[mdp2021]

> Genuinely curious

Of course! I think you just should (or at least that it makes full sense to ask).

I remember - to the best of my memory, it was probably well over five years ago when I read the articles - it was the geopolitics course at Uni Moscow; the professor is/was an ideologist influential in the circle of the core decision makers. The list included a pretty large number of objectives, of which the current topic is just a line.

When, after the war really started¹ and of course you think of the tick-mark in the list, I looked for the original article, I found it definitely not the most immediate needle in the haystack. A few weeks later, though, as the ideologists started to present their point of view to the western public, one interview emerged which I have good reasons to believe was from the above said professor.

I will check for you later when I will have some contiguous time: the name of that interviewed professor (easier to find: I have it in my RSS harvest) should be a better lead to retrieve the articles about his course about the national geopolitical objectives.

¹With reference to those commentators which gave it for a fact well before the actual border trespassing - e.g. Niall Ferguson.

[SlickNixon]

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin, Foundations of Geopolitics (1997).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

[mdp2021]

Exactly that, thank you!

Correctly, as I remembered, he was one of the voices that gave interviews to spread the "creed" in the past weeks - I recognized the name. And he stated in the interviews: "We will get hurt immensely, but we will reach the goal" - this shall be an intellectual warning to the adopters of naïve rational-agentism ("homo oeconomicus would never").

I see that I remembered the wrong faculty: he worked at the Department of Sociology (I probably confused the book name with the department). And I see that the use as textbook has been sparse - adopted and celebrated here and there.

I must recommend that readers go through that list: it is "quite strong". The presence of the UK in the list as an entity that should be separated from Europe is what woke up some commentators after Brexit, with the question "Could they have helped it - surely they expressed they wanted it".

Reported words of that author, that may give a sketchy profile:

> I think that Internet as such, as a phenomenon is worth prohibiting because it gives nobody anything good

> If we want to liberate ourselves from the West, it is needed to liberate ourselves from textbooks on physics and chemistry

...And those lines should again be flashing hints to those who like to consider the players at the chessboard agents following a common rational framework.