the intervention of the then
Chairman of the KGB Krutchkov, colonel Alsknis gained access
to the transcripts and after reading them came to the conclusion
that during the 30-ties there was a pro-German conspiracy in
the Red Army in which marshal Tukhachevski participated.
Alexander Dugin claims that marshal Tukhachevski was a
member of Nordlich Light- Elementy -at p.p.10,11. 
(26) Zbigniew Brzezinski A Plan for Europe (Foreign Affairs,
January/February 1995) p. 26 
(27) Joseph W. Bendersky -Carl Schmitt (Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 1983), at p.253. 
(28) G.L. Ulmen - American Imperialism and International Law: Carl
Schmitt on the US in World Affairs- Telos, Nr. 72, Summer
1987; se also Carl Schmitt- Voelkerrechtliche
Grossraumordnung, op.cit., p.20. 
(29) Rudolf Kjellen Der Staat als Lebensform (Berlin, 1924) p. 139.
Kjellen writes that the autarchic principle envisions the
geopolitical space of the state as «People’s Home». The

38
 CODIGO PE/GP -
principle of autarchy «is a reaction against the industrialist type
of the nineteenth century. The latter was fundamentally
cosmopolitan; in the name of free trade it exposed national
households to competition on the world market where the
strong always succeeded in swallowing the weak. Its first
setback occurred with the adoption of the protectionist system
during the second half of the century. Here the state acts in
defense of the household (People’s Home). It blocks the road to
foreign conquerors by tariff walls behind which national
economy can prosper like a true nursery protected from the
storm of the sea...The autarchic principle ... replaces «open
doors» with «closed spheres of interest» Ibid. p.p. 139, 140. In
contemporary perspective the autarchic principle and concept of
protected geopolitical space conceived as «People’s Home» is
the antagonistic opposite of the American «open door»
imperialism. 
(30) The concept of Grossraum is discussed in Nikolaj von Kreitor
Problemy bol’shich prostranstv i buduschee Rossii Nash
Sovremennik, No 3 , 1996, Moscow and Nikolaj von Kreitor
Stoletie novogo mira. Universalizm protiv pljuralizma, Kentavr,
No. 6, 1995, Moscow. 
(31) The National Security Council Memorandum 68 (NSC-68 )
promulgated in 1950 called for a roll-back strategy aiming to
hasten the decay of the Soviet system from within and to foster
the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system by a variety of
covert and other means that would enable the U.S. to negotiate
a settlement with the Soviet Union or a successor state or
states. The memorandum further called , adopting the
objectives of Hitler, to dismantle the Soviet Union into smaller
states-se also Noam Chomsky -On Power and Ideology (South
End Press , Boston, 1987) at p. 15. In different articles
published during 1991 and 1992 in the Moscow newspaper
Denj (DAY) have surfaced assertions that during the years of
the so called. Perestrojka United States has invested more than
50 billion dollars for covert subversion in the Soviet Union. 
(32) Elementy , Number 4, 1993, p. 33 
(33) Halford McKinder Democratic Ideals and Reality (W.W. Norton
& Company, N.Y. 1962) p. 150 
(34) Se Gerald Chaliand, Jean-Pierre Rageau-Strategic Atlas-
(Harper Perennial, N.Y. 1992)- at p. 30 
(35) Halford MacKinder The Round World and theWinning of the
Peace , Foreign Affairs, 21 , New York, 1943. p.p. 595-605. The
article is included in the book Democratic Ideals and Reality.
See also W.G. Fast How Strong is the Heartland, Foreign

39
 CODIGO PE/GP -
Affairs, 29, New York, 1950 p.p. 78-93 and D.J. M. Hooson A
New Soviet Heartland , Geographical Journal , 128 (1962) p.p.
19-29. 
(36) Peter J. Taylor Political Geography (Longman, London, 1985) p.
42 
(37) Richard Muir Modern Political Geography (John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1975) p. 195. For geopolitical analysis in Russia see
E. A. Pozdnjakov Geopolitika (Progress-Kuljtura, Mpscow,
1995. Nikolaj von Kreitor Ot doktriny Monro do Novogo
Mirovogo Porjadka , Molodaja Gvardija No 9, 1995, Moscow
and Nikolaj von Kreitor Amerikano-fascistkaja geopolitika na
sluzhbe zavoevania mira, Molodaja Gvardija No. 8, 1996,
Moscow. 
(38) See James C. Malin The Turner-MacKinder Space Concept of
History in Eassays on Historiography (Lawrence, Kansas, 1946)
p.p. 1-45; Per Sveaas Andersen Westward in the Course of
Empires. A Study of the Shaping of an American Idea:
Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier (Oslo University Press,
Oslo, 1956). 
(39) See William Appleman Williams The Contours of American
History (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1988) p. 17. 
(40) David P. Calleo Europe’s Future. The Grand Alternatives
(W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1967) p.p. 89,90. 
(41) Carl Schmitt claimed in his book Land und Meer that world
history is the history of perpetual conflict between land powers
and sea powers. 
(42) Alexander Dugin Konspirologia (Arktogej, Moscow, 1993) p.p.
92, 93 
(43) Alain de Benoist , Den’ No 1(29) , Moscow, 1992 
(44) Elementy nr 3, 1993 - at p. 18 
(45) Patrick E. Tyler- U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No
Rivals Develop - New York Times, March 8, 1992, p. 14 
(46) Excerpts from the document published in New York Times ,
March 8, 1992 
(47) Patrick E. Tyler - US Strategy Plan... 
(48) President Bush stated after the November 7-8, 1991 NATO
summit in Europe that security interests of the United States
and Europe were indivisible and, therefore , the Atlantic alliance
could not be replaced even in the long run and also that the
United States presence in Europe would be needed for a
century of so. see Ted Carpenter-- In Search for Enemies-
(CATO Institute, Washington D.C. 1992, at p.p. 11-12; also
White House, Office of Press Secretary, Press Conference by
the President, November 8, 1991, transcript, p.1. 

