What do you think?
Rate this book
Putin vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right
According to Prof Alexander Dugin, Vladimir Putin stands at a crossroads. Throughout his career as the President of Russia, Putin has attempted to balance two opposing sides of his political nature: one side is a liberal democrat who seeks to adopt Western-style reforms in Russia and maintain good relations with the United States and Europe, and the other is a Russian patriot who wishes to preserve Russia's traditions and reassert her role as one of the great powers of the world. According to Dugin, this balancing act cannot go on if Putin wishes to enjoy continuing popular support among the Russian people. Putin must act to preserve Russia's unique identity and sovereignty in the face of increasing challenges, both from Russian liberals at home and from foreign powers. Russia is no longer strong enough to stand on her own, he writes. In order to do this, Russia must cooperate with other dissenting powers who oppose the new globalist order of liberalism to bring about a multipolar world, in which no single nation wields supreme power, but rather several major powers keep each other in balance. Russia is crucial to this effort, in Dugin's view, and indeed, its own survival as a unique and independent civilisation is dependent on a geopolitical shift away from the unipolar world represented by America's unchecked supremacy. This fascinating book, written by an informal advisor to Putin and a Kremlin insider, is the first of its kind in English.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
15 people are currently reading
917 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Dugin
122 books452 followersAleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин, born 7 January 1962) is a Russian philosopher and activist. As a founder of the Russian Geopolitical School and the Eurasian Movement, Dugin is considered as one of the most important exponents of modern Russian conservative thought in the line of slavophiles. He earned his PhD in Sociology, in Political sciences, and also in Philosophy. During six years (2008 – 2014), he was the head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations in Sociological Faculty of Moscow State University. His publications include more than sixty books such as Foundations of Geopolitics, Fourth Political Theory, Theory of Multipolar World, Noomakhia (24 volumes), Ethnosociology. The influence of Dugin’s thought on modern day Russia (including political leaders) is recognized by not only his followers but also his philosophical and political opponents. His ideas are sometimes judged controversial or nonconformist but almost all agree that they are inspiring and original.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 23, 2019
Decent write up, though it's a collection spanning something like a decade and a half of his writings. Its a bit disjointed due to that.
He includes a lot of his own philosophical and political viewpoints, which I largely agree with (though some I dont), but the book has the majority focus obviously on Putin.
The disjointedness led to encounters where he was saying Putin is gonna be great, then at others where hes nearing the end of the road, hes great already, hes bad now, etc. It's confusing sometimes but overall not too bad.
He includes a lot of his own philosophical and political viewpoints, which I largely agree with (though some I dont), but the book has the majority focus obviously on Putin.
The disjointedness led to encounters where he was saying Putin is gonna be great, then at others where hes nearing the end of the road, hes great already, hes bad now, etc. It's confusing sometimes but overall not too bad.
Read
February 15, 2024Friend (just trying to make conversation): Did you watch the Putin interview?
Me (unnecessarily being an a*hole): No. I read books.
Me (unnecessarily being an a*hole): No. I read books.
December 3, 2025
"The Putin the West has imagined does not exist."
Dugin’s Putin vs. Putin explores Putin’s ideology, how it has changed over the years, his accomplishments and some critiques. Most of these articles were written during Putin’s first presidency (between 2000 and 2002), while others are from later years up to 2014. While this has its drawbacks, much of the analysis of Putin’s political motivations regarding the post-Soviet territories and NATO expansion still stands. Dugin shows what is at stake for Russia in its confrontation with the colossus of Western hegemony and what Putin represents to the Russian people.
The main weakness of Dugin’s analysis is his incoherent and contradictory political philosophy comprising the so-called “Fourth Political Theory,” Eurasianism and multipolarity which are ultimately at odds with the popular Russian nationalism that Putin symbolizes. I’ll return to this later.
