The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopoliticalbook by Alexander Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites[1] and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military.[1]

Foundations of Geopolitics, by Alexander Dugin

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[1]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]

France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]

>United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]

Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]

Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]

Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]

Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]

Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]

>Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization". Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]

Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]

Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]

>Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]

Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]

The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensatation.[1]

Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]

Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]

>The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

>Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, **provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]

Mackinder argued that Russia, not Germany, was Britain’s main strategic opponent. This he illustrated with a colorful theory that came to be known as “geopolitics.” The timing of his prediction, prior to two world wars against Germany (...) Mackinder held that geography, not economics, is the fundamental determinant of world power and Russia, simply by virtue of its physical location, inherits a primary global role. (...)
 
Largely thanks to Dugin’s murky connections within the elite, Geopolitics today is mainstream. Mackinder’s arguments were useful to Dugin and other hardliners who contended that conflict with the West was a permanent condition for Russia, though they had trouble explaining why. (...)
 
The Foundations of Geopolitics sold out in four editions, and continues to be assigned as a textbook at the General Staff Academy and other military universities in Russia. “There has probably not been another book published in Russia during the post-communist period which has exerted a comparable influence on Russian military, police, and statist foreign policy elites,” (...)
 
Dugin’s main argument in Foundations came straight from Haushofer’s pages: the need to thwart the conspiracy of “Atlanticism” led by the United States and NATO and aimed at containing Russia within successive geographic rings of newly independent states. The plan was simple: first put the Soviet Union back together, counseled Dugin, and then use clever alliance diplomacy focused on partnerships with Japan, Iran, and Germany to eject the United States and its Atlanticist minions from the continent.
 
The key to creating “Eurasia” is to reject a narrow nationalistic agenda, which could alienate potential allies. He quoted New Right theorist Jean-François Thiriart, who said “the main mistake of Hitler was that he tried to make Europe German. Instead, he should have tried to make it European.” Russia, it followed, would not be making a Russian Empire, but a Eurasian one. “The Eurasian Empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, the strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us,” wrote Dugin. (...)
 
Of course, it went without saying in Dugin’s view that the USSR must be put back together; Georgia must be dismembered and Ukraine annexed: “Ukraine, as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions, represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia.” Azerbaijan, though, could be given away to Iran in exchange for a “Moscow–Tehran axis.” Finland could be added to the Russian province of Murmansk, while Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece would join Russia as an Orthodox “Third Rome” or Russian South. (...)
 
Dugin argued that empire was the only way to stop the march of liberalism, which was antithetical to Russia’s value system.
 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/2 [...] iny-putin/

"The Russian side pointed to the need for real changes in the media coverage on Russia in Germany, which at the present time is openly unfriendly, anti-Russian and contributes to further undermining the bilateral relations."

On Saturday, October 29, day of the event for the Yes to the referendum in Piazza del Popolo, RT, Russia Today, the powerful network written in English and funded by the Russian government with 2,500 employees, also one of the most viral tools of the pro Putin propaganda system in Western countries , reported the news as follows: «Thousands of people are flooding the streets of Roma to protest against Italian prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who initiated a referendum on constitutional reform, which is to be held on December 4. People fear that the reforms, aimed at disempowering the Senate, will lead to more power in the hands of the president». While the title of Facebook livestream was: «Protests against Italian prime minister hit Rome». Fact check: that day there surely was a rally, but in favor of the yes. By spreading a completely opposite version of reality, the live Russian televisionweb has reached one million and half direct contacts; not counting its going viral. Since this has not been Russia’s first intrusion into the Italian political debate, Italian diplomacy has raised the case and complained with the Kremlin.  

Wherever produced, lies and propaganda spread very well in the Italian web scenario which is dominated by countless websites supporting the Five Stars movement. Many pro M5S Twitter and Facebook accounts, or Facebook pages with thousands of friends, have in fact revived RT and Ruptly, RT’s video agency based in Berlin, along with other less exaggerated yet worst hoaxes. Hoaxes doomed to proliferate inside a propitious, designed architecture. Russian network has now corrected the title and made inaccessible some of the latest articles on Italy, however we have the original screenshots. On many other occasion the propaganda is subtler with its relentless mixing of some (a few) elements of truth to a great deal of falsehood and fake. For example, on October 22, RT dramatically emphasized a union protest against the Jobs Act, telling of an «Italy in revolt». When Renzi faced protestors in Naples, it was described as «scenes from the civil war». A grotesque yet attractive exaggeration, perhaps aimed to the very young, or for those who do not belong to a defined web ecosystem. 