40
 CODIGO PE/GP -
(49) H. J. von Lochhausen - The War in Iraq - a War Against
Europe - Elements p.p. 34,35,36. von Lochhausen asserts also
that the war against Iraq, i.e. a war for the control of the oil ,
was planned a long time in advance and its blueprint was
worked out by Henry Kissinger and published in 1975 in the
magazine Commentary and later in Harper’s Magazine. 
von Lochhausen writes points out that studies of American
relations with her allies show that U.S. is prone to take
advantage against them i.e. using the war as a vehicle to
transform her allies into vassals. In both W.W.I and W.W.II the
American participation was largely parasitic. While the allies
made the decisive efforts the United States reaped the fruits of
the victory . See Elementy - ibid p.p. 35, 36. It is interesting to
note that both right-wing and left-wing interpretations of the Gulf
War coincide in their condemnation of American expansionism.
For a left-wing parallel to von Lochhausen see Dario Da Re,
Rosanna Munghiello and Dario Padovan Intellettuali, sinistra e
conflitto del Golfo: un’interpretazione retrospettiva del dibattito
(Altreragioni, No. 2,1993) p.p. 151-174. 
(50) Samir Amin -U.S. Militarism in the New World Order-Polygraph,
5/1992 (Durham, NC) -at p.23 
(51) 1963 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law
13. Discussing further the legal justification of the Cuban
quarantine in 1962, Dean Acheson emphasized that « I must
conclude that the propriety of the Cuban quarantine is not a
legal issue. The power, position and prestige of the United
States has been challenged by another state; the law simply
does not deal with such questions of ultimate power., se also
Noyes Leech, Covey Oliver,Joseph Sweeney-The International
Legal System- at p. 105. 
(52) Charles de Gaulle -Unity, Documents (Simon & Schuster, New
York 1960) -at p. 269. Se also David Calleo- Europe’s Future.
The Grand Alternatives (W.W. Norton & Company , New
York,1967) - at p.112. 
(53) The memory of the American intervention in Soviet Union in
1918 in Archangelsk and Vladivostok in the Far East prompted
by the U.S. interest to gain control of the natural resources of
Siberia as well as by senator Lodge plan to divide Soviet Union
into smaller states in order for the United States to gain control
over Ukraine has resurfaced and the issue have been debated
in the mass media. See on this subject A. Nevins-Nenry White:
Thirty Years of American Diplomacy, N.Y. 1930, p.354; Ljudmila
Gviashvili-Sovietskaja Rossija i Soedinennije Schtaty 1917-
1920 -(Foreign Relations Publishing House, Moscow,1970.) 

41
 CODIGO PE/GP -
In the Russian debate it has been pointed out that the
objectives of the U.S. foreign policy will be to achieve strategic
superiority in the field of nuclear armaments and through
aggressive and adventurous foreign policy initiatives to force
Russia to further unilateral disarmament and even to attempt to
gain control over the nuclear potential of Russia which is the
only deterrent that prevents an outright intervention. 
(54) U.S. Peacekeeping Policy Debate Angers Russians-
N.Y.Times, August 29, 1993. An editorial in Krasnaja Zvezda or
Red Star, the magazine of the Russian army called Directive 13
‘outrageously cynical and a direct and unceremonious
interference in the domestic affairs of Russia.’ Although U.S.
opposes a Russian Monroe Doctrine it is in a process of
unilaterally extend its Monroe Doctrine to include former
members of the Warsaw Pact as well as Baltic countries, which
in the new American doctrinal thinking are to form a Cordon
Sanitaire surrounding Russia- se N.Y. Times, February 17,
1992. 

