Alexander Dugin’s Interview on OPEN TV’s Status Quo, 25 November 2025

Alexander Dugin’s Interview on OPEN TV’s Status Quo, 25 November 2025

Alexander Dugin spoke on OPEN TV’s  (a Greek TV channel)  geopolitical program Status Quo on 25 November 2025, discussing global shifts, the SMO, and the US plan for Ukraine.

Professor Dugin, thank you for doing this interview. Welcome. Let me start with this: How do you view the U.S. proposal for ending the war in Ukraine? And what do you see as the most likely scenario in the coming months?

Thank you for inviting me. I think that the plan Trump has suggested is pure humiliation for Ukraine and for the European Union, because it amounts to a kind of surrender—an acceptance of the main claims of the Russian position. But at the same time, we see that Trump is a realist. He has a very realistic approach to the conflict and clearly intends to end the war in Ukraine. He has suggested a kind of realistic plan. It cannot satisfy Ukraine; it cannot satisfy the European Union because it represents a clear humiliation for them—it is a surrender. But at the same time, it is not very well accepted by Russia either, because we need something more than just the recognition of Crimea, Donbass, and other regions already controlled by us. We need to put an end to what we see as the Nazi regime in Ukraine, and we need the total demilitarization of Ukraine, and we are ready to fight for this end. We are not very happy with Trump’s plan. So everybody is unhappy, except Trump himself.

So, I think the plan will not be accepted by the Ukrainian side or by the European Union. They will sabotage it. And I think that the war in Ukraine will continue. In the coming months, I believe the victory of Russia will become much more evident and much more clear and transparent to everybody.

In the West, Ukraine is seen as a sovereign state under attack. In your intellectual framework, what does Ukraine represent?

Sovereignty hasn’t meant much over the last hundred years. I do not seriously consider Ukrainian sovereignty as something substantial. Ukraine can belong either to us or to the West—that is what this is all about. It is not about a sovereign state. There are no more sovereign states in the sense they existed in the Westphalian world 100 years ago. Now sovereignty is just a formality that does not correspond to any real geopolitical content. So I think that Ukraine is now torn apart between us and the West. We are sovereign, the West is sovereign, and Ukraine is simply the territory where two sovereignties confront each other.

What does that mean? And I’m trying to understand why Kyiv is so important to you. It has to do with history, with geopolitics. Why?

Ukraine is part of our geopolitical sphere of influence. It is part of our Christian Orthodox—Russian Christian Orthodox—civilization, and it should be either neutral or friendly. It cannot be hostile. The West has turned Ukraine into an anti-Russia, into a territory of hatred toward Russia. We cannot tolerate that. Ukraine can exist only as neutral or as friendly; it cannot exist as something hostile, and it will not exist in such a form.

Source

Alexander Dugin’s Interview on OPEN TV’s Status Quo, 25 November 2025

Alexander Dugin spoke on OPEN TV’s  (a Greek TV channel)  geopolitical program Status Quo on 25 November 2025, discussing global shifts, the SMO, and the US plan for Ukraine.

Professor Dugin, thank you for doing this interview. Welcome. Let me start with this: How do you view the U.S. proposal for ending the war in Ukraine? And what do you see as the most likely scenario in the coming months?

Thank you for inviting me. I think that the plan Trump has suggested is pure humiliation for Ukraine and for the European Union, because it amounts to a kind of surrender—an acceptance of the main claims of the Russian position. But at the same time, we see that Trump is a realist. He has a very realistic approach to the conflict and clearly intends to end the war in Ukraine. He has suggested a kind of realistic plan. It cannot satisfy Ukraine; it cannot satisfy the European Union because it represents a clear humiliation for them—it is a surrender. But at the same time, it is not very well accepted by Russia either, because we need something more than just the recognition of Crimea, Donbass, and other regions already controlled by us. We need to put an end to what we see as the Nazi regime in Ukraine, and we need the total demilitarization of Ukraine, and we are ready to fight for this end. We are not very happy with Trump’s plan. So everybody is unhappy, except Trump himself.

So, I think the plan will not be accepted by the Ukrainian side or by the European Union. They will sabotage it. And I think that the war in Ukraine will continue. In the coming months, I believe the victory of Russia will become much more evident and much more clear and transparent to everybody.

In the West, Ukraine is seen as a sovereign state under attack. In your intellectual framework, what does Ukraine represent?

Sovereignty hasn’t meant much over the last hundred years. I do not seriously consider Ukrainian sovereignty as something substantial. Ukraine can belong either to us or to the West—that is what this is all about. It is not about a sovereign state. There are no more sovereign states in the sense they existed in the Westphalian world 100 years ago. Now sovereignty is just a formality that does not correspond to any real geopolitical content. So I think that Ukraine is now torn apart between us and the West. We are sovereign, the West is sovereign, and Ukraine is simply the territory where two sovereignties confront each other.

What does that mean? And I’m trying to understand why Kyiv is so important to you. It has to do with history, with geopolitics. Why?

Ukraine is part of our geopolitical sphere of influence. It is part of our Christian Orthodox—Russian Christian Orthodox—civilization, and it should be either neutral or friendly. It cannot be hostile. The West has turned Ukraine into an anti-Russia, into a territory of hatred toward Russia. We cannot tolerate that. Ukraine can exist only as neutral or as friendly; it cannot exist as something hostile, and it will not exist in such a form.

Source