GET ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

€225/250$ FOR 10 ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE or PURCHASE

UKRAINE’S PARTITION?

A few days ago while addressing the navy and the military personnel in St Petersburg Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the words that sent shock waves in Poland and in Ukraine. He suggested in no uncertain times that the westernmost parts of Ukraine will sooner or later fall to Poland, Hungary, and Romania. Here are his exact words:

I am confident that sooner or later Ukraine will lose these western territories, lands that once belonged to Poland, Hungary and Romania. It may not happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. It may take one year, two years, 10 years or 15 years, but history will ultimately put everything back in its place.

Then Russia’s president went on to add that Ukraine’s integrity had only been guaranteed by Russia: without Russian protection Ukraine is going to lose the said territories. Again his precise words:

There was only one guarantor of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It was Russia. But they decided it was necessary, possible and beneficial for them to declare Russia their enemy.

The Polish minister of foreign affairs hastened to state that Poland was not interested in any chunk of Ukrainian territory. Such a denial is simply a diplomatic reaction because historical reality and the current situation which Ukraine finds itself in may result in precisely the incorporation of the said parts of Ukraine into Poland, Hungary, and Romania.

Ukraine is in relation to Russia as Bavaria is in relation to Germany, or Provence is in relation to France, or Catalonia is in relation to Italy. We can draw many more similar comparisons. We have already stated on this website that the war between Ukraine and Russia is a fratricidal conflict. Both Russia and Ukraine (and also Belarus) trace their historical origins to Kievan Rus’. Kiev of all the cities is the cradle of all the Russian tribes that eventually evolved into different political entities, like today’s Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.

But why did Putin say that westernmost chunks of Ukraine would eventually fall to Poland, Hungary, and Romania.? Simply because, for one thing, those territories to be parts of the said countries, and, for the other, because in case Ukraine becomes very much weakened by the ongoing conflict there may be no other solution as to incorporate parts of it into the said countries.

That’s nothing new in Ukraine’s history. Ukraine as such has never ever been an independent nation. (Even now it is independent in name only.) What Ukrainian historians point to as the medieval Ukrainian state was merely one Rus’ principality that existed for a very short span of time. Yes, three of its rulers are said to have been crowned kings, but the kings not of Ukraine; rather, of one of the many Russian medieval Russian principalities.

The name Ukraine did not imply a state or a kingdom or a country. The name Ukraine derives from the Slavic word that means edge, border, or borderland. That is why for instance we have a Krajina – a strip of land separating Croatia from Serbia. Croatia and Serbia are Slavic countries where Slavic languages are spoken, so they use the same term denoting a strip of land that separates two countries. To reiterate it, just as Krajina separates Croatia from Serbia, so does Ukraine separate Poland from Russia.

And, indeed, what today is known as Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for a couple of centuries. When towards the end of the 18th century this Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth disintegrated and its parts were incorporated into Prussia, Austria, and Russia, most of the present day Ukraine became a part of Russia, while its westernmost – heavily Polonized – parts were joined to Austria, which from 1867 was called Austria-Hungary.

After the First World War when Poland was reborn there were fierce fights over the control of the westernmost Ukraine. Poland won – and so chunks of Ukraine became part of Polish Republic. It was here that Ukrainian nationalism flourished.

The end of the Second World War meant that the state borders were redrawn. The territory of the Polish state was a shifted westward, while Polish eastern territories were incorporated into Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, all of which had by then become soviet republics, parts of the Soviet Union.

Western Ukraine’s largest city is the city of Lvov. In the pre-war period it was the centre of Polish culture and science. The city was inhabited by Poles and also by Jews with Ukrainians making up a very small minority. The picture looked pretty much the same when you think about smaller towns in today’s Western Ukraine or pre-war eastern Poland: the lesser towns were inhabited by Poles or Jews. It was predominantly the villages were Ukrainians constituted the majority of population.

To give you another comparison: Western Ukraine was to Poland just as Scotland was or is to England or, indeed, (Northern) Ireland is to Britain. On the one hand Western Ukraine along with Scotland and Ireland have preserved their separate national identity, but on the other hand many Ukrainians just as a the majority of Scottish and Irish people have adopted the language of the conquerors. Ukrainian elites for the most part Polonized themselves just as Scottish and Irish upper classes felt drawn to the English language and culture.

If in today’s Poland there are national sentiments regarding the lost Eastern territories, they are insignificant if only because the new generations do not simply relate to the lost land. Though the sentiment is not strong, it does exist. A future political opportunity may translate into a political desire to incorporate westernmost parts of Ukraine into Poland.

Before 1991 barely anybody in West Germany thought about uniting the two German states. Certainly people dreamed about one Germany, but under the then circumstances they thought that unification was a matter of remote future, maybe a matter of 100 or 200 years. Yet, the moment a political opportunity presented itself, the unification of the two German States became possible and was effected. The German elites seized the opportunity without having planned the unification beforehand. As we know: politics is the art of the possible.

If we were into conspiracy theories, we might interpret President Vladimir Putin’s words in the following way. The Russian president made a proposal to Poland, Hungary and Romania. The proposal was to divide Ukraine between Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania rather than prolong the war and continue to live on hostile terms. Such agreements where two countries agree to divide a third one have been quite frequent throughout human history. Poland itself fell victim of such an agreement at the end of the 18th century. The partitions of Poland by Prussia, Austria, and Russia had not been planned for years before the event took place. It was simply that the opportunity presented itself and the opportunity was a very weak Poland, a Poland torn by internal factions, a Poland that was a politically incompetent and economically backward. The partitions entailed a relatively weak resistance: the final partition did not spark any resistance at all. The population was demoralized, economically exhausted, while its elites were politically incompetent. Indifference descended on almost the whole nation.

Consider today’s Ukraine. The country is weakened, its population has shrunk a lot, while Ukrainian men for the most part do not want to fight. They are brutally forced to to join the ranks. Very many of them have fled or live in hiding. If Ukraine were to be partitioned between Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania, the chances are the local populations would not resist such a move at all. So much so that by becoming a part of Poland, Hungary, or Romania, those Ukrainians would automatically become a part of the European Union, that is the part of that paradise that they had been dreaming about for decades. If at present millions of Ukrainians live in Poland, and in Hungary, and in Romania, if at present very many of them seek to be granted Polish, Hungarian, or Romanian citizenship, then why those who are left behind in Ukraine would like to resist becoming Polish, Hungarian or Romanian citizens?

