SMO, the battle for the 'end of history'!
Let us think about the philosophical meaning of SMO (Editor's note: let us again remind readers that SMO stands for Special Military Operation). The SMO is inextricably linked to the concept of the 'end of history', not only because Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the famous text entitled The End of History, from day one of the SMO actively joined the ideological struggle against Russia on the side of the Ukrainian nationalists and even personally joined the terrorist organisation Bellingcat, which, among other things, tried to hijack a military aircraft in Russia, although this fact is very expressive in itself; the central fact is that Russia is directly opposed to globalism, to that 'liberal totalitarianism', as President Putin has openly put it, which is an ideology, and the 'end of history' plays a key role in its structure.
The fact is that globalism, which finds its greatest representation in international organisations such as Klaus Schwab's Davos Forum with its 'Great Resett', the Trilateral Commission, the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or George Soros' Open Society Foundation insists on the complete unification of humanity under one world government, with liberal ideology and a system of rules and norms based on it - including gender politics, LGBT+, extreme individualism and transhumanism - spreading everywhere; this is the 'end of history', which is clearly premature, but still quite logical and was described in the early 1990s by Francis Fukuyama. The end of history is the victory of liberalism and the West on a global scale, which implies the abolition of any ideological, geopolitical, economic and socio-cultural alternatives. Fukuyama was writing at a time when the USSR had collapsed and Russia looked as if it would never rise again, while China obediently followed the strategies of Western economic powers in that accelerating phase of globalisation. Fukuyama later admitted, even in a conversation with me, that he had been hasty, but the end of history, no matter what, remained and remains the goal of the globalists.
Putin's Russia has become the obvious obstacle to the end of history and, after the start of the SMO, has posed a direct challenge to this project. Hence Fukuyama's anger: in front of him, the project of the end of history has not only been postponed, but has definitely collapsed. This also explains the frenzy and extreme intensity of the Western elites' rabid Russophobia. Putin and the Donbass have dealt a major blow to the global civilisation plan, the planetary domination of the liberal West.
However, the concept of the end of history is not the preserve of liberals. Moreover, they adopted it rather late.
Philosopher Alexander Kozhev was the first to consistently describe the coming global victory of the liberal West, while Fukuyama only borrowed it. Kozhev, for his part, borrowed it from Marx, only changing the triumph of world communism (the Marxian version of the end of history) to world capitalism, planetary civil society and 'human rights' ideology. In reality, the entire communist movement, including the USSR, fought for the Marxist understanding of the end of history in the 20th century. During the Cold War, a dispute erupted over the interpretation of the end of history, whether it would be communist or capitalist. It is no coincidence that Fukuyama wrote his policy text when the USSR collapsed. At that moment it seemed that the matter was settled and liberalism had won for good.
However, Marx himself borrowed this concept in a completely different political ideology, from the deeply conservative monarchist and imperial thinker Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. If we dig even deeper, we arrive at Christian and even pre-Christian (first and foremost Iranian) eschatology, at the doctrine of the end of time... but that will take us too far. In modernity, it was Hegel who proposed and supported the thesis of the end of history and in the system of his philosophy it plays a fundamental role.
According to Hegel, history is a process of unfolding of the Spirit, passing through nature, changing religions and civilisations, until it reaches its culmination - the end meets the beginning, the alpha meets the omega. Through many trials and dialectical twists and turns, the Spirit that guides humanity will finally incarnate into an absolute Monarchy, a world empire that will be an empire of the Spirit. Its power will be transferred to a supreme autocrat, an enlightened monarch-philosopher. Capitalism and civil society will only be a phase in the unfolding of this process, and scientific materialism will pass into purely spiritual angelic science. Hegel believed that this would happen in Germany (the German Empire did not yet exist at the time) and would be the triumph of spiritual culture and German philosophy. Hegel, in a philosophical sense, was the basis on which Bismarck created the Second Reich.
