As a right-winger I think he is fundamentally correct about the elemental differences between fixed and fluid aspects of the world economy (no surprise) and how it affects political consciousness, with its formal aspects being the differences between classical "common law" ("the law of the land") and maritime law ("law of the sea", which later comes to be known simply as "commerce"). One is bound by government and the other is fundamentally lawless (where international waters still operate as an anarchy for all sorts of activity, particularly human trafficking).
My critique is his frankly revolutionary obsession with geopolitics as the site of what he would sneak under the door as world-history, which is paired with his apocalyptic fantasies of a war between humanity and the godless demons.
Nick land has commented on him before and said that he agrees with him completely but just takes the side of the atlanticists.
The alchemy of his thought can be used for further criticism however, of the domestic arrangements between spaces like the rural and the urban (which lenin also attempts to reconcile, yet he fails), or which we might say, the contradiction between the hammer and sickle - which today in america (between coastal cities and the "midwest") also has a racial aspect to it.
This is also true in most western countries, where the rural as the FIXED, landed aspect is "native" and right-wing, while the city is FLUID and international (especially as traffic drives up prices of property).
Even of persons i have given my understanding in a separate thread between fixed (bodily/intuitive) people, who are right-wing, and fluid (mental/rational) people, who are left-wing.
This is also why right-wingers are literally "stuck in their ways" while lefties "go with the flow". This is also the strange relationship between the left and capital's international rapture.
Someone like marx wouldnt deny this progressive revolution in capital; he simply thought it wasnt destructive enough (that the bourgeoisie was holding it back, from their own self-replacement).
Yet the right are the outspoken supporters of capitalism, even as it rips apart the fabric of FIXED institutions. Deleuze ofc would call this deterritorialisation; another reformulation of this binary between the fixed and fluid.
So basically, dugin is completely right, but fails to universalise his perspective; often overly-particularising by appealing to his weltenschaaung (i.ePost too long. Click here to view the full text.