People generally want to have a good life. If they cannot have a good life in Ukraine but they can have it in Poland, Hungary, or Romania, they will opt for it. Genuine patriots are rather few. The proof? The proof is the fact that several million of young Ukrainians have left the country evading being drafted into the Ukrainian army and thus defending their own country.

So, incorporation of Ukraine’s territory into the said three European countries? Partition of Ukraine? Not to be excluded. Sure enough, such changes will take time. it may happen in 10 or 20 years but such an eventuality is highly likely. There is nothing stable in politics or in life, in general. Even if today’s Polish government is distancing itself from any thoughts of incorporating parts of Ukraine, in 20 years’ time there will be new different governments and they may think differently.

Currencies

In ancient times, Athens’ position was built not only on silver mines but also on its possession of a large fleet. The strong Greek currency was based on silver and ensured a wide range of cross-border transactions and the stability of the community.

Rome’s soldiers were so successful because they were paid in gold. The gold solidus was introduced by Constantine in the 4th century BC and remained legal tender until the 5th century AD.

Whilst the solidus declined gradually alongside the collapse of the Roman Empire, the end of the gold dinar was abrupt. The capital of the Abbasid Caliphate – Baghdad – the centre of the Islamic Golden Age, science and global finance, was besieged and completely destroyed by the Mongol army under the command of Hulagu Khan. During the conquest of the city, Caliph Al-Mustaim was killed, and the legendary centralised gold reserves and treasures of the Abbasids were plundered. Thus ended an era in which the gold dinar served as one of the most important global reserve currencies in the trading world of that time.

During the heyday of the Italian city-states, the gold florin became the most important currency of Renaissance Europe. Currencies from the Apennine Peninsula spread through the expansion of trade, but their dominance was interrupted by the rise of the Spanish and Dutch empires. With the conquest of the New World, gold took on a key role, and the position of global market leaders was taken over by the Dutch guilder and the British pound. The Boer War forced Britain to borrow money in New York, which initiated the process of transferring political and economic power from London to Washington. The US made excellent use of these circumstances – the Federal Reserve was established and a massive issuance of dollars was launched. Ultimately, the United States emerged from the chaos of the Second World War as the global hegemon, and the dollar became the dominant currency. This came about because the US established the dollar as the currency for settling transactions in the commodities trade and forced various countries (through the IMF, the World Bank and others) to take out loans in dollars.

Nowadays, the US is building its position as a hegemon – just as Athens did – on the strength of its fleet; however, soldiers are not paid their wages in gold solidi, but in dollars, whose purchasing power, like that of all fiat currencies, is steadily declining. The European Union created the euro, which has proved a failure in countries such as Greece and has lowered the standard of living and purchasing power of citizens, particularly in smaller countries that adopted it (Slovakia, Latvia).

The fact that the era of the dollar is slowly coming to an end, just like the era of the solidus, is demonstrated by the following:

[1] The economic situation in the US is deteriorating, and living standards – particularly among the lower and middle classes – are falling;

[2] The US is losing wars (recently in Afghanistan, now in Iran and the proxy war in Ukraine);

[3] Cryptocurrencies and initiatives by the BRICS are undermining the dollar’s position;

[4] The US national debt has reached unprecedented levels.

The history of the US dollar may well resemble that of its predecessors – former global leaders such as the Roman solidus or the Florentine florin. These currencies dominated for at least 100 years, but ultimately always had to acknowledge the superiority of the successor that eventually appeared on the horizon. The status of an international currency is not guaranteed forever. This status is similar to that of a natural resource. If managed well, it provides a source of enrichment for present and future generations. If mismanaged, it becomes a curse.

Is the time now coming for the yuan, Bitcoin, or perhaps the central banks’ digital currencies? Or do we need Mongols at Fort Knox? The dollar will certainly not repeat the solidus’s 800-year run of success.

The Odyssey – X-Ray Presentation of the Elites’ Psychological Profile

The latest movie The Odyssey directed by Christopher Nolan has sparked a lot of criticism across the board. When you survey the internet in general and the YouTube channel in particular, then you are amazed by the avalanche of critical material that is rising on a daily basis. The film has been savaged by everyone in many languages of the world. It is criticized for its shoddy workmanship, for its stiff dialogues, for its music, for its shots for its cast… for everything.

A website that is devoted to politics and the economics will not normally deal with a movie, but this time the movie is significant. Christopher Nolan reflects in his work everything that the current West is all about. That is why we would like to draw the reader’s attention to this film, and not as a work of art but precisely as a reflection of the state of the mind that the West has found itself in.

That are certain points to be broached. The first obvious one is the race swap when it comes to the film’s cast. As is well known not only in Europe but across the world The Odyssey is a literary epic that was created by ancient Greek bards, is set in ancient Greece, and tells a story about ancient Greek heroes. In other words it is a story about the Caucasian race, about the Caucasian heroes and the Caucasian nations. Christopher Nolan deliberately cast in the role of Helen black actress Lupita Nyongio. This does not fly in the face of the white viewers and historical truth: worse, the actress that has been selected for the role of the most beautiful woman in the ancient world can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a beauty that sparked the conflict and caused thousands of men to furiously fight against each other. The character of Helen has been compromised on the altar of political correctness to such an extent that beauty has been ridiculed.

The other interesting thing that you cannot wrap your mind around is that one Ellen Page turned Eliot Page has been cast in the role of one of the Greek warriors. Elliot Page born Ellen Page looks ridiculous in this role. She/He is of a tiny build so that it is very difficult for the viewer to bring himself to believe that this is one of the Greek warriors. But again political correctness has trumped up anything else.

Then there’s the translation that the film’s director drew on. It is one of the most recent translations into English that was done by Emily Wilson. And of course – how otherwise! –this translation has the purpose of stripping the epic of anything that we are accustomed to: patriarchy, masculinity, and heroism. The translator’s task was to deconstruct the epic story.