Nowadays the red web, or Putin’s web, is substantially worrying more than one European government. [b] On November 1, the head of MI5, Britain’s Security Service, Andrew Parker, said the Guardian that Russia is at work across Europe and in the UK, using military means, propaganda, espionage, subversion and cyber-attacks to achieve its foreign policy aims. On that same day, German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière, who was immediately demonized by pro-Grillo accounts, complained to Sky in Italian that «attacks on the Internet especially from Russia are organized at state level and are attacks on German institutions. We must protect ourselves, but it is a problem to overcome with the cooperation of our European partners». De Maizière reports that it is not just about people, «it is also about algorithms, machines able to multiply to the nth degree their influenceon Germany and support certain Russian positions on German social media». 

The cultural connection between Russian propaganda and pro 5SM is shown in several ways. Non-governmental websites such as RT along with pro-Russian networks such as Sputnik Italy, are an example. The last case: immediately after the earthquake, an article (not just a comment) headed ’Italy, the government living in another country’ and continued: «it is hard to guess where Renzi and his merry ministers find optimism to hand out with broad smiles at every public meeting in favour of the Yes in the referendum». Sputnik is then backed up by Tze Tze, Casaleggio’s leading website, which celebrates Putin, and includes RT feed; but also by several anonymous sites. Or from a limited, and strongly committed number of Twitter or Facebook account, some of which sometimes constitute serious offenses, on which we will get back later in next investigative reports. 

The affinity between these two propaganda does not seem random neither in its not casual engineering, nor ideology. Manlio Di Stefano, deputy M5S was a guest at Putin’s party congress, to comment on their foreign policy after Brexit and has been talking on RT. In April 2015, Beppe Grillo chose RT tv for the interview in which he explains first time his theory of a “smart coup d’état” undergoing in Italy: «It’s all about causing a division in the parliament, penetrating the government and then installing a strong leader who is going to take full control». And that’s how RT describes the constitutional reform. Just a few days ago Pietro Dettori, Davide Casaleggio’ right arm and head of the Association Rousseau (holder of the 5SM blog) tweeted an article about Putin from silenziefalsità.it site (”Putin presents Satan 2, the missile that can destroy Texas’) which began as follows: «Is it now time for those hotheads in Washington to cool off? Wouldn’t it be much better to risk a multipolar world and give up a little power instead of running the risk of losing it all and destroy the whole world?». For now, the only thing being destroyed is truth. 

Dans une interview publiée par le site d'information russe Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK), puis supprimée ensuite, Valery Solovey, professeur à l'Institut d'Etat des relations internationales de Moscou, a déclaré que Vladimir Poutine envisageait de démissionner car il aurait des problèmes de santé, et que des élections pourraient se tenir en 2017 avant la fin de son mandat. Dans quelle mesure s'agit-il d'une hypothèse crédible ? La question du départ de Vladimir Poutine se pose-t-elle actuellement au Kremlin ?

Ce n'est pas la première fois que la santé de Vladimir Poutine est évoquée : cela avait déjà été le cas à l'occasion de déplacements qu'il avait annulés en 2012 et en 2015 ou de spéculations sur son avenir. Néanmoins, cette rumeur est peut-être plus crédible aujourd'hui car il y a en 2018 un enjeu électoral majeur en Russie : l'élection présidentielle. Plus le temps passe, plus la question de la succession de Vladimir Poutine va se poser.  

Le pouvoir russe s'est félicité de la victoire de Donald Trump mais le Kremlin est extrêmement ennuyé car en réalité personne ne sait vraiment à quoi va ressembler la politique étrangère du nouveau locataire de la Maison Blanche.  

Dans l'interview que vous avez mentionnée, Valery Solovey évoque deux possibilités. La première est que Dimitri Medvedev succède à Vladimir Poutine, ce qui donnerait du crédit à l'idée d'une amélioration des relations avec l'Occident. En effet, lorsqu'il était président entre 2008 et 2012 –tandis que Poutine était resté Premier ministre - Medvedev représentait en quelque sorte la face aimable du régime. Mais c'est une image un peu artificielle dans la mesure où il a pratiqué la même politique que Vladimir Poutine. Le deuxième successeur envisagé est Alexei Dyumin, un personnage qui a connu une ascension stratosphérique dans l'entourage de Vladimir Poutine

Un autre nom qui circule également est celui de Nikolaï Patrouchev, un ancien directeur du FSB : il aurait l'avantage de conserver le pouvoir dans les mains des services de sécurité, qui sont le cœur du pouvoir russe et le milieu dont Poutine est issu.  

La succession de Poutine pourrait se faire de trois manières.
 