Thus, the authentic interpretation of the 'end of history' by the creator of this concept is the triumph of the World Spiritual Monarchy. And the right-wing Hegelians - the Russian Slavophiles or the followers of Giovanni Gentile in Italy - believed exactly that. The Germans themselves believed in the mission of their Reich. The Slavophiles interpreted it as a prediction of the fate of the Russian Empire, when it would become spiritual and popular. The Italians linked the end of history to the revival of the Roman tradition and the greatness of Italy.
Marx, who transformed Hegel's spiritual dialectic into his historical materialism (significantly perverting the original), accepted that liberal capitalism was only an intermediate stage, but put communism and a materialist worldview in the place of the Empire of the Spirit. The eschatology remained: everything the communists did was aimed precisely at the future, i.e. the end of history.
The Soviet victory over the Third Reich in the Great Patriotic War removed the German interpretation of the end of history from the agenda. Left-wing Hegelianism triumphed over right-wing Hegelianism; on another level, the Russian Empire defeated (albeit implicitly) the German Empire.
It was then that Kozhev appeared with his liberal interpretation of the end of history. This theory was as if on hold and after the collapse of the USSR Fukuyama reminded the West of it, and the globalist centres picked it up and began to put it into practice. The unipolar world order was based on a liberal version of Hegelian eschatology.
And then there was Putin. Putin is a 'philosophical phenomenon' in a sense, a turning point in the history of thought, in the complex battle of ideas and worldviews. From his first moment in power, he began to restore Russia's sovereignty, but this meant postponing the end of history, opposing liberal totalitarianism, globalism and world government. Putin pursued this line cautiously, often disguising his intentions and plans - as a Czechist and as a staunch realist. At times he seemed ready to meet the globalists' demands, but a moment later it turned out to be just another ploy. Hence the puzzled question: "Who are you, Mr Putin?".
Only on 24 February 2022 did the start of the SWO in Ukraine put things into their proper perspective with all clarity. A new era of philosophy began. A new phase of world history. Putin has challenged the liberal interpretation of the end of history, i.e. the main globalist project, World Government, but this is where the most important thing begins: refuting the liberal reading of the end of history does not mean rejecting Hegel. After all, everyone knows that Putin likes to quote Ivan Ilyin, who was only a right-wing Hegelian, a supporter of the Russian monarchy and the Great Empire. The theories of the Slavophiles are clearly close to those of Putin. A philosophical idea cannot be denied on the basis of some purely practical and concrete factors, e.g. purely economic ones. It is not serious. An idea can only be defeated by an idea. And this means....
It means that SMO as a philosophical phenomenon marks the return of the Empire. The return of Russia to Empire, the full restoration of our futuristic messianic destiny. Germany, in its current state, is no longer a competitor. The German version of the World Reich is irreversibly off the agenda. Even the communist project of the end of history has been abandoned and, in its best aspects, could easily be incorporated into a new imperial synthesis (like 'right-wing Stalinism'). We are opposed only by Kozhev and Fukuyama, who rely on the same sources much closer to us. We are the orthodox bearers of the Eurasian Empire of the End, they are the usurpers. If one thinks of the Third Rome and the role of the Russian tsars as the bearers of the mission of Catechon, the Ruler, everything becomes even more fundamental compared to the very orthodox and Russian-read (Slavophile, monarchical) context of Hegelianism.
SMO is a battle for the meaning of the end of history. A great philosophical battle. It is time to close the page on purely materialistic, energetic and economic interpretations: they are not only vulgar, they are fallacious. History is the history of ideas.
One may ask: what does Ukraine have to do with it? It has nothing to do with Ukraine, it does not exist, but it will be part of our new empire. Only there, in the philosophical realm of an unfolding Spirit, in the empire of meanings, will it be able to revive and flourish, but for now, what do we want from a terrorist regime led by a comedian... It is a misunderstanding, but Ukraine itself is destined to become a theatre of fundamental metaphysical struggle. I think it is a question of geography. We are fighting for the return of our historical cradle, Kiev, from the power of the globalists to the power of the Empire of the Spirit. Kiev is the beginning of our history. And therefore also its end.
Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini