Foreign ministers of nations both great and small make statements all the time, most of them silly or just forgettable. Some of them are utterly sinister, like Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s promise to promote homosexual “rights.” This has led to the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, among others, to display the rainbow flag of politicized homosexuality throughout the month of June, “pride” month. Welcome to the United States of advanced postmodernia.

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has also made many statements over the years unworthy of our attention. Last week, however, he spoke eloquently about the most important issue of our time, anti-white racism in the United States and the lamentable consequences of political correctness “taken to the extreme.” In a nationally broadcast TV interview, Moscow’s top diplomat said Russia had long supported a worldwide trend against racism, but that it was important “not to switch to the other extreme which we saw during the ‘BLM’ events and the aggression against white people, white U.S. citizens.”

Lavrov accused the United States of seeking to spread “a cultural revolution” across the globe. A powerful arm of the project, Hollywood, changed its rules so that everything it produces reflects the diversity of modern society, he said: “I’ve seen Black people play in Shakespeare’s comedies. Yet I don’t know when there will be a white Othello. … This is absurd.”

It is literally impossible for the foreign minister of any Western country—in North America, Western Europe, or Oceania—to make a statement of this kind. Even if he or she were to do so in a fit of suicidal madness or cathartic honesty—both well-nigh unimaginable among the Western ruling elite—a hysterical outcry on every printed page and every flickering screen would soon subject them to cancellation. The criminal would be a permanent non-person par excellence.

Lavrov’s statement reflects the fact that, for the past quarter century, Russia has worked hard to rearticulate its objectives and fine-tune its policies in terms of traditional national interests and traditional social mores. The communist-era dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with the West, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert it, on the other, gave way to Boris Yeltsin’s disastrous attempts in the 1990s to forge a “partnership” with the West.

As I pointed out over a decade ago, the early 1990s also witnessed the blossoming of America’s strident attempt to assert its “benevolent global hegemony.” This ambition created an ironic role-reversal. It precluded any suggestion that Russia has legitimate interests, either externally or internally. The justification for the project was just as ideological, and the implications just as revolutionary as anything concocted by Grigory Zinoviev or Leon Trotsky in their heyday:

That a ‘truly democratic’ Russia must be subservient to the ‘propositionalist’ matrix is still axiomatic on both sides of the Atlantic. ‘Democracy’ thus defined has to do with one’s status in the ideological pecking order, rather than the expressed will of the electorate: in line with the Leninist dictum that the moral value of any action is determined by its contribution to the march of history. To wit, Putin’s or Medvedev’s approval ratings are cited as mere ‘proof’ of their populist demagoguery.

The reshaping of Russia’s soul is the final stop. In this respect any gap between the Sorosite “left” and neocon “right,” between Washington and Brussels, is a matter of degree rather than kind. Here is the one crusade Jihadists gleefully support.

In this context, Russia’s then-ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, charted a grand strategy of sanity for all of us over a decade ago, in an interview with the Russia Today television channel:

There is a new civilization emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. … If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.

Rogozin’s ideas were based on an appreciation of the commonalities between Europeans and their overseas descendants—a diagnosis as precise as it is abhorrent to Western elites. It shows that, in all key indicators rooted in respect for conservative principles, Russia is freer than the West. Again, no American or EU diplomat could dare to make such a statement, even if he shared the sentiment, and hope to remain in his post after making it.

Western multiculturalists oppose any notion of “our” physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone. They deny we should have a special affinity for any particular country, nation, or culture, while demanding the imposition of our preferences upon the whole world. They celebrate any random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes as somehow uniquely “diverse” and therefore inherently virtuous.

Ideologues will deny it, but in the decades to come Europe, Russia, and America will be in similar mortal peril. In the end there will be no grand synthesis, no cross-fertilization, and certainly no peaceful coexistence, between the North and the Third World. There will be “kto kogo” (who will overtake whom?).

The short-term prospects for fostering a sense of unity among Europeans—Eastern, Western, and American—are grim. They will remain so as long as the regimes of all major Western states continue to be controlled by an elite class hostile to its own roots and cultural heritage, and therefore instinctively Russophobic to boot.

Russia’s position on the existential issue of our era fits what I have often cried for in these pages: a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Western Europe, and North America, as all three face similar existential threats in the decades ahead. We cannot know if this alliance will materialize, but we do know that, if it doesn’t, our civilization will be in peril.