Premièrement, on peut imaginer une révolution, mais l'état de l'opposition russe et la popularité de Poutine rendent cette hypothèse peu probable, même si la situation économique est mauvaise. Deuxièmement, on peut songer à un coup d'état interne, sur le modèle de ce qu'a tenté de faire l'armée turque contre Erdogan il y a quelques mois, mais peu d'indices montrent une quelconque autonomie des forces de sécurité, qui sont surveillées de très près par le pouvoir poutinien. Troisièmement, dans le contexte de jeu démocratique apparent mais en réalité tronqué, la démission de Poutine serait en réalité le seul moyen de faire changer de visage le pouvoir russe, d'où la grande nervosité des autorités quand ce type d'informations circulent.  

Unsurprisingly, the outcome of the US Presidential elections featured in disinformation stories this week. Whereas before the US elections we saw warnings in pro-Kremlin outlets that the elections would be rigged ( http://bit.ly/2fPMayl ), as previously reported in the Disinformation Review ( http://bit.ly/2fPd5Zr ), no such allegations were voiced once the result of the election was official. Instead, the same disinformation outlets began to voice their concern that George Soros was paying for protesters in the US to oppose the result ( http://bit.ly/2fNClPF ); and that the Democratic Party was refusing to accept the result ( http://bit.ly/2fxZ3fp ). This despite the fact that both President Obama and Democratic Party candidate Clinton publicly accepted the result of the vote ( http://nyti.ms/2fne0k6 ).
 
Meanwhile, Russian national TV devoted a programme to considering what the new US President would mean for the world, including his possible impact on Ukraine. We were told that, with Mr Trump in the White House, Ukraine will "finally have a chance of becoming a democracy" (ignoring the fact that it already is - http://bit.ly/2eR2YSM ).
 
Several regular disinformation stories about Ukraine also found their way to the pro-Kremlin media again this week. We heard again the allegation, unsubstantiated by election results, that Ukraine is governed by fascists ( http://bit.ly/2f6Eg1G ); that it is conducting a genocide in Donbas ( http://bit.ly/2g32DlS ); that the Russian language will be banned in the country ( http://bit.ly/2eULJTY ); and that the country is no longer capable of caring for its citizens ( http://bit.ly/2fP0dGc, http://bit.ly/2fP0tFh ). As usual, no evidence was provided as these claims are false and debunked many times already  ( http://bit.ly/2g9T83B ).

Some old favourites
 
This week saw some disinformation favourites recycled in pro-Kremlin outlets. The decline of Europe was a major theme - for example, we learned that the economy in the Baltic states has collapsed ( http://bit.ly/2fWNFxL ). No explanation was given as to why, then, the citizens of the Baltic states are comparably happy with their standard of living ( http://bloom.bg/2eSwg3K ).
 
Pro-Kremlin media outlets also told us that the Finnish government and plenty of other EU member states take children away from Russian families if they want to move from Europe and back to Russia, and that this is due to –  you guessed it – Russophobia ( http://bit.ly/2fWOkPH ). This disinformation was eloquently refuted by the Finnish government already in September ( http://bit.ly/2ddFf4d ).
 
In Greece, we saw the repetition of disinformation coming directly from the Russian President himself about the EU's alleged failure to protect children ( http://bit.ly/2eCGViU ) as the Disinformation Review reported last week ( http://bit.ly/2fPd5Zr ). This disinformation was, by the way, even removed by the first pro-Kremlin outlet that reported it, since it was simply false ( http://eepurl.com/cm1kYr ).
 
Furthermore, we were told that trade deals with the EU are bad for the economy ( http://bit.ly/2g5O8xS ) and that the EU is the vassal of the US ( http://bit.ly/2fxZ4jw ).
 
But amidst the old we got a new dose of historical revisionism too, when we learned that Stalin built at least 20 000 churches in Georgia ( http://bit.ly/2fxIPTZ ), a claim which sits rather oddly with Stalin's repressive anti-religion campaign ( http://bit.ly/2ekodBc ).

Turning Syria's civil society into a target
 
Finally, Russian government-controlled news agencies continued their focus on Syria, and relayed the incorrect message that local councils in eastern Aleppo are “self-proclaimed” and “far from representing the people”; that they are “playing up to terrorists” and “obstruct UN humanitarian relief efforts” ( http://bit.ly/2fOKzsx ). This misrepresenting of the councils as affiliated with terrorism deploys a central method in the pro-Kremlin disinformation playbook: to call parties that don't fit into its narrative as terroristic.

On aura difficilement le fin mot de l'histoire, mais on peut souligner déjà de très nombreuses incohérences...
La première c'est le montant du pot de vin que le ministre aurait demandé. 2 millions de dollars, selon les experts en corruption [...]
La deuxième, c'est l'entreprise à qui le ministre aurait réclamé ce pot de vin. [...] Il faudrait être fou pour menacer une entreprise dont le patron est l'un des plus proches de Vladimir Poutine
[...]
Ce limogeage serait donc un signe envoyé à ces libéraux qu'ils ne sont plus à l'abri de l'arbitraire, quelque soit leur rang.[...]
L'incohérence sur laquelle je voudrais m'attarder maintenant, est d'ordre économique, même si dans ce dossier, il n'y a visiblement rien de rationnel. Pour cela, il faut revenir à la situation catastrophique du pays.
L'économie russe va très mal en depuis 3-4 ans. Après avoir connu une croissance insolente de 7% dans les années 2000-2008, le pays a été frappé par la crise, qui a asséché les sources de financement extérieur. Entre 2010 et 2014, il y a eu un mieux, parce que les prix du pétrole était au plus haut, et que les hydrocarbures assurent 50% des recettes de l'Etat, 70% des exportations.
 
Depuis que les cours sont au plus bas, la Russie vit comme tous les pays pétroliers, Nigéria Vénézuéla, Arabie Saoudite, une situation critique sur le plan budgétaire, les déficits bondissent, et sur le plan monétaire, les réserves fondent.
Chaque pays pétrolier a sa façon de s'en sortir. La Russie doit en plus faire avec les sanctions économiques depuis son annexion de la Crimée. Son plan, c'était de privatiser. Un grand plan a donc été lancé, et c'est le ministre des finances arrêté qui devait le mener.
On présente Alexeï Oulioukaïev comme un économiste rigoureux, qui avait la confiance des investisseurs étrangers. Le limoger alors que l'on cherche à s'ouvrir vers l'extérieur, ça n'est pas logique. Mais il était visiblement à contre courant, car la Russie, dans son processus de privatisation, est en fait en train de se nationaliser et il a eu le tort de le dire.
[...]
Le but de ces privatisations est-il vraiment de trouver de l'argent pour remplir les caisses? Ou est-ce un moyen de réallouer des actifs stratégiques entre oligarques et proches du pouvoir?
 
Depuis que le programme de privatisation a été lancé, les entreprises contrôlées par l'Etat comptent pour 70% de l'économie Russe contre 35% en 2005, relève un observatoire anti-monopole Russe.

Bachneft, entreprise publique russe d'hydrocarbure devait être privatisée depuis 2014, pour récupérer de l'argent. Mais finalement elle a été revendu à une autre entreprise publique d'hydrocarbures, plus grosse encore, la première de Russie qui s'appellent Rosneft.
 
Quand une entreprise publique rachète une autre entreprise publique, cela ne rapporte rien à l'Etat comme devise, et c'est pour cela que l'ex ministre des finances russes s'y serait opposé au départ.

Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, has attacked the proposals, which he said, violate the neutrality of the EU civil service by turning officials into a "troll patrol", stalking the internet to make unwanted and provocative political contributions in social media debates.
 
"Spending over a million pounds for EU public servants to become Twitter trolls in office hours is wasteful and truly ridiculous," he said.

Ministre arrêté : les élites libérales pourraient pâtir de l’élection de Trump

Sous le choc de l’arrestation du ministre de l’Économie, qui vient d’être démis de ses fonctions et assigné à résidence, les hautes sphères politiques et économiques ne sont plus à l’abri du couperet de la lutte anti-corruption, qui ne fait que commencer, estime la presse russe.

Pour le directeur de l’Institut des problèmes de la globalisation, Mikhaïl Deliaguine, cité par le quotidien Moskovski Komsomolets, “le clan libéral [auquel appartient Oulioukaev] est sous le choc. Il concentre ses efforts pour essayer de récupérer Oulioukaev, comme il avait sauvé auparavant certains de ses représentants”.
 
Plus étonnant, l’expert décèle dans l’arrestation du ministre la mise en œuvre d’“une politique internationale globale” : “Avec le changement d’administration à Washington, le clan libéral russe a perdu un soutien politique. Ce clan s’est formé sous Clinton et a toujours bénéficié de la ‘couverture’de Washington, c’est pourquoi la lutte contre la corruption au sommet de l’État dans notre pays était très entravée.”

Cependant, nuance l’expert, “si se battre contre la corruption systémique a du sens, encore faut-il pouvoir passer du pillage du pays à son développement. Car l’État est dans une situation schizophrénique : un patriotisme parfaitement raisonnable en politique étrangère, et une absolue trahison des intérêts nationaux dans la sphère économique.”