42
 CODIGO PE/GP -
(55) What the Monroe Doctrine meant for other Latin American
countries was the freedom of U.S. to rob and exploit those
countries.- Noam Chomsky - ibid. op. cit. p. 7. 
(56) Hegel -The Philosophy of Right Oxford University Press,
London,1967) p.p. 208-216. 
(57) Noam Chomsky - ibid. at p. 14 
(58) G.L. Ulmen - ibid. at p. 59, 60 
(59) Y. Semenov- Fashistkaja geopolitika na sluzhbe
amerikanskogo imperializma (Gospolitizdat, Moscow,1952)-at
p.32. 
(60) Ferdinand Czernin -Versailles 1919 (Capricorn Books, N.Y.
1964) at. pp.404-406 
(61) «Treaties should be designed to promote United States
interests by securing action by foreign governments in the way
deemed advantageous to the United States. Treaties are not to
be used as a devise for the purpose of effecting internal social
changes... in relation to what are essentially matters of
domestic concern» and the United States being the sole judge
of what constitutes domestic matters - see Department of State
Circular No. 175, (December 13, 1955), reprinted in 50 Am. J.
Intl. L. 784(1956). 
(62) Carl Schmitt -V?lkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung... p. 43. 
(63) Noam Chomsky - Terrorizing the Neighborhood. American
Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (AK Press, Stirling and
San Francisco , 1991) - at p. 24. 
(64) se The Holy Alliance - Time magazine, February 24, 1992- at
p.32 
(65) Times- ibid. - at p. 29 
(66) Noam Chomsky -Terrorizing the Neighborhood - at p. 19. 
(67) Helsinki Accord, Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations
between Participating States. The full text is published in
Thomas Buergenthal (ed) -Human Rights, International Law
and the Helsinki Accord-(Allanheld, Osmun/Universe Books,
New York, 1979) at pp.161-165 
(68) William Safire -Bosnia vs. the United Nations - N.Y.Times. ,
August 9, 1993 
(69) N.Y.Times , August 2, 1993 - at p. A3 
(70) N.Y.Times. , Aug. 5, 1993 - p.1. 
(71) Newsweek, August 28, 1993 
(72) See Pravda, March 30, 1995 
(73) N.Y.Times, September 12, 1993 
(74) Article 52 (Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force) of
the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties of May 22, 1969
states «A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by

43
 CODIGO PE/GP -
the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of
international law embodied in the Charter of the United
Nations.» 
(75) Pravda 5, No. 24, 1996, p. 10-11. Interview of General Galuas
by Jole Stanischic. 
(76) In Russian debate the Haag War tribunal has been described
as an instrument of continuous aggression, to paraphrase
Clausewitz, as war with other, judicial means, a tribunal set up
by the war criminals in Washington to justify the American
territorial conquests under the guise of establishment of a New
World Order—a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world—, and
persecution Serbs— the partisans of the Resistance against
dictates of the New World Order. A historical equivalent of
Hague Tribunal would have been a tribunal set up by Nazi
Germany to persecute the partisans of the Resistance during
an earlier version of the New World Order- Hitler’s. General
Gallois , one of the organizers of the Resistance movement in
France, fully realizes the absurdity of Hague Tribunal. 
(77) Pravda 5, ibid. 
(78) See Novoe Russkoe Slovo , March 23, 1993- at p.9.
(79) Wolfram Henrieder -Germany, America, Europe (Yale
University Press,New Haven,1989 
(80) Hans W. Maull -Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers
(Foreign Affairs, Wintern 1990/91, Council of Foreign
Relations, N.Y. 1991) - at p. 93. 
(81) Referring to Goethe Thomas Mann defines culture as «
intellectualization of the political» and expression of the
identity and self-realization of a nation: »The nation is not only
a social being; the nation, not the human race as the sum of
individuals, is the bearer of the individual, of the human
quality; and the value of the intellectual-artistic-religious
product that one calls national culture...that develops out of the
organic depth of national life-the value, dignity and charm of all
national culture therefore definitely lies in what distinguishes it
from others, for only this distinctive element is culture, in
contrast to what all nations have in common, which is only
civilization. Here we have the difference between individual
and personality, civilization and culture, social and
metaphysical live». Thomas Mann Reflections of a Nonpolitical
Man (Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, N.Y. 1983)- at p. 179. 
(82) Andrew Shennan -De Gaulle (Longman, New York, 1993)- at
p. 118. 
(83) Andrew Shennan - ibid , p.118. 

