Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Dugin spoke with former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski

An occupation is an occupation! Interview with Alexander Dugin about Germany

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Alexander Dugin

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Alexander Dugin

MO: Professor Dugin, the NSA and its spying scandal had a profound impact on German-American relations. We Germans have claimed for decades that Washington is our "friend" and "partner". But now many of us have realized that the USA is behaving more or less like an occupying power to this day. Why did it take so long for people to realize this?

AD: We cannot answer such an important question without historical details. First of all, Germany lost World War II. In May 1945, German troops surrendered unconditionally. The answer to total defeat in the war was total occupation by the two main powers - the USA and the Soviet Union. Washington and Moscow were not just the two major powers at the end of the war—they also represented two ideological camps in the postwar era. Germany's eastern territories were annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union. The central part of Germany was occupied by the Soviet army, while western Germany was occupied by the United States and its allies, Great Britain and France. No part of Germany was free anymore. Frankly, an occupation is an occupation. There is no degree of occupation. With the advent of the Cold War and its ideology, the occupation in both parts of Germany changed. The Germans in the GDR were led to that the Soviet Union was the one that freed them from Nazism and now they are free. The Soviet occupation was interpreted and taught in schools as a guarantee of freedom and independence. We can see the same in West Germany, where the Anglo-Saxon occupying forces reeducated the population. Germans in this section were told that they had been liberated by Western forces in 1945 and were now defending them against the "communist threat" from the East. But both the Germans of the GDR and the FRG were not free and sovereign, they were still occupied. that they were liberated by Western forces in 1945 and are now defending them against the "communist threat" from the East. But both the Germans of the GDR and the FRG were not free and sovereign, they were still occupied. that they were liberated by Western forces in 1945 and are now defending them against the "communist threat" from the East. But both the Germans of the GDR and the FRG were not free and sovereign, they were still occupied.


MO: That's the past. But with the reunification of Germany in 1990, the Cold War also officially ended. At least that's what the political leaders of all the former occupying forces and Chancellor Helmut Kohl claimed…

AD: This is perhaps one of the biggest misinterpretations in recent German history. It was not the reunification of a free, independent and sovereign Germany - it was merely the absorption of one occupied part of Germany by another. The Anglo-Saxon part of Germany simply "added" the former, Soviet-occupied, part of Germany. This move has to do with the end of the Cold War: The socialist camp capitulated to the capitalist one. Now all of Germany is occupied by the West. Germany is an occupied country – politically, economically, strategically and intellectually. At the same time, the earlier Cold War propaganda of the West became a certain main philosophy of the concept of a unipolar world with only one decisive pole - the West.

MO: So there was no chance to get real freedom in 1990?

AD: Of course there was a chance. After the collapse of the communist bloc, there was no longer any reason for the Western occupation of Germany. Germany did not need any American troops to defend it because the threat had disappeared. Post-Soviet Russia was so weak that it did not pose any kind of threat or danger to Germany. So there was no need for any further presence of American troops on German soil. The plain and simple fact that the Western occupying forces did not leave after 1990 proves that Germany is still an occupied country. The [NSA] espionage scandal against the German people, the German economy and German political representatives only confirms this fact.

MO: When the "Treaty on the Final Arrangement in Relation to Germany" was negotiated in 1990 , Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the presence of NATO troops in the area. The Soviet troops were withdrawn, but the American military with its nuclear arsenal remains here to this day. Why didn't Gorbachev strive for a free, neutral and independent Germany?

AD: In general, it can be said that the entire period of the early 1990s is considered a "great betrayal" of our national interests in contemporary Russia. Everything that was done in terms of internal or foreign policy by Gorbachev and later by Yeltsin is considered a complete failure. We find their policies absolutely stupid and incompetent. The capitulation to the West in 1990, the abandonment of the GDR not for the sake of a new Germany, but for the greater FRG, is today seen in Russia as the greatest part of shame in this great betrayal. Gorbachev and Yeltsin also sacrificed our Russia!

MO: …you mean the Soviet Union?

AD: No, I mean Russia! Great Russia was not created by the Bolsheviks, they simply took it over and renamed it the Soviet Union. The Russian state existed hundreds of years before the Bolsheviks.

MO: Let's go back to Germany in 1990: German independence and neutrality were discussed even in Washington...

AD: I spoke with Zbigniew Brzezinski , a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who worked as a national security adviser (for President Jimmy Carter - DP's note). I asked him why the Americans promised Gorbachev neutrality in the first round of negotiations. Brzezinski is a very brave and honest person. He answered me honestly: "We cheated Gorbachev!". I think Brzezinski told me the truth.

MO: Was Gorbachev so naive, or perhaps even stupid?

AD: Gorbachev was not only naive, but also a criminal. He donated all our strategic positions to the opponent without getting anything in return. German reunification fits perfectly into this. It was not a German national event, it was simply the exchange of one occupation regime for another. There was no liberation or gaining of sovereignty for Germany, only the extension of the Anglo-Saxon occupation to another part of your country. It was a very good and smart move by Washington. As a Western liberal hegemon, he gained control not only over the former Soviet-occupied part of Germany, but also over Eastern Europe without shedding a single drop of blood. Today we can say that the weakness of the Soviet Union in 1990 was a German misfortune. With a stronger Moscow, Germany could become an independent, free and sovereign state.

MO: American as well as German politicians use terms like “friendship” and “partnership”…

AD: It is absolutely impossible to call the occupation friendship or partnership. Partnership and occupation contradict each other. The United States cannot be a true ally if it is still occupying Germany.

MO: Some mainstream journalists defend the existence of American bases in Germany. They say: Germany must be "guarded" by the Western Allies because it has behaved "unreliably" in the past...

AD: (laughs) Really? Let's look at Germany today. Your country is completely liberal, democratic and completely innocent in its internal and foreign policy. Again: There is no single reason for the occupation - but the occupation continues. This is the real scandal - and not the espionage and activities of the American intelligence service in Germany. This status quo is obvious for German society. And more and more Germans are asking - why and why is the occupation still going on?

MO: These politicians and journalists answer very clearly: because there is “historical shame”…

This "historical shame" has long passed. It is becoming harder and harder to justify the occupation using events that happened 70 years ago. This is a challenge for Germany today because the established political class in Berlin has become accustomed to the occupation; but this state cannot continue forever. So today there is only one choice: either to end the occupation or to accept it as a situation that will last forever.

MO: The more distant the time since the unconditional surrender of the German armed forces in 1945, the more we celebrate the Americans and their military as "liberators"…

AD: No one can continue this demagoguery indefinitely. There is no reason for Germany to be a member of NATO, no reason for the US military on German soil, no reason to consider Washington an "ally" anymore, no reason to believe that the national interests of Germany and the US are the same. In all respects, Germany has its own agenda. Thus, in the long run, there can be only one solution: Germany should reassert itself as an independent, free and sovereign political entity. Whatever American or German politicians say, the truth is very simple: There is no freedom as long as the occupation lasts. If the Germans want freedom, independence and sovereignty, they should rise up against the occupation. Not rising up against the occupation means accepting it.

MO: That sounds too easy…

AD: (laughs) Of course, it's not easy at all. We are talking here about a very important, historic and decisive political step. But it is inevitable, because the logic of the occupation is becoming more and more transparent. It is not possible to cover up this situation any longer. The American presence in Germany is based purely on political and military power and not on any strategic interest of Germany itself. This is clear to everyone in Germany - but acknowledging this fact is very difficult.

MO: So the NSA scandal is nothing more than a symptom of the real problem - the occupation?

AD: Of course! We should not be fooled into mistaking a symptom for a real problem. Whatever the Americans are doing in Germany, they are doing it against the backdrop of being an occupying power. By the way: Washington is not doing "espionage" in Germany - Washington is simply controlling its territory. After World War II, the US was the master of half of Europe - now it is the master of all of Europe. Washington's interference in the internal political affairs of European states is not understood as "foreign policy" - but as a form of internal politics.

MO: The mainstream media in Germany, as well as the press statements of German politicians, interpret the NSA scandal as follows: “We should be happy that the spying is done by our friends, and not by authoritarian states like, for example, Russia! That would be much worse!” Is this a return to Cold War rhetoric or just an evasive maneuver?

AD: Yes, I also encountered this strange argument. However, we need to understand what "network-oriented way of fighting" means . It is a kind of information and espionage war. One of the foundations of this way of fighting is not only the control of enemies, but also of allies. Any of today's allies can become an adversary in the future. Germany is exposed to exactly this attack. Defending American interests in the German mainstream press and politics is one aspect of this way of fighting, as well as "vaccinating" the German public against Russia. I am convinced that the people behind this defense of American interests and anti-Russian campaigns are a strategic information weapon of American control over Germany.

MO: Your critics might argue that you are a conspiracy theorist.

AD: (laughs) Sure, they can say that. However, the concept of "network-centric warfare" was openly proclaimed in the 1990s by the US government.

MO: The ruling political class in Berlin, especially our Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is pro-American. When the PRISM scandal broke in June 2013 , they defended Washington's interests. However, after it was revealed that the NSA had been tapping the Chancellor's mobile phone, they couldn't help but react. But they only discussed the global right to privacy, never mentioning occupation or national sovereignty. Isn't the pro-American German government just trying to divert attention from the real problem?

AD: I'm not sure about that. We can consider this situation as the initial stage of revealing the most important, real problem. Frankly: We cannot expect any declaration of sovereignty rights from the current German political class. That's pretty unfair, isn't it?

MO: That would be a minor miracle…

AD: Let's not believe in miracles in politics. The current ruling class in Germany is doing what it can. German politicians are testing what form of mild protest might be acceptable to the occupying forces. It is a kind of "criticism from below". It goes like this: An insignificant citizen is mildly irritated when the government pokes its nose into his private affairs. It is the reaction of the weak, completely subordinate, the humiliated reaction of the slave before the master.

MO: One thing is certain, this is not how the reaction between equal partners looks like...

AD: Not at all. But let's not be overly pessimistic.

MO: Why not?

AD: I think this kind of reaction by the ruling class nevertheless points to a kind of understanding of the situation. He recognizes that this cannot go on forever. Society is increasingly dissatisfied with this situation. Germany is doing well economically, it handles social problems more or less well, while its neighboring states face very serious challenges. Germany is the engine of Europe. In this situation, American dominance is increasingly at odds with German national interests, as well as mutual European interests. I am convinced that the German political class reacted in the mildest way, because that's how they have to react - whether they want to or not. It is therefore perfectly logical, by the way, that the German government did not protest against the violation of Germany's sovereignty.

MO: Why is that?

AD: Because Germany is not a sovereign state. If you do not have sovereignty, it cannot be violated by others. If Germany wants to become a sovereign state, it should rise against the occupation. First liberation, then sovereignty. You cannot pretend to be sovereign while you are still occupied.

MO: "Uprising" - that sounds violent!

AD: (smiles) Not at all, that's a cliché. There may be an uprising if the German chancellor makes an open demand for the US government to withdraw US military troops from German soil.

MO: Now we're talking about miracles!

AD: But wasn't German reunification also considered a highly unlikely miracle in the summer of 1989?

MO: There will be something to it! However, right now Berlin appears to be more loyal to Washington than to other Western countries.

AD: I think Germany is a very disciplined nation. The German ruling class feels hired by their masters in Washington. In US-German relations, we are witnessing a tragic re-application of the old Waffen SS motto "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" ("My honor is loyalty"). This time, however, it is loyalty to the USA.

MO: What an interesting interpretation of American-German relations...

AD: (laughs) Yes, it's a kind of loyalty. But I think that only a part of German society shares this attitude together with the political elite of your country.

MO: Our government says there is no alternative to the transatlantic policy and "partnership" with the US...

AD: German independence is a completely rationally calculable and inevitable future step that must come one day. It is in the interest of German society as well as the economy. Let's look at German society today: it is liberal and democratic. Currently there is no revanchist or nationalist influence. When we talk about Germany's sovereignty, these influences play no role. There are purely social, rational and economic reasons for Germany to break away from the strategies dictated by Washington. The reason is that these aspects are increasingly coming into conflict with the US, which is trying to organize and control the European space, as well as other areas in the world. However, let's not expect a revival of Germany from nationalist or traditionalist parts of society that are completely permeated with "historical shame". Even the liberal and democratic spectrum of German society has a keen interest in independence from the US. German economists today have a deep interest against American control. German society today finds itself in a very deep conflict with Washington. It's not just about the NSA spying scandal.

MO: You talk about the economy, social aspects and the liberal society in Germany. What role, for example, does "German national identity" play in the conflict with the US?

AD: I knew this question would come up…

MO: Because it is an important aspect?

AD: It certainly is, but it will play no role in the conflict with Washington that will occur in the near future. Such aspects are completely unacceptable today. Let's be realistic. Even in Germany itself, issues such as "German national identity" are not discussed. So if it doesn't play a role in Germany, how can it be the main reason for the conflict with Washington? The clash of economic and social interests between Washington and Berlin is far more dangerous to the American presence in Germany and Europe today than any identitarian or national-cultural agenda.

MO: So in your opinion, our national identity will play no role in the future "German question"?

AD: I didn't say that! It is certain that it will play no role in the near future and in the question of German emancipation from the American occupying power. At present there are perfectly rational reasons for this emancipation, and this unsettles Washington far more than any traditional anti-American positions in Germany.

MO: A few weeks ago, a paradoxical situation occurred in a German talk show . The former US ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum, lectured German politicians and journalists in it. He declared that Washington and Berlin were "partners" and not "friends". Otto von Bismarck once said that foreign policy is about interests, not friendship. How is it that an American diplomat is giving us lessons from Bismarck's way of thinking today?

AD: I don't dwell on this situation at all. After the Second World War, free thinking, especially regarding relations with the occupying powers, was absolutely forbidden in Germany. Before 1945, we could observe nationally oriented thinking about the fate of Germany, in all political camps. Communists, social democrats, liberals, national conservatives and national socialists all had the German nation at the center of their thinking. German patriotism was not at all an invention of the National Socialists, as many Germans think today. Nationally oriented thinking in politics can also be found in other countries such as France, the United States, Great Britain or Russia. It is quite normal to think nationally. It was also a German tradition until 1945. After 1945, this way of thinking was banned and vilified in Germany. Germans were suddenly obliged to think in terms of "humanity," "international community," "Western values," and other cosmopolitan terms. Re-education in the post-war period was to ensure that the new German elite would not work to create a free and independent Germany. The complete absence of any possibility of nationally oriented thinking in German politics was caused by the Soviet occupying power in the GDR and the American occupying power in the NSR. The Germans were brought up in an anti-German way of thinking. So we cannot expect from the German elite or intelligentsia, with a few exceptions of course, any German nationally oriented thinking. So we should not be at all surprised that German politicians and intellectuals speak of "friendship" and not "interests" when it comes to relations with the occupying forces. If any German politician leaves this sphere, he is immediately silenced by the Germans, who defend this anti-German sphere of thought. It is a kind of mental and intellectual "gulag" or "concentration camp". Only with the difference that this time the Americans are the commanders of this camp and the German elite play the role of the "hoods", the camp police. You should accept this situation or rise against it. It is still too early for an uprising, but it will certainly happen in the future.

A free and independent Germany is a great chance for all of Europe. Europe can break free from American dominance only with a free Germany.

The interview with Alexander Dugin "Occupation is Occupation!" was taken from Manuel Ochsenreiter's personal blog.


Deleted user has reacted to this post.
Deleted user