Anti-Liberal Forces Are Preparing For The 'Final Battle' Against The West

Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to send arms to countries that could attack Ukraine's allies (i.e. the West). Speaking at a press conference with foreign news organizations at Russia's annual economic forum in St Petersburg on June 5, Putin said: "We believe that if someone is thinking that it is possible to supply such weapons [i.e. advanced high-tech, high-precision and long-range weapons] to a war zone in order to deliver strikes at our territory and to create problems for us, why can we not supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia? The response could be symmetric. We will give it a thought." (See ANNEX)

As tensions rise between Israel and Hizbullah, which keeps firing rockets into the north of Israel,  anti-liberal Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin suggested that Russia should supply "serious weapons to Hizbullah and the Houthis, up to and including tactical nuclear weapons."[1]

(Source: Twitter)

'One War; Many Fronts'

In the wake of October 7 Hamas massacre, renowned Russian political expert Fyodor Lukyanov, explained that Israel is an integral part of the "Collective West," which Russia fiercely confronts.[2] Soon after the attack, Hamas leader abroad Khaled Mash'al said that the Russians are benefiting from it because it is keeping the U.S. distracted from the war in Ukraine.[3] Mash'al went on to claim that the Russians said that the October 7 attack would be taught in military academies.[4] Osama Hamdan of Hamas's political bureau said at a May 5, 2024 symposium that Hamas maintains contact with Russia and China and that the power of the "resistance axis" is at the service of these countries' international role.[5]

In order to defeat the "Collective West," Russia is strengthening relations with all anti-liberal movements and dictatorships. According to Dugin, the final battle against the liberal West is approaching. He said: "Gradually, all countries, continents, and civilizations are becoming an arena of ferocious struggle between the fading unipolar world and the rising multipolar one. One war. Many fronts."[6] That is, the war against the Collective West will be fought on many fronts to bring about, first and foremost, the fall of the U.S.

Dugin stressed: "After all, this is a struggle between the multipolar world and the unipolar world, which means that it is being waged not only in the interests of Russia as a pole, but also indirectly (or even directly) in the interests of all the emerging geopolitical poles. This is best understood by China and, among Islamic countries, by Iran."[7]

Each Pole 'Must Prove Its Right For Existence Through Conflict'

The anti-liberal Russian philosopher explained that "new poles" (i.e. the emerging anti-liberal powers, mainly Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) that "do not agree to tolerate" the West's "hegemony" will have to fight militarily for the demise of the West-led unipolar world order, so as to replace it with a multipolar world order, in which liberal democracy will be defeated.[8]

Yet, stated Dugin, "multipolarity will not be formed by itself," and "each of the poles must prove its right for existence through conflict." This means that the final battle will be fought on several fronts by the anti-liberal forces with the common goal of shaping "full-fledged and sovereign poles."[9] Russia will fight for total victory in Ukraine; China will go for Taiwan's annexation (and possibly the militarization of the South China Sea); North Korea will invade South Korea; and the Iran-led resistance axis will attack Israel (and U.S. interests in the Middle East). Moreover, Dugin suggested, more attention should be paid to Mexico, since newly elected President Claudia Sheinbaum may become an ally against Western liberal democracy.[10]

As WWIII is taking shape, the West cannot now afford to show weakness and division if it wants to deter the enemy.

*Anna Mahjar-Barducci is Senior Research Fellow at MEMRI.

ANNEX: Putin's Meeting With Heads Of International News Agencies – Kremlin.ru, June 5, 2024

At a press conference with foreign news organizations at Russia's annual economic forum in St Petersburg on June 5, Russian President Vladimir Putin answered a question about the war in Ukraine by the Italian news agency ANSA. Below is the transcript of his reply:[11]

ANSA Deputy Editor-in-Chief Stefano Polli: "Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you for organizing this meeting. I would like to ask a question about the latest events in Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg proposed that Ukraine be given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied from Europe. European countries and the United States agreed with this idea. Not all of them, but the United States did. At the same time, there is a discussion in some countries about sending military advisers and instructors.

"I would like to ask you to comment on these two decisions and what Russia's reaction to them will be. Thank you."

Vladimir Putin: "There is nothing new in terms of having advisers and instructors. They are present in Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, they suffer losses. I know this for sure. This is not done on purpose, but losses happen during hostilities. However, the European countries and the United States prefer to keep it secret. This is first.

"Second, as for long-range precision weapons. We need to divide this topic into two parts.

"First, conventional weapons: a multiple-launch rocket system, a long-range of 70 kilometers or something similar. It has been used for a long time. In fact, Ukrainian military personnel can do this on their own. And as for advanced high-tech, high-precision and long-range weapons, such as the British Storm Shadow or the American ATACMS, or French missiles, what can we say? I have also spoken about this, by the way, when I left Uzbekistan.

"ATACMS: 300 kilometers. How are they used and how are they transported? They handed over a missile system (the Pentagon, the Americans did). But how is it used? Ukrainian military personnel cannot do everything on their own and launch strikes with this missile. They are simply technologically unable to do this because it requires satellite reconnaissance; then, based on satellite reconnaissance data (and this is American satellite reconnaissance), a flight mission is formed and then entered into the missile system. And then the soldier who is next to it does it simply automatically: he presses the buttons. He may not even know what will happen next.

"What can the Ukrainian military – not the ones who are just sitting there and pressing buttons – but the higher-ranking ones do when it comes to target assignment? They can identify a target that is a priority for them. But they are not the ones who decide whether a particular target should be hit, because, to reiterate, a WTA (weapon target assignment) is formed and effectively entered only by those who supply the weapons. If we are talking about ATACMS, then the Pentagon is doing it. If it is Storm Shadow, then the British are. It is even more straightforward in the case of Storm Shadow, because the target assignment is entered automatically, without the involvement of the military personnel on the ground. The British do it, that is all there is to it.

"And when the Bundeswehr military were pondering an attack on the Crimean Bridge or other targets, they were thinking for themselves. No one was doing it for them, right? They were going to do it. The same goes for the French specialists. Western specialists do it.

"We have no illusions about it. How are we supposed to respond?

"First, we will, of course, improve our air defense systems. We will be destroying their missiles.

"Second, we believe that if someone is thinking that it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone in order to deliver strikes at our territory and to create problems for us, why can we not supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia? The response could be symmetrical. We will give it a thought.

"Third, sure enough, such actions will wreck international relations, which have already hit rock bottom, and undermine international security. Ultimately, if we see that these countries are being embroiled into a war against us, and this constitutes their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, we reserve the right to respond in kind. Generally speaking, this path may lead to serious problems. I think that covers it all. If you have any leading questions, please go ahead. But I do not think I can add anything to what I just said."