44
 CODIGO PE/GP -
(84) David P. Calleo Europe’s future. The Grand Alternatives (W.W.
Norton & Company, New York, 1967) p. 90 
(85) Interview with Alain de Benoist , Le Monde, 15 Mai, 1992
(Paris) 
(86) Walter Russel Mead The United States and the New Europe
(World Policy Journal, New York), Winter 1989-90 p.p.
53,55,56 
(87) The Rapallo Treaty was concluded on April 16, 1922 between
Germany and the Soviet Union. It allowed the Soviet Union to
break the monolithic capitalist encirclement by the Versailles
powers while for Germany it signified the road to revision of
what was perceived as the Versailles dictate. Discussing the
possible political orientation of Russia in the future , Dugin
elaborates on the issues of a Russian-German Sonderweg as
a historical background to a common political union. 
(88) Rudolf Bahro -Rapallo-Why Not- (Telos, No. 51, Spring 1982,
N.Y.) - at p. 125.It is interesting to note that the German
Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel stated during his a meeting in
Bavaria with his Russian counterpart Andrej Kozyrev that
«Creation of a partnership axis Bonn-Moscow is an objective
for German foreign policy»—Izvestija, Moscow, August 24,
1993. 
(89) David Calleo -Europe’s Future -ibid. p.89; se also de Gaulle-
Unity- ibid. pp.176-177. 
(90) Charles de Gaulle Unity ibid. p. 271 
(91) David Calleo Europe’s Future ibid. p. 124 
(92) Alexander Dugin Konspirologija ibid. 96 . Dugin refers to the
works of Konstantin Leontief in which the primacy of the
principle of land over the principle of blood was first
articulated. 
(93) In contemporary Russian political discourse the main
proponent of this notion has been Lev Gumilev. 
(94) Robert Steuckers The Asian Challenge, Elementy , nr 3, p.
24 
(95) Vladimir Ovzinski -Konterperestrojka -Nash Sovremennik -5-
1992, Moscow, at p.128.The author who has made interviews
with a large number of former KGB operatives from Lithuania,
claims on the basis of those interviews that U.S pursues four
different objectives:1.Assertion of American hegemonical
interests in Lithuania in opposition to German interests. 2.
Subversion of what CIA perceives to be a Communist
opposition as well as organizations defending the interests of
the Russian minority in the country. 3. Collection of materials
concerning former Lithuanian KGB operatives in order to either

45
 CODIGO PE/GP -
persecute or recruit them. 4. Sending of recruited agents to
other former Soviet republics. 
(96) See Elaine Sciolino- U.S. to Offer Plan on a Role in NATO for
Ex-Soviet Block -N.Y. Times, October 21, 1993; Stephen
Kinzer- NATO Favors U.S. Plan for Ties With the East, but
Timing is Vague-N.Y.Times, October 22, 1993. President
Clinton made a formal proposal for the expansion of NATO at
the NATO’s summit meeting in January of 1994. 
(97) Noam Chomsky -A View from Below in Michael Hogan -The
End of the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, New York
1992) at p.142. 
(98) Y.Semenov -Fascistkaja geopolitika -ibid. p. 29 
(99) General Victor Filatov compares Yeltsin with the W.W.II traitor
general Vlasov-see Denj, Nr 25, 1993, Moscow, June 27,
1993. Stephen Cohen points out that since 1991 the U.S.
policy has been characterized by a steadily escalating
interventionism in the Russian domestic matters which has
created the impression among patriotic movements that
Yeltsin’s government is a U.S. sponsored ‘occupation regime’.
United States interventionism resulted in a resolution passed
on March 21, 1993 by the Russian Parliament condemning the
American interference in the internal affairs of Russia. «The
Clinton Administration has steadily escalated this kind of
interventionism-by contriving the April Vancouver summit as
an attempt to ‘help Yeltsin’ in his ongoing conflict with the
Parliament, by supporting the Russian President’s threats to
disband the legislature , by endorsing Yeltsin’s effort to seize
dictatorial or special powers from virtually all of Russia’s other
democratic institutions and even by suggesting that Clinton
might go instead to Moscow for a solidarity summit with
Yeltsin. The result has been to put U.S. government in very
bad institutional company. Opposed to Yeltsin’s power grab
was not only Russia’s Parliament but also its Constitutional
Court, Attorney General, Justice Minister and Vice President.»-
see The Nation, April 12, 1993 , at p.p.477,478. 
(100) The events surrounding the September 21, 1993 coup
allow for the impression that Yeltsin undertook the coup in
collusion with the United States and, not unthinkable, on
instigation of the United States. 
(101) Julien Freund-The Central Themes in Carl Schmitt’s Political
Thought ,Telos, nr
(102) New York 1994, at p. 31 
(102) Alexander Dugin- Carl Schmitt. Pjat’ urokov Rossii-ibid. at p.
134 

46
 CODIGO PE/GP -
(103) Julien Freund - ibid. p. 31 
(104) Alexander Dugin- ibid. p. 134 

47