These three observations that we’ve made above are not the only things that characterize Chris Nolan’s movie. When you look at the other heroes, you can see people of all the races but for – as many commentators point up – the Greeks themselves.

The film reflects precisely what is the West is currently all about. Christopher Nolan’s movie is an x-ray of the collective psyche of the West’s elites. What is this collective psyche? Its main tenets are the race swap in society and culture, rainbow sexuality, and deconstruction of the past. One can rest assured that the film will be rewarded with some Oscars. Already now all the professional movie critics lavish praise upon the movie, the actors and the director; the common viewers are upset, angry, disappointed and generally highly critical of what has been created.

The Weste’s elites have been undergoing evolutionary development and they have adopted ideas and beliefs that a redolent of those of the Bolshevik Soviet Union. Because, yes, in the Soviet Union we also had political correctness. What did that communist political correctness consist in? It consisted in putting on the altar the worker and the peasant. Hence the famous sculpture created by Vera Mukhina (1937) Worker and Kolkhoz Woman, with the former raising a hammer and the latter – a sickle. This iconic sculpture has been adopted by the Moscow film manufacturing company – Mosfilm – and has become its recognizable logo, even now, when the same company operates in an otherwise capitalist Russia.

The Western elites might as well have a talented sculptor produce something similar to Vera Mukhina’s Worker and Kolkhoz Woman: a figure of a black person raising a fist together with a figure of someone undergoing gender transition. Why not?

What Christopher Nolan has made does not actually come as a surprise. Race swapping has been present in Western films for a long time now. The same is true of elevating protagonists who represent rainbow sexuality. Christopher Nolan merely fits this recent trend. Black actors have been cast in typically white historical or mythological roles for some tome now: think of Anne Boleyn played by Jodie Turner-Smith or Achilles played by David Kwaku Asamoah Gyasi.

You rid yourself of the impression that Christopher Nolan did all this to get a couple of Oscars. We know that some time ago Hollywood prescribed which movies are allowed to be considered for this award. The requirement is that the cast be multiracial, which must also apply to the production team. The topics presented in a movie shortlisted for an Oscar deal with race and gender identity. Christopher Nolan is either a staunch supporter of this ideology, or else, if he secretly does not identify with it, but nonetheless produces films that fit such requirements, he must be a craven covered, a careerist, someone who will do just about anything to get a pat on the shoulder from the powers that be.

You can only wonder what is next in store. Are they going to turn all the great epical stories turn their head? The powers that be may choose Robin Hood for instance and depict him as a black protagonist or someone who has undergone a gender transition. It really is like in Bolshevik Russia. There, too, everything needed to be deconstructed. Soviet historians went out of their way to prove that all the good things that humanity had created had been created by the working class and sometimes by the representatives of the peasants. The same soviet historians would go out of the way to show that the aristocracy, the gentry on the rich were nothing but the scourge on the curse of humanity. And of course in the Soviet Union the overwhelming majority of the intellectual or professional people – doctors, engineers, teachers, actors, and scientists – did their best to fit what was required of them. No palpable opposition arose.

You can observe precisely the same in the western world today. In exchange for an easy and comfortable life the educated classes comply with the requirements of race swapping and the elevation of rainbow sexuality. The educated may not necessarily believe in all this in their heart of hearts, but they are too cowardly to oppose the enforced trend, sometimes even in their thoughts. Since this ideological pressure is so intense and has lasted for a few decades now, very many people have come to really started believe in that righteousness of those ideas. Such is the power of propaganda, such as the power of the carrot and stick – reward and punishment – system.

In this respect Christopher Nolan’s movie is nothing new under the sun. History has shown again and again that a tiny minority is capable of holding power and imposing the views of the minority on the vast majority of society. It has never been otherwise, and it’s never going to be different. Humanity lives in convulsions of now communism, now fascism, now genderism, now egalitarianism, and so on, and so forth. These psychological concept or constructs are birthed in the minds of the very few, then accepted by the minds of a larger (but still relatively small) small circles of influential people and once such people gain power, these ideas are enforced upon the whole of society. The imposition of such ideas is easy once the tiny minority has at its disposal law enforcement, the education system, the entertainment industry the circulation of information, and the finances. Who can effectively oppose them?

And yet, as you will have noticed, all such symptoms sooner or later grind to a screeching halt. They all eventually disintegrate and collapse or – more dramatically – go up in flames. Why is that so? Usually not because of the opposition from the masses of people that are controlled by such systems. Such systems – collective psychiatric phenomena – collapse of and by themselves because they are abstract constructs that have nothing to do with reality, and reality, as we al know, always wins out. Not that each such collapse will teach humanity anything. When one sickening system is dying, another one – equally unrealistic – is being born and is ready to replace the old one. Humanity appears to be doomed to proceed from one ideological convulsion to the next.

On beer, milk, cars and weapons

For smart money, every crisis is an opportunity. Major investors ride the waves of crises; at the lows, they buy new assets; at the peak of the approaching tsunami, they offload shares before the crisis really strikes. They know exactly when it’s coming. Perhaps they are even the ones who trigger the crises – the smart money. The architects of history?

January 1920 – the US government decided to introduce a ban on the production, sale and transport of alcohol. In response to the government’s measures, brewery owners, who already had the infrastructure to chill their products, started producing ice cream (very ‘smart’), and bar owners began selling it on a massive scale to avoid having to close their businesses. People were no longer allowed to meet in pubs, yet they still needed a shared social ritual that would serve as an excuse to get together, so a visit to a pub was replaced by a visit to an ice-cream parlour.

The flow of money, which had previously been directed towards producers of ingredients used in alcohol production, such as hops, was redirected towards dairy farmers. This enabled farmers to base their income on milk production, which was highly profitable at the time. However, the transport of dairy products took place mainly at a local level, as the global transport of chilled foodstuffs still posed a technological challenge.

Help came from the Anheuser-Busch Vehicle Department, which began selling refrigeration units for lorries fitted with the ABC (Automatic Brine Circulation) system to ensure the safe transport of chilled products. This system was innovative as it could transport dairy products over previously inaccessible distances without the need for electricity.

The heyday for the largest US ice cream companies of the pre-war era came with the Second World War. Ice cream scoops were the tool used by the US command to maintain high morale amongst its troops, and ice cream was regarded as a safe substitute for alcohol, as the youngest generation of soldiers had grown up surrounded by ice cream parlours. At one point during the war, the US Navy Command even decided to spend a million dollars (by comparison, a Sherman tank cost around 45,000 dollars) simply to convert a cargo barge into a floating ice cream factory. It was intended solely for the production of ice in the Pacific theatre of war and for delivery to aircraft carriers and soldiers on the islands. It was so huge that it could produce 38 litres of ice every 7 minutes.

The end of the dairy era seemed to come with the end of the war. The oversupply of dairy products led to the bankruptcy of many companies, a situation the US government sought to prevent through intervention and subsidies for the industry. The Agricultural Act of 1949 cost American taxpayers billions for many years after the end of the war. Every successive government in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s did the same: it bought up dairy products on a massive scale and stored them in huge underground warehouses. It was not until Ronald Reagan, who was known for cutting spending, that this practice was brought to an end. Initially, he wanted to have 254,000 tonnes of cheese dumped into the ocean; in the end, he handed the stocks over to the poorest members of society. To this day, the term ‘government cheese’ is associated in the American consciousness with social welfare cheese that is considered better than that bought in shops. And even today, through its funding of Dairy Management Inc., the US government continues to influence consumer behaviour not only in America – for example, by having this non-profit organisation encourage restaurant chains such as McDonald’s to include as many dairy products as possible in their meals (coffee with milk, cheeseburgers).

What sits at the top of our hierarchy of values determines our behaviour.

Ever since Volkswagen marketed its success thanks to Goebbels, many Germans – and, absurdly enough, Poles and Bulgarians too – still believe that Volkswagen and BMW are the best cars in the world. Well, it turns out that it is Japanese cars that have topped the ADAC’s list for decades. Later came the Koreans, and now Chinese cars such as BYD are well on their way to conquering the European market. Hey, you old mythomaniacs in Poland, in Germany, in the Balkans, in your Porsche – a company that’s going bust: cars with slanted eyes are the best! At some point, you’ve got to face reality.

And look: just as the car manufacturers began to face their first serious difficulties, war broke out in Ukraine. They weren’t as flexible as the beer producers in the US in 1920. They couldn’t switch to producing tanks that quickly. Unless, that is, they’d had a dictator like the one in 1934 who’d ordered them to do so. But those in power in the West were ‘smart’ too: ‘Yes, okay, the industry might be on the decline, but we’ve got Rheinmetall and other arms manufacturers, so we’ll redirect our funding there.’ NATO’s eastern flank has been strengthened, billions are being poured into rearmament, and even the Greens in Germany are in favour of compulsory military service. So the European economy somehow carries on, and even if GDP is rising only slowly, there is no collapse that would threaten the ruling class.

Yes, the West is facing problems in supporting Ukraine in the conflict, but look: there are clever people here too, just like those at Anheuser-Busch back in the day with their cooling systems for transporting ice: the Ukrainians are building the world’s most effective combat drones themselves, and at a bargain price at that – you fools at Rheinmetall!

But every war ends eventually, and we’ll be left with the old cheese and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary soldiers, whilst our children and grandchildren will have to pay off the debts from this war farce for many decades to come with their taxes and meagre pensions.

Demographic collapse of post-Soviet Europe

Intuitively we tend to think that the better conditions there are, the more populations grow. Of course, it stands the reason. Good conditions mean that people have food and shelter and employment and the future. That is why they start to have a more children. They want to have more children because they are not afraid of the future, because they know that they can provide for their children, and also because they are confident about their country, their government and generally the economy. It is pretty much the same in the realm of animals. When animals enjoy good conditions, they have offspring – lots and lots of offspring, which is a sign that they enjoy a good life.

When you look at the present-day world, you may be flabbergasted. In the most developed countries is the number of people keeps decreasing. The most developed countries of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand are not seeing an increase in their respective populations. That is a say, we may not actually observe a drop, but that’s only because of a massive immigration policy that keeps the levels of demographics up. If we look at Eastern Europe – at the area between the old European Union and the Russian Federation – we can see what is really happening when nations are enjoying good conditions and we can see it plain because Central Europe has accepted but little immigration from the Third World.

The countries that ones belonged to the Eastern Bloc cast off socialism and planned economy decided to adopt market economy and all the economic solutions from the West. Most of them joined the European Union. All in all, the standards of living in those countries have been raised and are continually rising. Thirty years ago people in those countries experienced empty shelves in shops, and generally shortages of all sorts of goods. Three decades later the circumstances have improved and improved the significantly. Shops are full of all goods imaginable and life has become comfortable and enjoyable. We would tend to think that under such circumstances people would like to have children. Maybe not four or six or eight, but at least two or three. After all that’s a biological instinct we are designed for: to have offspring. As it is, the countries of the former Soviet Bloc and those that were Soviet republics are experiencing a decrease in their populations. In some cases the decrease is dramatic. Consider the following breakdown.

Demographic change from 1989 to 2026

Latvia from 2.7 million down to 1.9 million – a 30% decrease;

Bulgaria from 9 million down to 6.4 million – a 29% decrease;

Lithuania from 3.7 million down to 2.8 million – a 26.5% decrease;

Ukraine from 51.5 million down to 40.0 million – a 22% decrease;

Romania from 23.2 million down to 18.8 million – a 20% decrease

Estonia from 1.6 million down to 1.4 million – a 12.5% decrease;

Belarus from 10.2 million down to 9.0 million –a 11.8% decrease;

The first five countries – Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Romania – have experienced an over 20% decrease in the respective populations! That is something that is comparable to a war being waged on the territory of those countries. Thirty years of development, thirty years of rising standards of living, thirty years of living in peace have brought about an epic drop in the number of inhabitants of those countries. It is only Czechia and Slovakia, where we can see a slight increase in that respective populations, with Poland experiencing so slight a decrease that we might consider it statistically unimportant.

Poland from 38 million down to 37.4 million – a 1.6% decrease;

Czechia from 10.4 million up to 10.9 million – a 4.8% increase;

Slovakia from 5.2 million up to 5.4 million – a 3.8% increase;

However, what happened to Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Romania is of epic dimensions. The roughly 30% decrease in the populations of Latvia and Bulgaria is a demographic disaster. What has happened there? All those countries are members of the European Union, they have adopted the euro as their currency. The citizens of those countries thirty years ago were being convinced that once their countries had joined the European Union everything would be all right. Now did the people of those countries think at that time that their populations will shrink – and shrink so dramatically?

Consider the losses sustained during the second world war by the Baltic states. The three states on the Baltic lost roughly 10 or upwards of 10% of their population. Now pretty much the same has happened in those same countries during the time of peace, economic development and membership in the European Union. If demographics were a mark of development, then we have to say that those three countries are much worse off than they used to be when they were – as it is often said – under the Soviet yoke.

Demographic loss of the Baltic States after World War Two:

Lithuania – 15-19%

Latvia – 11-13%

Estonia – 7-9%

Consider Ukraine. During the Second World War, Ukraine lost an estimated 13 15 million inhabitants. Today, Ukraine is suffering a similar demographic collapse. In the year in 1991 – in the year when Ukraine declared its independence – the country numbered almost 52 million people. Fast forward and today according to the official statistics the number stands at 40 million people, but specialists say that the number is much, much lower: maybe 35, maybe – some even say – 25 million people. It is not only the ongoing war that’s to be held responsible for it. Throughout the 30 years of Ukraine’s independence Ukrainians have sought life outside Ukraine. Millions left the country: mostly for Western Europe, some for Central Europe, some for Russia. The war that has been raging for four years now has merely made the picture complete and even more dramatic.

Demographic loss during World War Two of Poland, Belarus and Ukraine:

Poland from 35 million down to 24 million;

Belarus from 9 million down to 6.0-6.5 million;

Ukraine from 40.6 million down to 25-27 million;

Consider Romania and Bulgaria. There has been no war in those two countries in the last thirty years. In the 1989, in the year when they both cast off socialism, they were very poor, especially Romania. Yet, Romania numbered 23 million people and it was an increase from approximately 15 million people that the country had had just at the end of the Second World War in the year 1945. We all know about the brutal dictatorship of Nikolai Ceausescu, we all know about the poverty and shortages that the Romanian people had been through during his reign. And yet and despite that, the number of people kept growing.

Demographic increase in Romania and Bulgaria between 1945 and 1989:

Romania from 15.5 million up to 23.2 million;

Bulgaria from 7 million up to 9 million;

Consider Bulgaria. What has happened to that nation? In between 1945 and 1989, its population increased from 7 million to 9 million. Since that time it has dropped to the level that is even below the 7 million that the country had in 1945! Also Romania is nearing its demographic level of 1945.

We can only draw a correct conclusion that the same phenomenon has been taking place in Western Europe for a long time now. There the demographics are growing but not because indigenous people are multiplying: all is due to more and more people being imported from Africa and Asia, and also from Central Europe.

Some readers may object, saying that in the modern world we do not need so many people and that in the modern world overpopulation is the problem. To which we might agree, but the point is that the governments that maintain that we have an overpopulation problem keep importing people to rich countries because otherwise – as they say – the economies would collapse. So do we have the overpopulation problem or not?

It turns out that populations grow when the standards of living are not high. Look at Africa, look at some Asian countries. We might argue that the same process of decreasing populations will take place in Africa and Asia. That might be true in the case of Asia, perhaps not so true in the case of Africa. Why? Simply because we can observe an economic development in Asia – China or India or Indochina – but we can barely observe a comparable economic development in Africa. So the standards of living in Asia will contribute to the decrease in the respective populations, while the lack of economic development in Africa well sustain the tendency of African nations to multiply their offspring.

What is in store for Europe? This is difficult to answer. What becomes more and more evident is that Western Europe is undergoing ethnic replacement. Weather Central Europe will follow in the footsteps of Western Europe is an open question. If Western Europe undergoes full ethnic replacements, it will stop being Western and it will stop being European. It will be partly Africa, partly Asia. If Central Europe resists the policy of importing people from the Third World, it may preserve its European heritage. Yet, the dwindling number of people may cause Central European countries to slowly stagnate and collapse.

Some demographers say that the world of the white man has already crossed the point of no return if it comes to demographics. That is that is certainly not true. Populations throughout history have been dramatically reduced now due to wars, now due to epidemics, but often after such a tragic period they managed to rebuild themselves. That may be the case of Central Europe, that may even be the case of Western Europe. Maybe Europe will be reborn after a big economic crisis or – unfortunately – war. There must be a period of lowered living standards for [1] Europeans to have more children, and [2] for the Third World immigrant flow to Europe to stop.

The island of Lampedusa – a new pilgrimage site of the pontiffs

A few days ago (4 July 2026) Pope Leo the 14th paid a visit to the island of Lampedusa, which is located in the Mediterranean and which is famous for accepting immigrants from the Dark Continent on their way to the Old Continent. This island had been visited also by his predecessor, Pope Francis. As we all know, Pope Francis was a harbinger of the good news to the people who want to relocate to Europe. His successor Pope Leo the XIV seems to be continuing and pursuing the same policy. He is of course very much concerned with the fate of the Third World people: less so with the people living in Europe. His message – cloaked in diplomatic language – is simple and banal… and maybe even childish:

From this far-flung corner of Europe on the Mediterranean Sea, one can more clearly perceive the momentous challenge that the phenomenon of migration poses to European societies. In this regard, just as with the ecological transition and the promotion of peace, Europe possesses a unique potential, stemming from its history and culture, and therefore bears a corresponding responsibility. Thanks to its geographical location and institutional framework, Europe is capable of addressing the crisis — in this region — in a comprehensive manner, integrating immediate relief efforts into a long-term strategic plan capable of receiving, protecting, supporting and integrating migrants, while at the same time assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate. All of this must be done with vigilance, ensuring respect for the dignity of every person. This is a task not only for public institutions but also for civil society as a whole and for the Church. [Pastoral Visit of his Holiness to Lampedusa]

So, Europe should embrace immigration and at the same time should contribute to developing the Third World countries so that people will not want to leave the place of birth and so that they will not want to settle in Europe. That kind of talk is characteristic of politicians and all the people who want to present themselves to the public as the do-gooders. But what does it mean that Europe should accept more and more immigrants from the Dark Continent, not to say anything about Asia? What does it mean that Europe should take measures to improve the economic situation in Africa (again not to mention Asia)?

Well, simply Europe should be glad and happy about having more and more new inhabitants and at the same time – quite apart from paying for the upkeep – Europeans should also streamline their money and all kinds of resources to the other countries just to prevent more people from arriving in the Old Continent. That is to say, Europeans should pay the nations of Africa for staying at home or else. If one knows something about history of ancient Rome, one will immediately recognize the same pattern. Rome, too, was invaded by barbarians and Rome, two, was too weak to oppose them. What solution did the rules of Rome come up with? Yes, you remember it right: they suggested paying the barbarians to stay outside the Roman borders. Alternatively, if that was not feasible, they suggested paying the barbarians to serve the Roman empire rather than destroying it. Still better, the Romans came up with the idea of employing the aliens as soldiers defending Rome against… other aliens. How this all ended we all know too well.

Now, the Catholic Church as a religious institution should care more about whether Europeans – cradle Christians or lapsed Christians or just Christians in name only – follow the precepts of their faith. What is important in terms of faith? It is important that a believer should learn God and save his soul, which is to say, the believer should earn a happy life after death. How does a believer earn a happy afterlife? A believer earns a happy afterlife in that he follows the precepts of his faith. What are these precepts? To live a life that is sinless. Or at least to avoid grave sins. What are those grave sins that the Church has taught for centuries and seems to have forgotten to teach now? Well, these are abortion, extramarital sexual life, waging wars, theft, and other similar things. Now when did you last year a pontiff or bishops speaking about the sinfulness of extramarital sex or abortion? Have you heard the current pontiff preaching peace and trying to do something about putting examination end to the war in Ukraine or preventing the conflict with Iran? No? I haven’t either.

For a couple of decades Christian churches and the Catholic Church among them have started preaching the secular gospel of libertarianism. Be it the Pope in Rome or Protestant bishops – they all seem to be predominantly interested in the protection of the environment or the acceptance of the immigrants. When you visit the website of many a Catholic parish, you are immediately struck by the texts posted there, texts that preach the culture of welcoming immigrants. That’s all there is to it. no other moral issue seems to matter anymore.

The worst thing about it is that neither environment protection nor the welcoming culture has been invented by any of the protestant churches, least of all the Catholic Church. No. These ideas are the ideas of the secular world, of libertarians, of capitalists, of lay activists – in general – of the people who are for the most part non-believers, and sometimes actively hostile towards the churches or religion, people who view Christianity as a backward idea. For all that, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches seem to be under the spell of such people and such organizations. The churches have become the mirror reflection of what the secular world proclaims. One cannot fight off the impression that the priests and the theologians have started reading the bibles again and suddenly discovering that the Holy Writ is all about environment protection and the acceptance of immigrants.

Why is that happening? Maybe because the Protestant churches and – sadly – the Catholic Church have been saturated with agents of influence. Maybe because the Protestant churches and the Catholic Church have lost their backbone. Or maybe all this is due to the state-run education which has shaped and continues to shape the minds of children and young people. Some of those young people choose to become priests. Well, when they enter seminaries or other religious institutions, they come there with the minds that are already full of secular ideas. They all have been to schools, colleges, and universities; they have watched movies and programs; they have read books and newspapers and websites – all of which have been pounding one and the same message: planet earth is what we should worship and a third world man is who we should serve.

Priests and theologians sometimes keep asking the question why it happens so that with every year fewer and fewer young people want to become priests. They keep asking questions why with every year more and more young people drop out of the churches. And they continue to ask questions why so many people have stopped being interested in things religious. They probably think that if they follow the secular agenda they will attract people – young and old – back to their communities. How wrong one can be! If an individual is infected with the idea of preserving the environment and accommodating Third World people, then his mind will naturally want to belong to an organization that performs the acts of environment protection and pursues immigrant policy. Now of the two big branches that are concerned with these problems – the secular world all the religious world – which one will you choose if you want to participate in environment protection all in welcoming aliens? Well, my guess is that you would like to join those who are the avant-garde of the movement. As it is, it is the secular world that takes the lead in both environment protection and the welcoming culture. The churches are nearly following the secular branch. One might even say that the churches are a knockoff of the secular branch. If that is so, then no wonder that people – if they want to be social activists – join the secular institutions rather than the religious ones. we always prefer the original to the knockoff, don’t we?

The pantheon of tragic heroes 2

Stephen Bandera’s fate was very sad. He wanted to create an independent Ukraine, but his personal life was ruined. Of his three brothers two died in a concentration camp – a German concentration camp – and one under unknown circumstances. His three sisters were imprisoned by the Russians and resettled somewhere far away to the Eastern provinces of the Soviet Union. His father (the priest) was a imprisoned as well and sentenced to death for his nationalistic political persuasion. Stepan Bandera himself was arrested twice: the first time by the Polish authorities after the assassination of the ministry of the interior, and the second time by the Germans after the failed attempt of the Ukrainian nationalist to declare an independent Ukrainian state. After the Second World War Stepan Bandera settled in Munich, Western Germany (where the Hitlerite movement began). His political career was done. All his dreams had gone wrong. He cut a sad figure.

What must he have thought about in the early 50s of the previous century? Ukraine had been incorporated into the Soviet Union or – to put it otherwise – it Ukraine fell to Moscow. Poland retained scraps of Ukrainian territory and these scraps had been rid of the Ukrainian population who was scattered around the Polish territory. Germany (once Ukraine’s big ally and hope) had been defeated: it had lost much of its territory had been divided into two states. To make things even worse, the Russians kept pursuing Stepan Bandera, and eventually, they managed to locate him in Munich, and kill him. And you know what? It was another Ukrainian – Bogdan Stashinsky – who shot Bandera dead in the staircase of Bandera’s apartment house.

Stepan Bandera committed himself to the cause of an independent Ukraine. His life was for all practical purposes wasted. None of his objectives had been reached. Rather, Ukraine’s fate had been worsened. Still today, Ukrainian nationalists, venerate Stepan Bandera as one of the greatest national heroes, if not as the greatest national hero. Street are named after him in very many Ukrainian cities and towns, and he has monuments that have been put up here and there across Ukraine. In Poland and in Russia, though, Stepan Bandera is equated with figures like Adol Hitler. Such a comparison is also invoked in the Jewish minds. For all that, we can barely hear any objection from the Western leaders and Western political class to venerating Stepan Bandera and other leaders of OUN-UPA. It appears the Western political class is ready to ally themselves with the devil himself to hurt Russia.

What do the present-day Ukrainian leaders think about their own fate? They must be familiar with the life of their spiritual guru Stepan Bandera. Do they ask themselves uncomfortable questions like, Is my life going to be like that of my political hero? Because the chances that Ukraine can prevail over Russia in the current war are next to none. If so, will those nationalists leaders that will manage to survive the war be condemned to a life in exile, just like their political guru? What do they expect to do in exile? Just like Stephan Bunder, will they look at their Ukraine from afar and see it partly captured? and partly controlled? by Moscow, the same Moscow that they hate so very much?

What’s worse, Ukraine has been facing and will continue to face a demographic catastrophe. The many millions people who have already left the country and the very many millions people who have been killed or wounded will have left a gaping demographic gap. Now, who will take their place? If the rump state of Ukraine continues to exist, and if the Ukrainian political class continues to follow the orders from Brussels, then the only solution to plug this demographic hole will be to import people from other countries. What countries? Certainly, not European countries, because no European will be willing to relocate to a war-torn country. Ukraine may only remain attractive to people from the Third World. So Ukraine is likely to be settled with people from India and Pakistan, from Kenya and Somalia. Will that be to the liking of Ukrainian nationalists? They and their political predecessors ethnically cleansed Ukraine of Slavic poles and Slavic Russians to end up with having Ukraine saturated by completely unrelated ethnicities from Asia and Africa? Such were their political dreams?

Stepan Bandera did more harm to his nation than any good. He was not a skilful politician but rather a battering ram used by Third Reich. Stepan Bandera was a political gambler. He did not take into account the real balance of powers in the then world. Present-day political elites in Ukraine are doing the same – they are walking in Stepan Bandera’s footsteps. They have allowed their Ukraine to be used as the West’s battering ram against Russia. How could they have ever thought that Ukraine could prevail against Russia, even is supported by the West? The whole of Europe (Germany and the industries of all the conquered European countries along with hundreds of thousands of volunteers from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway Spain, Italy, Croatia, and the regular armies from Romania and Hungary) did not conquer Russia in the forties of the previous century, why should it conquer Russia now?

Consider neighbouring Belarus. It’s leader, intensely hated by the west, has managed to steer clear of military conflict. And he has managed to keep his country intact in terms of territory and demographics. You may say about him whatever you please, but cannot deny the simple fact that for the last 30 years it’s been much better for any individual to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine. Even if we assume – as the Western propaganda says – that Byelorussian President Lukashenko is a dictator while Ukrainian presidents were democratic leaders, still we must admit that it has been better for the common man to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine for the last 30 years. Why? Because living in Belarus you have not risked being killed or maimed, whereas living in Ukraine, you have risked your life and health and your possessions. It is the Byelorussian leader who has proved to be politically savvy whereas Ukrainian presidents have played havoc with their country and their nation. Just like Stepan Bandera and his ilk once did. Is that the reason why the present-day Ukrainian political class wants to venerate such heroes?

And a post scriptum. Roman Shukhevych, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was hunted down by the Russian KGB and shot dead in 1950. Andrei Melnyk (OUN-M – the moderate branch) died in his bed in the West.

The pantheon of tragic heroes 1

The day was July the 1st, the year – 2026. Ukraine’s parliament passed the bill the purpose of which is to create the Pantheon of National Heroes. Now this bill only needs to be signed by President Vladimir Zelensky to become law, but there is little doubt that Ukraine’s president will sign it into law. What is this idea of creating the national Pantheon all about?

Well, Nations commemorate the national heroes. It is not only Ukrainians who want to venerate great personalities from their past. Everywhere national heroes are iconic individuals that serve as a focal point of national awareness and national identity. They serve as paragons of courage, self-sacrifice and heroism. It should be little wonder that Ukrainians would like to join other nations in this respect and have their own National Pantheon of their national heroes. And yet there is much objection to it. Who is objecting to Ukraine’s National Pantheon in the first place?

It is Poland, the Polish Nation. Why does the Polish Nation object to Ukraine having the pantheon of national heroes? Well, because this Pantheon in all likelihood will include individuals who are responsible for massacres that were conducted against the Polish Nation during the Second World War.

Ukrainian and polish national sentiments have very often clashed throughout the history of the two nations. Throughout centuries there have been numerous bloody wars between the Poles and the Ukrainians. One of such events that has imprinted itself on the national awareness of the Polish people was the so-called Volhynia massacre that occurred in the year 1943. In a series of concentrated attacks Ukrainian military units would circle Polish villages in the said region and they would systematically murder the inhabitants to the last man, woman, and child. This was ethnic cleansing par excellence, no doubt about that. To make things worse, the murders were conducted very ruthlessly: victims had their limbs cut off, the eyes gouged out, bellies ripped open, and sometimes their bodies were crucified. We have already written about it on more than one occasion.

Now it’s not certain yet which individuals from Ukraine’s history will be included in the mentioned Pantheon as national heroes. Yet, both the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation fear and suspect that the heroes would include individuals who were responsible for the aforementioned atrocities. How do the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation know about it? Simply because those individuals have been and continue to be venerated across the whole of Ukraine. They have streets named after them and monuments put up in the memory of them and they are presented to Ukrainian schoolchildren as their national heroes. Who are these individuals that create this bone of contention between Warsaw and Kiev?

First of all it was the leaders of the nationalist or – better put – chauvinist organization that was established in Ukraine almost a century ago. The political organization was known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN for short. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was headed Stepan Bandera and Andrii Melnyk. Bandera was more ruthless than his competitor. That is why the organization OUN split into the Bandera (OUN-B) and Melnyk (OUN-M) branches. Yet, there was a lot they both shared. What both had in mind was to create independent Ukraine, a Ukrainian state that would be free of all ethnic minorities. They hated and wanted to get rid of Russians, Poles, and Jews. Though the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist was established in the then Czechoslovakia while some of its leaders stayed for a time in Mussolini’s Italy, they began to carry out terrorist attacks inside the territory of pre-war Poland because the westernmost part of today’s Ukraine was then a part of Polish territory.

One of those attacks was performed in the city of Lvov, where Stepan Bandera’s henchman tried to kill the Soviet consul. Another attempt was carried out in broad the daylight in Poland’s capital city Warsaw. The attempt was successful. The Polish minister of the interior was killed. Now the police managed to capture Stepan Bandera who was the mastermind of the assassination. He was put on trial and sentenced to death. The Polish government proved to be lenient, though, and so that penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.

How did the Ukrainian problem emerge in the first place? why did the Poles and Ukrainians clash?

Medieval Rus’ was one political entity (though, as it was customary in the Middle Ages across Europe, ruled by a number of princes simultaneously, contesting for ultimate power). Consequently, Rus’ would have emerged in modern times as an enormous state – like France – but for the 13th century Mongol invasion. The invasion broke the backbone of a medieval Rus’. Some of the territory was occupied by the Mongols while the western parts were taken over by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and – later – by the Polish Kingdom. This was how some of present-day Ukraine found itself within Polish territory and remained under Polish rule for a few centuries. Under these circumstances the westernmost part of Rus’ (today’s westernmost part of Ukraine) developed a little bit different language and a little bit different political awareness. Some of its inhabitants of the orthodox Christians persuasion were at a time made to join the catholic church, though preserving its separate religious custom. Then in the 18th century came the time of the partitions of Poland; the terrain of present-day western Ukraine was divided between Austria (west) and Russia (east).

The territory captured by Austria was again separated from Russia proper. For another century it continued to develop a slightly different language and a different political awareness. At the end of the First World War those Russians who lived in the part of Ukraine that had been occupied by Austria wanted nothing to do with Moscow and they wanted to create their own state. At the same time the reborn Polish state did not want to hear of an independent Ukrainian state occupying the territories that once had belonged to the Polish Kingdom. There erupted a war as a result of which Warsaw managed to incorporate what is now Western Ukraine into the Polish state. Yet, Ukrainians sustained the resistance to the Polish authorities – hence the emergence of the aforementioned Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and hence the resultant Ukrainian terrorism performed within Polish territory.

Christian Orthodox Ukrainians were a large ethnic minority within Catholic Poland. One might be tempted to say that Poland and (Western)Ukraine were united in one state – the Polish state. It was something similar to Yugoslavia, a country that also emerged at the end of the First World War, a country that united Christian Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. In Yugoslavia Serbs were the dominant nation whereas Croats wanted to separate from Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia as much as Ukrainians wanted to separated from Poland. Croatian Stepan Bandera was known as Ante Pavelic. Croatians, too, had their terrorist organizations, and they too, carried out terrorist attacks. And the same year (1934) as the Polish minister of the interior was assassinated, Croatian terrorists killed the Yugoslavian King Alexander III in Marseilles as he was paying a state visit to France.

Then came the Second World War during the initial years which Germany conquered both Poland and Yugoslavia. Whereas Berlin allowed the Croats (Ante Pavelic) to create their own state, it did not allow Ukrainians to create theirs. Whereas Ante Pavelic enjoyed the recognition of his authority by Berlin and ruled his nation almost independently, Stepan Bandera’s attempts to declare an independent Ukraine just after Germany invaded the Soviet Union met with Berlin’s touch resistance and decisive countermeasures. Stepan Bandera was imprisoned and put in the Sachsen-Hausen concentration camp where he was an inmate for two long years.

It did not stop other Ukrainian political activists from both serving Germany and carrying out ethnic cleansing. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists had its military arm which was known as Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). It was headed by Roman Shukhevych. It was this Ukrainian Insurgent Army that massacred the Polish villages in Volhynia. Now both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are regarded by today’s Ukrainians as national heroes. Though we do not know yet which of the many Ukrainian historical figures will find their way into the National Pantheon the likelihood that it’s going to be both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych is very high.

The reaction of the Polish government of the Polish nation is understandable. What is difficult to comprehend is the reaction or rather lack thereof on the path of the Poland’s Western allies. Ukrainian Second World War national heroes did not only exterminate the Polish and Russian minorities, but they also exterminated – an very assiduously at that – the Jewish minority. As you know, the Western elites are very sensitive when it comes to the extermination of the Jewish people. Why then are they not objecting to the idea of turning the likes of Bandera and Shukhevych to National Heroes of Ukraine?

The answer seems to be very simple. Poland’s Western allies only need Ukraine as a tool in their war against Russia. In order to prolong this war, they need to have Ukrainian soldiers who are ready to die and suffer. A soldier who is ready to die is an individual who – apart from being very well equipped – is also psychologically primed to actually do the killing. Now soldiers whose minds have been infused with the ideas of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are ideal warriors. Make no bones about it, during World War Two Bandera and Shukhevych openly supported Adolf Hitler and enthusiastically took part and the extermination of the Jewish people. Any veneration of such people in any of the western nations would be crushed by the police, by the authorities and by the legal system without no hesitation. Now somehow the Western leaders and the Western elites appear to be insensitive to such an anti-Jewish phenomenon in Ukraine. Are they applying double standards?

That tragic part of all this is that Poland will continue to support Kiev. For one thing, Poland is a firmly anchors in the western system and cannot act on its own; for the other, Warsaw is strongly antagonistic against Russia and will readily swallow any insult offered by Ukraine. Strange how things that turn out to be…