Putin’s Political Ideology
“From the outset Putin embodied the (political) formula: nationalism (patriotism) plus liberalism (economic reform)...This position was situated strictly between the liberal elite and the nationalist-inclined masses. It effectively released the enormous tensions between the social and political worlds. The united element between the elite and the masses is nationalism, the separating element is still the liberal economy.”
Dugin presents Putin’s politics as a reaction to the political situation that plagued Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “After the collapse of the Soviet system two forces became clearly dominant in Russian politics: pro-Western liberals (reformers) and non-liberal nationalists…After the 1991 coup the pro-Western liberals seized control (exploiting the authoritarian nature of Yeltsin)...Basically, it was a kind of liberal dictatorship.”
Putin became Yeltsin’s chosen successor by Russia’s pro-Western elite after “realising that Yeltsin was unable to rule and that an explicit adoption of a liberal (Western) course would alienate the majority of the population, made up their mind to promote a manageable patriot with populist features…Putin was promoted…His ‘patriotism’ was initially intended to be controlled and merely a front.”
Putin’s political tactic tapped into the popular nationalism of the masses while granting a conciliatory liberalism. “Liberalism was supposed to pacify the West.” This contradictory political dynamic, the balancing of two vectors–nationalism and liberalism, left a hostile and destructive seed within Putin’s political program for Russia. The liberal element would always be in opposition to the nationalism of the majority and vice-versa. Putin would eventually have to face this contradiction years later by consolidating power and taking an overtly illiberal position.
Putin’s Accomplishments
Dugin sees Putin’s primary accomplishments as:
1. Stopping the disintegration of Russia by suppressing Chechen Islamic separatism. This occurred during Putin’s first presidency and was an early signal of his shift towards a more robust Russian nationalism that aimed for re-integration of the entire post-Soviet space.
2. Strengthening the power vertical and territorial integrity of Russia by introducing the rigid structure of the federal districts and abolishing regional governor elections for the purpose of achieving direct strategic control over the governors to prevent territorial subdivisions within Russia from political autonomy.
3. Defending Russia's national interests in foreign policy by opposing NATO expansion into the post-Soviet space, which destabilizes the political environment throughout its entire sphere of influence.
4. Banning the opposition media and purging rebellious oligarchs.
5. Strengthening Russia's positions in the post-Soviet space towards eventual re-integration.
A Good Critique of Liberalism
Dugin presents a critique of liberalism and explains why it is incompatible with the Russian national idea.
“Liberalism does not have roots in Russian history or culture.”
“Liberalism is an anti-national ideology that is destructive for Russia…The individual is the cornerstone of liberalism as an ideology–namely, an individual stripped of any collective identity (be it class, national, communal or religious). Liberalism calls to overcome national statehood and refuses religious identity, treating religion as a private matter, and opposes any attempts at giving religion a social or public, let alone political, dimension.”
“Individual freedom abolishes all forms of collective identity.” As a result, liberalism threatens Russian national identity, its traditions and social values, and its religious institutions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism was imported into Russia “disguised as ‘perestroika,’ democracy,’ and ‘modernization.’”
Liberalism’s central tenet “democracy” as a political goal for Russia is a “means and weapon of America in the contemporary world…as a self-sustaining virus…the promotion of democracy is an effective method of extending US influence…If democracy is imported into societies with weak individualistic principles…it destroys whole ensembles and creates chaos. Democracy in such a system performs a creative and genocidal function at the same time.”
Critique of Putin: What’s at Stake?
From the beginning of Putin’s political career, his attempt to blend nationalism and a conciliatory form of liberalism forced him to use strange language, trying to voice nationalist ideas using liberal jargon.This permitted an opening for the liberal opposition’s continued presence in the political system, creating a dual power paradigm.
“Liberals still occupy strong positions among the political elite–in inverse proportion to their support in society. Since they have the support of external forces, they may inflict serious harm on Putin and the country.” This fifth column acts on both sides of the state: “from the opposition and from inside the centre of power itself.”
Dugin predicted that this fifth column that Putin had failed to purge from the government institutions would most likely be activated by the West: “the numerous NGOs, funds and radical opposition forces. They will be delegated with the task to create a social atmosphere…which will be detrimental to Putin.” The goal is destabilization and regime change.
This internal dynamic weakened Putin’s ability to create a foreign policy instrument capable of an efficient confrontation with Western hegemony.
This criticism of Putin has primarily been resolved in the last decade since the conflict in Ukraine has forced him to pivot to a consolidation of power that purged much of the fifth column forces from his government and from Russian society (banning many forms of Western ideological warfare meant to destabilize Russia and create unrest).
The nationalist-liberal paradox had largely run its course by the time Dugin compiled these articles in 2012 and 2014 and Putin had actively taken a staunchly illiberal position. The reserves of social democracy were depleted and in order for Russia to survive the looming confrontation with the West-by-proxy in Ukraine, Putin had to assume genuine nationalism and discard his liberal veneer.
Dugin’s Incoherent Political Philosophy
Dugin explicitly condemns liberalism as an "anti-national" ideology, stating that Putin must prioritize "patriotism and a Russian national idea.” Furthermore, in criticizing globalism, he states: "Globalism transforms countries and people from sovereign subjects into instruments, over whom sovereignty is gradually passed from the hands of national governors to a supranational authority."
Yet, in elaborating his Eurasianism (a blend of Eastern and Western identities) and Fourth Political Theory (communism, fascism, and liberalism being the first "failed" three, he asserts a hodge-podge "Fourth Way"), he claims that the goal of these ideas is the creation of a multipolar world which "does not seriously consider the sovereignty of existing national states." Indeed, he rejects any form of national identity based in ethnos (ethnic/racial identity), yet that's exactly what liberalism seeks to extinguish as well. He later states that his own Fourth Political Theory "refuses to consider 'race' or the 'state' as the subject of history." Yet, it is Russia's unique ethnic identities that have defined its history and national idea; even under communism a "council of nations (peoples)" was established to recognize and give autonomy to the different ethnic and national identities within Russia.
The Eurasian idea advocates a multinational state while contradictorily rejecting the status of Russia’s national republics. He condemns the creation of a national state which “leads to the leveling of ethnic cultures existing within the territory of Russia,” while proposing “a single economic space in which immigration and border controls will be removed between them.”
The contradictions continue: "Ethnic groups must not obtain legal status." The national republics must be abolished. He goes on: "That said, Eurasianism does not want to diminish the ethnic, religious, or cultural rights of any communities living within Russian territory."
Eurasianism, like liberalism, diminishes Russian national identity. While Putin has made use of both in his rhetoric (once stating that “Russia has always seen itself as a Eurasian country”), his authority is rooted in Russian nationalism. The path towards multipolarity is for Russia to become an empire again which incorporates its national republics in a uniquely Russian system, not to be subsumed into an ill-defined Eurasian bloc similar to the European Union (which has likewise harmed nationalism throughout Europe). Eurasianism may be a good tool in pursuit of re-integrating the post-Soviet territories, along with defining Russia’s alliances, but it is ultimately the Russian national idea that must decide her future.
Dugin’s Putin vs. Putin explores Putin’s ideology, how it has changed over the years, his accomplishments and some critiques. Most of these articles were written during Putin’s first presidency (between 2000 and 2002), while others are from later years up to 2014. While this has its drawbacks, much of the analysis of Putin’s political motivations regarding the post-Soviet territories and NATO expansion still stands. Dugin shows what is at stake for Russia in its confrontation with the colossus of Western hegemony and what Putin represents to the Russian people.
The main weakness of Dugin’s analysis is his incoherent and contradictory political philosophy comprising the so-called “Fourth Political Theory,” Eurasianism and multipolarity which are ultimately at odds with the popular Russian nationalism that Putin symbolizes. I’ll return to this later.
Putin’s Political Ideology
“From the outset Putin embodied the (political) formula: nationalism (patriotism) plus liberalism (economic reform)...This position was situated strictly between the liberal elite and the nationalist-inclined masses. It effectively released the enormous tensions between the social and political worlds. The united element between the elite and the masses is nationalism, the separating element is still the liberal economy.”
Dugin presents Putin’s politics as a reaction to the political situation that plagued Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “After the collapse of the Soviet system two forces became clearly dominant in Russian politics: pro-Western liberals (reformers) and non-liberal nationalists…After the 1991 coup the pro-Western liberals seized control (exploiting the authoritarian nature of Yeltsin)...Basically, it was a kind of liberal dictatorship.”
Putin became Yeltsin’s chosen successor by Russia’s pro-Western elite after “realising that Yeltsin was unable to rule and that an explicit adoption of a liberal (Western) course would alienate the majority of the population, made up their mind to promote a manageable patriot with populist features…Putin was promoted…His ‘patriotism’ was initially intended to be controlled and merely a front.”
Putin’s political tactic tapped into the popular nationalism of the masses while granting a conciliatory liberalism. “Liberalism was supposed to pacify the West.” This contradictory political dynamic, the balancing of two vectors–nationalism and liberalism, left a hostile and destructive seed within Putin’s political program for Russia. The liberal element would always be in opposition to the nationalism of the majority and vice-versa. Putin would eventually have to face this contradiction years later by consolidating power and taking an overtly illiberal position.
Putin’s Accomplishments
Dugin sees Putin’s primary accomplishments as:
1. Stopping the disintegration of Russia by suppressing Chechen Islamic separatism. This occurred during Putin’s first presidency and was an early signal of his shift towards a more robust Russian nationalism that aimed for re-integration of the entire post-Soviet space.
2. Strengthening the power vertical and territorial integrity of Russia by introducing the rigid structure of the federal districts and abolishing regional governor elections for the purpose of achieving direct strategic control over the governors to prevent territorial subdivisions within Russia from political autonomy.
3. Defending Russia's national interests in foreign policy by opposing NATO expansion into the post-Soviet space, which destabilizes the political environment throughout its entire sphere of influence.
4. Banning the opposition media and purging rebellious oligarchs.
5. Strengthening Russia's positions in the post-Soviet space towards eventual re-integration.
A Good Critique of Liberalism
Dugin presents a critique of liberalism and explains why it is incompatible with the Russian national idea.
“Liberalism does not have roots in Russian history or culture.”
“Liberalism is an anti-national ideology that is destructive for Russia…The individual is the cornerstone of liberalism as an ideology–namely, an individual stripped of any collective identity (be it class, national, communal or religious). Liberalism calls to overcome national statehood and refuses religious identity, treating religion as a private matter, and opposes any attempts at giving religion a social or public, let alone political, dimension.”
“Individual freedom abolishes all forms of collective identity.” As a result, liberalism threatens Russian national identity, its traditions and social values, and its religious institutions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism was imported into Russia “disguised as ‘perestroika,’ democracy,’ and ‘modernization.’”
Liberalism’s central tenet “democracy” as a political goal for Russia is a “means and weapon of America in the contemporary world…as a self-sustaining virus…the promotion of democracy is an effective method of extending US influence…If democracy is imported into societies with weak individualistic principles…it destroys whole ensembles and creates chaos. Democracy in such a system performs a creative and genocidal function at the same time.”
Critique of Putin: What’s at Stake?
From the beginning of Putin’s political career, his attempt to blend nationalism and a conciliatory form of liberalism forced him to use strange language, trying to voice nationalist ideas using liberal jargon.This permitted an opening for the liberal opposition’s continued presence in the political system, creating a dual power paradigm.
“Liberals still occupy strong positions among the political elite–in inverse proportion to their support in society. Since they have the support of external forces, they may inflict serious harm on Putin and the country.” This fifth column acts on both sides of the state: “from the opposition and from inside the centre of power itself.”
Dugin predicted that this fifth column that Putin had failed to purge from the government institutions would most likely be activated by the West: “the numerous NGOs, funds and radical opposition forces. They will be delegated with the task to create a social atmosphere…which will be detrimental to Putin.” The goal is destabilization and regime change.
This internal dynamic weakened Putin’s ability to create a foreign policy instrument capable of an efficient confrontation with Western hegemony.
This criticism of Putin has primarily been resolved in the last decade since the conflict in Ukraine has forced him to pivot to a consolidation of power that purged much of the fifth column forces from his government and from Russian society (banning many forms of Western ideological warfare meant to destabilize Russia and create unrest).
The nationalist-liberal paradox had largely run its course by the time Dugin compiled these articles in 2012 and 2014 and Putin had actively taken a staunchly illiberal position. The reserves of social democracy were depleted and in order for Russia to survive the looming confrontation with the West-by-proxy in Ukraine, Putin had to assume genuine nationalism and discard his liberal veneer.
Dugin’s Incoherent Political Philosophy
Dugin explicitly condemns liberalism as an "anti-national" ideology, stating that Putin must prioritize "patriotism and a Russian national idea.” Furthermore, in criticizing globalism, he states: "Globalism transforms countries and people from sovereign subjects into instruments, over whom sovereignty is gradually passed from the hands of national governors to a supranational authority."
Yet, in elaborating his Eurasianism (a blend of Eastern and Western identities) and Fourth Political Theory (communism, fascism, and liberalism being the first "failed" three, he asserts a hodge-podge "Fourth Way"), he claims that the goal of these ideas is the creation of a multipolar world which "does not seriously consider the sovereignty of existing national states." Indeed, he rejects any form of national identity based in ethnos (ethnic/racial identity), yet that's exactly what liberalism seeks to extinguish as well. He later states that his own Fourth Political Theory "refuses to consider 'race' or the 'state' as the subject of history." Yet, it is Russia's unique ethnic identities that have defined its history and national idea; even under communism a "council of nations (peoples)" was established to recognize and give autonomy to the different ethnic and national identities within Russia.
The Eurasian idea advocates a multinational state while contradictorily rejecting the status of Russia’s national republics. He condemns the creation of a national state which “leads to the leveling of ethnic cultures existing within the territory of Russia,” while proposing “a single economic space in which immigration and border controls will be removed between them.”
The contradictions continue: "Ethnic groups must not obtain legal status." The national republics must be abolished. He goes on: "That said, Eurasianism does not want to diminish the ethnic, religious, or cultural rights of any communities living within Russian territory."
Eurasianism, like liberalism, diminishes Russian national identity. While Putin has made use of both in his rhetoric (once stating that “Russia has always seen itself as a Eurasian country”), his authority is rooted in Russian nationalism. The path towards multipolarity is for Russia to become an empire again which incorporates its national republics in a uniquely Russian system, not to be subsumed into an ill-defined Eurasian bloc similar to the European Union (which has likewise harmed nationalism throughout Europe). Eurasianism may be a good tool in pursuit of re-integrating the post-Soviet territories, along with defining Russia’s alliances, but it is ultimately the Russian national idea that must decide her future.
February 1, 2016
A constantly changing political game of chess and a Russia looking for survival outise his borders.
January 9, 2017
it is good because i like putin
August 11, 2017
This book is chaotic and repetitious and many parts are just rehashes of his other books, so structurally it has serious issues. Dugin also brags about himself shamelessly throughout.
However, there are brilliant moments and useful summaries that make it worth reading, but not as a starting point for understanding Dugin of 4PT.
However, there are brilliant moments and useful summaries that make it worth reading, but not as a starting point for understanding Dugin of 4PT.
April 21, 2017
i wanted to read about the most talked of man in the world.
i found the book a good read although at times i felt the author had extended his opinion rather than being accurate in his research.
i found the book a good read although at times i felt the author had extended his opinion rather than being accurate in his research.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews